Isn't this strange?

[Srinivasayyar]

My editor has flagged the following : You could ask friends who are fresh from a recent birth. They are likely to be generous with someone who is about to go through what they did. They would also be happy to clear out their cupboards. If you don't know anyone, you could try the freecycling websites.

The only explanation provided: "It is unclear why this article's points are posed in situations of "if" and "could." This type of language is unnecessary when you are advising the reader to do something."

I don't know what to say. Why is this wrong?

[Celeste Stewart]

Hi,

It's more direct to just say it:
Ask friends who recently had a baby. They are likely to be generous, and happily clear out their cupboards, with someone who is about to go through the same experience. Try freecycling websites as well.

[Srinivasayyar]

Hi, Thanks for replying. I'm beginning to learn to write this way. My problem is that the direct style that CC wants now (and the one that your helpful rewrite uses) rarely offers the same meaning as the indirect style.

Before the first rejection came this line actually went something "It's no cause for worry if you don't know anyone like this. There are plenty of freecycling websites that you could try" .

This one and the somewhat edited version both, hope to try to sympathize with a reader who wants to try the recommended way but finds she doesn't know anyone. It's always nice to have plenty of friends. I want to say, "If you're alone, though, don't worry – here's another way". This is what I hope the wordy form achieves.

For some reason people who prefer the concise form feel that these niceties are unnecessary. If someone said "Try freecycling websites as well" to me, I would think it sounded throwaway and distant. To my ear, the concise way achieves its conciseness at the expense of softness and politeness. Nevertheless, I will try my best to go along.

[Celeste Stewart]

Yes, I get that. I think you can do a little of both. The key is to find the the right balance, and it sounds like the editor felt it was too heavy on the indirect, reassuring side versus the "here's what you can do" side. (Just my interpretation of course). Also, remember with web writing that even though the tone is conversational, conciseness really does matter. Online readers gloss over text; they don't cling to every word as much as we'd like them to.

When the bulk of the content is concise, you have more leeway to soften sentences such as "Try freecycling sites as well" so they sound less curt.