I've been working at another content site and have gotten in the habit of cranking out SEO articles quickly, checking for typos and grammatical errors but not worrying much about style. Since most of the clients there don't seem to care much and won't publish the articles with my byline, that's worked out just fine. But I took the same approach with an article I submitted here and, though it was accepted, I wasn't happy with it. So I fixed it up, deleted the first version and just submitted the final draft.
I hate doing that to Ed, knowing he has a pretty heavy workload, and plan to let future articles sit for a while before submitting them here so that it doesn't happen again. I'm just curious about the degree to which this practice is frowned upon at CC. Don't want to incur the wrath of the editors or anything.
I have rewritten and resubmitted a couple of articles I wrote for a very specific public request that didn't sell to the requester so they would appeal to a more general audience. I put a note to Ed in the short summary to that effect and didn't get smacked for it. After the rewritten article was approved, I deleted the note from the short summary.
I'd definitely put a note in the short paragraph. Ed seems to have a thing for remembering the stuff he's read. He might see your article and think "plagiarism." Not trying to be the sayer of dooooom, but ya know, just avoid that as much as possible.
@ Lysis and Debbi - Thanks for the feedback. Actually, I wrote the article for a public request that's still active, so I resubmitted it for the request. Since the first draft didn't have any hits, I assume the customer hasn't looked at it yet.
Hopefully Ed will see my post before he sees the revised document and not hate me. Or hate me a little less.
If you make a change after approval, give Ed a heads up ala, "Previously approved article. Fixed typo (teh to the) / Changed 3rd paragraph to include additional details." That way, Ed doesn't need to read the entire article again and can quickly jump to the area where the change was made and make sure that it makes sense. Try not to make resubmissions a habit, but the occasional one isn't likely going to be a problem, especially if you let Ed know where to expect the changes.
Interesting that you resubmitted your Amsterdam article. I noticed something on the first read in your first paragraph (now your second):
The paragraph goes from drugs-->people who enjoy drugs-->what happens when people who enjoy drugs go to Amsterdam--> . . . puking.
Puking is more often associated with drinking, yet this paragraph doesn't mention alcohol at all. Shouldn't this paragraph place more emphasis on those activities which might cause an individual to vomit and less emphasis on cannabis/drugs?
Yeah, I thought about that when I was writing the first article. I tried to make the transition seem logical by shifting from talk of drugs to talk of "partying" - which could include alcohol as well as drugs. Guess it didn't work. I couldn't think of a way to specifically mention alcohol without making the whole thing seem labored. That paragraph in the new version flows a lot better and moves more quickly, I think, so maybe that will help.
I really appreciate the feedback. If the customer doesn't buy the article, I'll give that another look. Thanks a lot.
It's your choice to revise the paragraph or leave it as it is. If you choose to revise, my suggestion would be to make sure alcohol is mentioned from the very start of the paragraph and weave it more effectively into the idea that it is a major part of the party atmosphere in Amsterdam. "Partying" is a word that might imply something different in different contexts, and I think it's a stretch to expect the reader to connect "partying" with alcohol in the original context.
I enjoyed reading your article. I do think that readers might trip over this section. You were interested enough in the end product to remove the article and revise it, so I hope such input is helpful.
I hadn't read your last post before making the revision I just uploaded. You're probably right that alcohol should be mentioned first and emphasized more in the paragraph. The version I just sent at least mentions absinth, which I think people could very well associate with puking. I'm happy enough with it that I think I'll leave it alone and see how the customer responds.
If I'm remembering correctly, wasn't absinth usually diluted with water, but is a spirit and not a sugar-based liqueur? Now, I'll admit that I have a plethora of useless information in my head so that may not be clear to every reader. Movies usually show people putting a white cube in a straining device over a cup, and then pouring spirits or wine over it. While this may be incorrect, many people believe absinth is a solid and a "drug". (Yes alcohol is considered to be a drug, but try telling that to the masses who watch too much CNN, CBS, NBC, etc.)
The only "drug" I'm sure of that almost always causes puking is peyote.
Apparently there's a lot of misinformation about absinth. "Pure absinth" is supposed to contain something called wormwood, which some say induces hallucinations. Absinth with wormwood has been outlawed throughout Europe and in the U.S. because wormwood is thought to be dangerous, but there are those who say the science behind these claims is faulty. Actually, the controversy around absinth might make for a good article ... hm. But it's not the focus of my Amsterdam article; nor, believe it or not, is puking. The few people I know who've tried some form of absinth invariably reported getting monstrously sick, so I think it serves my purposes.
Has it ever made you or anyone you know puke? I await your response with bated breath - the whole rationale behind my last revision hangs in the balance. lol.
