Resubmitting rejected articles by altering description

[Taurus]

Hey there everybody,
I'm a newly registered member of Constant Content but I suppose you could say I'm a long-time lurker. Having graduated with a Bachelor's in English after four years of state university and two and a half years of community college, I've languished in the terrible job market. As many of you no doubt know, it's extremely difficult to "sell" an English degree in this economy, particularly when science, health, and tech-oriented degrees are in such high demand. Frustrated with being stuck making minimum wage despite six years of higher education and student loan debt, I decided to try freelance writing, so here I am testing out CC as one possible option. Anyway, moving on from the introduction...

I understand that three rejections results in the suspension of your account, and I've already had two. The first rejection was the result of the use of the word "we" in a film analysis. Not to complain, but anyone familiar with analytical writings regarding film, whether in textbooks or local newspapers, would know that they often rely on the word "we" in reference to the audience. While I was disappointed with this rejection, I admit that I technically violated the letter of the rules and probably should have known better. I absolutely acknowledge that CC is entitled to enforce whatever content guidelines they choose, and those guidelines were made available here.

However, my next submission came as a surprise. A technical essay on the nature of cinematography was rejected because I wrote in the description that it was the equivalent of college level course work. I had not intended to market the paper to be used as a substitute for a student's own required coursework. The rejection was surprising to me because I have seen countless articles here at CC that *explicitly* reference their potential use in college level courses with statements such as "appropriate for 300 level college course". At least I didn't have the gall to go so far as to specify a course level! These articles and their descriptions can be found with a few quick mouse clicks in the database here at CC.

To be clear, this is NOT a direct complaint necessarily intended for CC staff (which is why it's posted here in the forums). Given the descriptions of other articles and the way they're marketed, I'm interested in feedback from experienced CC authors on how I should proceed. I'm pretty nervous about getting a third rejection and definitely want to avoid the possibility. However, since I spent considerable time writing the article on cinematography exclusively for CC as a showcase of my technical comprehension and ability (over 1,000 words and a few solid hours of time), I would ideally like to resubmit it. If I do so and change only the description, do you think this would be good enough or should I consider the article to be wasted time?

What specific advice can you offer considering your experiences here at CC? I would greatly appreciate any input.

[Celeste Stewart]

Good morning,

Those two rejections sound pretty minor to me. The "3 strikes" rule isn't hard and fast and Ed's reasonable, especially with newbies with solid writing skills. Also, Ed usually allows "we" when refering collectively to people in general. He'd definitely reject a movie review where it says, "We went to the movies and loved the characters." On the other hand, he might accept the collective use of we in "Generations of film buffs have fallen in love with R2D2. With his chirps and overall cuteness, we find him hard to resist." That's a horrible example though. It would be better to say, "he's hard to resist."

I'd make the revisions and try again. Where the 3 strikes rule comes in the most is when writers continue submitting work with the same problems or do not have a basic grasp of English.

[Ed]

Your description stated that the article was appropriate for a 100 or 200 level course. The problem was with this particular statement. However, please note that we do not generally consider school/university assignments. Most customers want accessible information that appeals to a broad audience. Overly esoteric topics should be avoided.

Concerning first-person: I do believe there was an instance of first-person singular in the article that was rejected, but we also do not accept first-person plural when it refers to the author. If the first-person plural is a collective "we," this is acceptable, but not if there is a POV shift as in, "We will discuss how you can keep your computer virus free."

Thanks,
Ed

[jadedragon]

Welcome to CC. Web writing is a little different than academic writing. On the web we use shorter paragraphs and often write speaking to the reader. "You will learn how to write for the web" never "I will explain how to write for the web." I'm sure you will do well since your forum post is nicely written.