The Writer/Editor Relationship

[tm248]

Hello,
I've recently joined this site. I've worked in the UK for a variety of publications, including newspapers and magazines, and I have written for television. I was hoping this site would give me the opportunity to write short pieces in my spare time, with a minimal level of hassle, as I do not currently have the capacity to work at an industry level because of academic work. However, I've been shocked by the writing process.
After completing my first article (700 words) I was given two minor amendments; I was to amend the summary, because it did not conform to the three full sentence structure (although others published articles not doing so on this site, which got through editing) and I was told to amend the font. After completing this quickly, I waited several days for my article to be re-reviewed. The length of waiting, in my opinion, was unacceptable, when should take an efficient editor two minutes to ensure the correct amendments had been effected.
Eventually I received the results of the review...and was told spelling errors were present. I do not know why this errors were not flagged up initially, and I do not know what these errors relate to. I think it may be because I use S instead of Z’s in some words, because I’m British. But I’ve received absolutely no indication from my editor.
This is not acceptable. At the very least an editor should attempt to help, not hinder, their writer/s. A full review should take place in the first instance, and errors should be flagged up specifically, because know I have no idea what to do with my article. I am even wondering whether my article is being purposely delayed to benefit an editor who is competing for the same brief as me!
It’s beyond unprofessional. If there are insufficient editors, then an extra person should be hired. But whatever the case, there should be a means to contact the editor, and a requirement for the editors to give proper feedback. I’ve never come across such a system in my writing career.

[evaku]

I understand your frustration. I used to feel that all errors should be pointed out in the first review. Now I think it's fine that the editor usually stops at the first error they find and sends it back. The understanding on this site is that you send in completely error free work. If you editor has found one mistake then you should look it over in case there are others further down. I had this problem with my first 3 articles. I had many errors and several rejections before I got them right. Since then I have learned. I have submitted 16 straight articles now that have been approved on the first shot, and let me tell you I've never been a great proofreader. If you want to keep going on this site then the learning curve might be a little but tough, but worth it. I'm of the mind that if I (the worst proofreader ever up until a few months ago) can submit error free content than anyone can. I do about 5 different little tricks before every submission. Reading out loud, changing the font, having a program read it for me, ect.

Just stick to the guidelines, they are all posted on the site. You could have known the correct summary length and accepted font. I too have seen that some articles mysteriously lack the 3 sentence summary, but all I do is worry about myself and my own work. I agree that it is strange that you had to wait several days for your re-submission to be reviewed. The one time I had to re-submit something it was looked at in a couple of minutes. But hey you never know what's going on on the editor's end. They could be swamped, someone could have been sick, who knows. Review times on this site have only been 2 days tops for me in the last few weeks, I don't think they should hire more people just because once in a while they get a little swamped. It happens.

As for the S's v Z's issue.. I'm Canadian and I usually simply amend my writing to be American. For example I will write color instead of colour, neighbor instead of neighbour. Now, I don't know if you should HAVE to do that, maybe send an email to CC and ask.

Again, I totally understand your frustration but that's just how this site works. One time I was told to watch out for double spaces without being told where in the document the double space was. For some reason my Word wasn't flagging it with a green squiggly and I had to go searching, space by space. It is just the writer's job to submit work that is error free and ready to go. The editors are more like "reviewers," there to make sure that the article is ready to go. If you want to stick it out then I am sure with your extensive background you can get used to the way things work. If not then I wish you all the best!

[iamyownboss]

Hi,
I too understand your frustration with both the way articles are rejected and the waiting time. In the case of the former, I've learnt to be a good proofreader and not just rely on Word to pick up errors. While I do occasionally get an article back for some small mysterious thing, most of the time they are accepted first time.
In the second case, I have to disagree with evaku. In the last month, not once has any of my articles been accepted in less than 4-5 days. I wrote all of them for public requests, which is supposed to be given preference over articles that go directly to the public pool, but it didn't matter. In some cases, the delay meant that the client picked an early submission instead of waiting for all submissions to be sent to him/her. Many public requests are open for 7 days or less and since I often have other work in my queue, I can't get to a request as soon as it is posted here. So now I just don't bother with requests that are posted for less than 7 days. I think that hurts CC ultimately. More new writers will just leave when if they feel they can't even get a proper chance to write for real requests.

[SJHillman]

Again, I totally understand your frustration but that's just how this site works. One time I was told to watch out for double spaces without being told where in the document the double space was. For some reason my Word wasn't flagging it with a green squiggly and I had to go searching, space by space.

Just for future reference, Find (ctrl + f in most programs) is a great timesaver. Just put two spaces in the search box and it will show you every instance in the document that has two consecutive spaces.

My feelings towards the editors are mixed. On the one hand, it certainly feels unprofessional to take anywhere from days to weeks to review an article. On the other hand, that's one of the trade-offs for CC not taking a greater cut of the sale. I certainly don't know the finances behind CC, but I would hope they're hiring as many editors as possible on whatever budget they have. CC is also a fairly unique environment because the writer is expected to have perfect spelling and grammar the first time and every time. The editors, unlike most other places, exist to catch errors you shouldn't have made (although we all do) rather than to help you correct errors. It takes some getting used to and doesn't suit every writer, but it works.

