Survey of writers to this CC website

[kkemper1]

I claim that editors at CC [minimally Ed] are arbitrary in their reviewing standards and that none of you "Enjoy" or find fair, when he rejects by saying "You have errors in your writing" without pointing out what those errors are.

I am a successful writer, with 38 years experience. I do make errors
occassionally and when I do, my article receivers [aka editors] stipulate
what they are and they are corrected the same day by me.

Here at CC, the errors stay a mystery.

What are your collective opinions?

[Celeste Stewart]

No one ever enjoys being rejected. Ever submit to a large publication like People Magazine? You'll be lucky to get a form rejection letter with any comments at all. If you do, it will be after months of waiting and will likely feature check boxes that say, "This does not meet our current needs."

Oftentimes the editors here will point out the exact reason. For instance, I was rejected the other day for writing, "Exam your goals" instead of "Examine your goals" and the editor was kind enough to tell me that was why. I like to think that the editor extended this courtesy to me due to an ongoing relationship that has been built over time as well as hundreds of successful submissions beforehand. They are simply too busy to critique each piece.

Saying you have errors is enough of a reason. If you look at your rejected article, I'm sure you'll find errors. Even seasoned writers with decades of experience make mistakes from time to time. In my case, I would've found the "exam" upon careful proofreading. So, if they rejected my article with the only explanation being, "You have errors", I would've looked through my article, and said "Duh! Examine not exam" and resubmitted.

Getting defensive and griping here doesn't serve to build a relationship with the editors.

[J. A. Young]

Ed can edit my stuff anytime!
Getting a reject notice is maddening! Ed rarely, if ever, rejected my stuff, but the new admin is giving me a run for my money. Sometimes I disagree with (her?), but often as not it's just a dumb goof on my part.

But alas, I can't help pining for Ed's exemplary editorial skills!

--JA, one of Ed's biggest fans!

[Celeste Stewart]

Yes, the new editor is much pickier, some things that Ed might let slide don't fly with Writewell

It's all good though, I believe in continuous improvement and a few rejects here and there will keep me humble!

[constant-content]

kkemper1 - You're not going to find anyone here that agrees with you. The reason all the writers do well here is because we are very strict and customers expect that. If not we would just be another freelance site, allowing plagiarism and poor writing.

[Mary Shows]

My experience with CC has been that if my articles contain one or two errors, the rejection message does call attention to those specific areas. I would imagine that if an aritcle has numerous errors, time constraints would dictate that it simply be rejected for errors in general. This is a for-profit site for both the owner(s) and the writers. If the editors attempted to coach each writer on basic writing skills, I feel sure we would be waiting weeks rather than hours or days to see our articles approved and ready for sale. I say keep the current editing style and I will keep trying to improve my proofreading skills.

[darcylogan]

I curse the editors here at CC almost on a daily basis. Not because they are wrong in their rejections, but because they are right. It's very irritating because when they are right, it means I am wrong and I HATE being wrong.

I have never had any of my articles rejected without at least giving an overview over what was wrong. (I.E. capitalization of the titles). If there's some confusion, I've always posted the question in the forum, a place where they respond very quickly.

Although it can be frustrating, I have to agree with Mary in that I would rather have quick versus thorough (re: response).

Darcy

[darcylogan]

I curse the editors here at CC almost on a daily basis. Not because they are wrong in their rejections, but because they are right. It's very irritating because when they are right, it means I am wrong and I HATE being wrong.

I have never had any of my articles rejected without at least giving an overview over what was wrong. (I.E. capitalization of the titles). If there's some confusion, I've always posted the question in the forum, a place where they respond very quickly.

Although it can be frustrating, I have to agree with Mary in that I would rather have quick versus thorough (re: response).

Darcy

[cbhrbooth]

Perhaps I've misunderstood your note, kkemper1, but it sounds as if you feel unfairly singled out by CC. If so, I hope you will consider if you are taking their rejections personally. Although CC’s rejection notes can be curt, I choose to attribute that to time constraints, article backlog and cultural differences rather than fickle standards.

I, too, have years of writing experience, but I respectfully disagree with you that CC should routinely offer one-on-one editorial guidance when they must daily read through a large "slush" pile. Whenever I have taught English composition, I have had to read and grade over 80 - 150 essays a week. It’s an overwhelming task! I don’t envy CC the role of reading a hundred (or hundreds?) articles a day. I'm amazed at how often they do offer specific, constructive criticism - either through rejection notes or on the boards - given the work load.

Every writer’s career should be blessed with a writer-editor relationship that develops his or her abilities and talent. But, as I’m sure you already know, that's not the norm in this business, and I think such expectations are particularly unrealistic in a free-for-all submission market like CC.

Best wishes with your writing.
Sincerely,
Mary