Proofreading tips, if I may

[Lor]

I looked and I didn't see, so here goes.

I've been reading through the rejection forum and it seems most of the rejections and/or suspensions are due to poor proofreading. At least here, you're told why it's been rejected. A print publisher sends cold generic rejections and the writer can't learn from those.

We all do it. It's like our brains and fingers “artnt werkin togedder." When we read over what we've written, we don't notice these errors and walk away assured in the knowledge we've just written a wonderful piece. Well, the writing may be wonderful, but it loses its wonder quickly when the reader can only focus on glaring mistakes.

Most writers can easily see the problems in other peoples work, but they are blind to their own. Here's some things I've learned to do to make those typos stand out. I'm not perfect and nor is my system, but it has helped me to notice those flaws. Typos, spelling errors and bad phrasing generally pop out at me.

1) This is the most important tip. Put the finished piece away for at least a few days. Don't even open the file. This will give you fresh perspective.

2) Change the font (temporarily) to something completely different. Again, fresh perspective.

3) Learn to note how you tend to write "your" instead of "you're," or "their" instead of "there." This way you'll be more aware of it when you're typing. It will become second nature. Some word programs will yellow out those words for you. The "find and replace" tool is a great help.

4) Read your work aloud. Sometimes, you'll notice the flow doesn't quite work, or the phrasing is awkward and doesn't roll of the tongue as it should, or the sentences runon like this one.

That's all I have at the moment, but if anyone wants to add their tips I think it might help us all.

Lor (rain)

[Elizabeth Ann West]

Lor, you seem to have a really good attitude and I'm really glad you joined C-C. Unfortunately, many of those who gripe in the rejection section aren't willing to afford Ed the professional courtesy his role as editor should receive. I know I had to resist the urge to respond to one of the posts today calling the forums a pointless place to find help. In my opinion, C-C's forums are one of the best communities of writers out there, as far as professionalism and translating that professionalism into proceeds for all of us goes. While at first I was angry, I ultimately decided not to respond since someone who makes that kind of assertion is unlikely to explore the forums to see the true value contained therein.

If I could give the best advice, it's for new authors to carefully consider their first few submissions, just as they would for a print magazine. Too many new authors assume the shabby standards of other writing sites are the way all online writing marketplaces operate. I know I scoured the forums, and FAQs for days before I had any kind of gumption to submit my work.

You will find Lor the topic of proofreading is frequently discussed on the forums. I know some members have a website or web service that will read the piece aloud to you through the computer speakers.

If I am particularly pressed for time, I like to read my prose backwards. It's a good way for me personally to see where my sentence connections do not make sense, since I can analyze from sentence to sentence, and then look at the whole paragraph. I always start at the end because I am a funnel formula follower : tell them what you are going to say, tell them, then tell them what you told them. If my conclusion is missing any main parts of my intended message, chances are there is also a hole in the piece's body too. Though in college, most of my English classmates found this extremely odd. But, one thing I have never claimed to be was normal :)

Always Smiling,
EAW

[Lor]

Hi again, Elizabeth,
I saw that one too and my first thought was "It's not wise to burn bridges."

Then I read more posts from people wondering why their work was rejected. The answers were in their posts if only they'd proofread them. Hence, this thread. Well, I'm not perfect. I see a punctuation typo in my first post here now and there may be others. I don't believe any of us are perfect, but some things are too obvious.

This isn't meant to be kiss-a$$y, but as I read through those posts, I could see that Ed was trying very hard to be tactful and gracious, but in many instances, it wasn't what they wanted to hear.

...and thanks. I'm glad I joined too.
Lor (rain)

[Celeste Stewart]

Ed does get abused from time to time and we often get sucked into the fray defending Ed and the integrity of CC and so on. But it's usually a waste of energy. Everyone has their own perceptions and like you say, hear what they want to hear. Granted, I can see why people get frustrated when their rejection email says to ask in the forum and then the forum tells them to check their email. . . which I believe was at the heart of this guy's gripe.