[mnicol22]

Hey all!



I like the way things work here, and my experience with C-C editors has been positive since day one. When I first joined, I had only worked for those dreadful .50/ 100 words gigs and had no idea about self-editing whatsoever. Editors' comments were never too detailed, but they were concise enough to help me improve. Now, it's been quite a long time since my last rejection, and I take pride in it because I know it took me some serious work to achieve. Had the editors corrected my mistakes or given me chewed up food, I would have never taken the time to actually notice them and read up on them. I guess it's all a matter of personal preference. Review times can be frustrating sometimes, but I try not to bother too much.

In the end, every business has its positive and negative traits and, while we can provide our feedback and make suggestions, it's not up to us to change the rules.

[tm248]

I've no problem getting used to how things are run etc etc, but I still feel this system is deeply flawed. All errors should always be picked up on the first editor review, in order to facilitate a quick turnaround which ultimately will benefit both the writer and company. And I know proof-reading is a very hard process, and generally when it comes to academic work in the past, i’ve always had a friend look over it for me. But the editor, especially because this was my first post, should have explained the errors. If it's a case of transferring in Americanisms, then it would take 30 seconds to explain this to me. Now, I will spend a day waiting for a reply to my message, which will further delay the completion of my article..

[mnicol22]

If editors took the time to explain each and every mistake in each and every article they review, then waiting times would skyrocket unless the company doubled their number. Maybe that's the reason why things are the way they are. The point is that editors are not really here to edit -they are here to check whether the content that eventually gets published is error-free. Sometimes they explain the reasons that lead to rejections, sometimes they don't. Ultimately, it is our responsibility to spot errors and correct them or figure out why our articles got rejected.

[iamyownboss]

I agree that the editors can't go into detail with every error, but even if they just stop at the first error that they spot and send it back, if the author only corrects that and resubmits or proofreads the whole article but doesn't see any more errors, the editor still has to read the entire article again. Isn't it faster to read it once, list all the errors in brief and reject only once? I'm not saying they have to go into detail over each error.

I still like CC and appreciate that the editors keep such a high standard, but some things just don't make sense to me, so I hope the team notices and at least considers making a change.

[tm248]

If editors took the time to explain each and every mistake in each and every article they review, then waiting times would skyrocket unless the company doubled their number. Maybe that's the reason why things are the way they are. The point is that editors are not really here to edit -they are here to check whether the content that eventually gets published is error-free. Sometimes they explain the reasons that lead to rejections, sometimes they don't. Ultimately, it is our responsibility to spot errors and correct them or figure out why our articles got rejected.

Mnicol, if the article is error ridden, then fair enough. But any competent editor can read through an article of 500-1000 words in a matter of minutes, and provide necessary feedback. How difficult would it have been for an editor to tell me to alter British words to American? I've never worked for an editor who fails to explain feedback, and I've worked in far more time crucial environments than this one. If the editor takes time to explain, then the writer, and the whole process, will benefit. And it's simply bizzare that the whole article is not checked during the first review, as it appears not to have been in my case.

[mnicol22]

tm248, I don't disagree with what you say -not at all! It would be great if we all got to save some time and stress by avoidng multiple resubmissions. My point is that, more often than not, we can't change the way thngs work, and we have to try and make the most out of what's available.

[iamyownboss]

FYI, I don't think British English over American English is an issue here, as long you consistently stick to one style throughout the article. I default to US English, but if I'm writing for a request that's specific to a non-US region, I write in UK English

[jellygator]

While I have found their corrections to be helpful most of the time, they aren't always complete. If I get something rejected, I know to take a closer look just in case, and sometimes I've found errors they hadn't commented. I've occasionally seen an error slide past them, too.

CC is not an editing service. My belief is that their reviews of articles are not for writers' benefits, but for the buyers. The editors are a sort of "last stop" before our written material is published elsewhere. The editors simply say it's a go or no go, and any specifics they provide beyond that is a bonus.

[Isabelnewth]

I think tm is right, it would save everyone's time if the editors checked the whole thing even if they haven't got the time to make more than generic comments.

There is a bias towards US English. I was using consistently UK English, but got an article rejected for the lack of a full stop after Mr (or Mrs can't remember) which is not UK usage.

Nonetheless, I think one gets the feel of what they want and you learn to adapt; and the proof-reading practice is probably useful in the end.

There are a lot of good things about the site, but I just wanted to express some solidarity with tm, as it can all be very irksome.

Cheers.

[SJHillman]

If you would have the editor check the entire article first, then there must be trade-offs, as editors are not free. I would imagine your choices would come down to either doubling the (already long) turn-around on approving articles or else raising CC's share from 35% to somewhere closer to 50%.

[iamyownboss]

I don't think there needs to be a trade-off. If an editor stops reading at the first error and rejects immediately, the article goes back to the author and the author corrects the error and anything else that he/she may catch. It's resubmitted and the editor will have to start reading the entire article AGAIN because he didn't read it completely to start off with. This, to me, is where time and effort is wasted. No one is saying that editors should explain every error. That is not his job. But, in the interest of time and effort, it makes sense to read the whole thing once and just flag the position and type of errors. After that, it is the author's job to figure out exactly what the problem is.