Those that want to be a part of the community are more than welcome. Those that aren't willing to follow protocol or bite their tongue when they're feeling vulnerable or sensitive about a rejection don't usually stick around too long. The Web's a big place so it's okay if CC isn't a good fit for some; there are other sites that might be. I just hate to see writers write off CC based on a few rejections at first. It takes time to "get" this particular system. Once it clicks, it's awesome.

[Ed]

Thanks for taking time to discuss this. I've taken some steps to mitigate some frustration from writers through changing the rejection email (still being perfected) by making it clearer.

It appears that writers were skimming through their personal rejection information and then, when they came to the forums, didn't explain that they read the email. Some people don't know an email was sent, so it's important to ascertain whether or not they have actually read the email before going into explanations.

I don't know what the email says if it isn't repeated here once several hours have passed. In the revised email, the personal rejection information was highlighted, and writers were asked to visit the forum for *general* rejection questions - it's extremely difficult for me to answer specific questions, especially when the email has summed it up. Sure, it's easier for someone else to just tell you what you're doing wrong, but part of writing is being able to identify your own mistakes after getting a nudge in the right direction.

As writers, it's important to be able to look at our work objectively, take criticism and solid advice, and evolve, rather than stagnate in tired language and our own repeated errors.

As Lor (Rain) stated, it's important to proofread, but it's also important to take the time to read the rejection email with an open mind. If you determine that it's wrong before you even open the email, there isn't much I can do to help. The rules of language aren't my rules; we're all bound to them equally. I enjoy my job and hope I'm helping those who want to improve. I would love to be able to be a more complete editor. However, I'm one person with a schedule as well as a limited number of brain cells (3). I know I'm still improving too - as a writer and as an editor - and I do wish everyone to be so excited about language that they desire to use it to its fullest potential, too. Not everyone is; that's okay. But you still have to follow the rules. ;)

Ed

[jak]

More good proofreading tips here; thanks, folks. Before reading this thread, I did reply to the previous one. Hope it helps.

[HayleyWriter]

I agree with all of the posts in this thread.
A - Ed does a great job. I'm one of the lucky writers who was able to learn and benefit from his comments. At first I felt just frustration at getting the rejections but then Ed gave me links to sites about the proofreading and particularly, the use of commas, which was my downfall.

B - The tips are there and genuine writers who work at improving their writing, and / or their proofreading, will benefit from the forums, links to sites about writing, and even the occaisional rejection notice to help them realise where the problem is.

C - Constant Content is a terrific community and I love the way we support each other and do not have to bid against each other to win the work. Proofreading tips will always be helpful and I appreciate your comments about leaving the work for a few days and ways of getting the fresh perspective.

D - Perhaps we could have a way of getting some writers work in proofreading others' writing. Perhaps an optional feature that we could submit privately to an author our article and ask for editing or proofreading help, with a small payment through CC to the editing author. This way we can help each other out with proofreading work prior to the formal submission to ed! Any ideas on whether this could be possible?

Kind regards,

Hayley

[cgardener]

I agree with reading backwards, word by word. One of my cousins is a professional proofreader for a publishing company, and that's how she had to proofread for spelling. It's a proven fact that as long as the word's first and last letters are in place, we won't see the misspellings sometimes, but will read it as it should be.

As for Ed, I really appreciate his guidance. When I had an article with some problems, he sent me a link to a website where I could study and learn about that particular problem. I really appreciated that.

I see people in here who say they've written for "another site" and that site happened to be one that I know for a fact (and they admit) doesn't even read the articles, but scans them for SEO worthiness. That's not editing. That's proofing. I've seen some horrendous stuff at that site, and it's obvious reading some of the articles that they do not have good editorial standards. It's easy to consider yourself "experienced" writing for a site like that and develop bad habits.

I do agree that sometimes a buyer would be much kinder and less picky than Ed, but with Ed at the helm, we know that the customers are getting the very best quality articles, and that our work will be respected. I like respect. If I want to write somewhere where I get no editorial criticism, I'll write on my personal blog.