Long Summaries

[jellygator]

I've been reading about article theft here, and I understand the site has now taken steps to prevent it better.

For self-protection and for marketing purposes, I used the following format for the long summary on an article I just submitted. Will this create any problems for me if it's not a verbatim excerpt? (I've assumed it's ok, since others have said they use ellipses, but then I know where assumptions have gotten me before!)I'd like to have a chance to adjust before it gets reviewed if it is likely to be a problem.

INTRO (as written):

You don’t want to be the poor sucker who whines to his buds about all the time and money he wasted on whatshername. You know, that cutie who ran hot and cold until she finally burned him for good. The truth is, you don’t want a woman who has to play hard to get – you want the one who is hard to get. (Well, not hard for you to get, but impossible for those other guys!) The one who offers what all men want – a vixen in the bedroom, and who is fun and worthwhile elsewhere. Pay attention to the differences between these critical signals when you’re getting to know the fortunate femme who caught your eye....

MAIN POINTS DISCUSSED IN ARTICLE: The body of this article provides examples of three ways in which women can use "hard to get" principles and describes how to determine whether she is being legitimate or not. First, it explains the difference between a busy woman and one who claims to be in order to manipulate a man´s affections. Next, it describes women who are not fully available, making them hard to get in another way. The last major point concerns women who claim to be interested but doing things that make it seem otherwise.

CONCLUSION (as written):

A woman who is attracted and interested won’t give you mixed signals. If you’re confused by your current girlfriend’s behavior, these three principles will help you get things back on track or let you get off that train. You won’t become that sad sucker who elicits pity from his friends, because you’ll have all the confidence that comes with knowing that you won’t get taken for a ride.

[jadedragon]

Don't know how the editors will like that. You are supposed to show at least a third of the article, so if the intro and conclusion give you at least a third of the words than you meet that requirement. A custom written section in the middle might not fly but maybe they will allow it. I've inserted bracketed notes that content has been omitted kind of like this.

Sometimes writers omit content in the short ... (section omitted for preview)... and yet article thieves sometimes still take articles and post them with missing sections. At least the thief has to work to fill in the missing sections to make some sense of it.

[jellygator]

Well, I suppose I will keep my fingers crossed.

[jellygator]

It was not rejected for that!

Now if it will sell...

[TamathaCampbell]

Best wishes for a quick sale, Jellygator.

The way I "snipped" one of my long summaries is awkward and clunky. Does anyone know whether the article needs to be re-submitted for review, if the long summary is adjusted?

Thanks.

[jellygator]

When that one was sent back to me for revision, it requested a couple of changes in the introduction and said to "revise the long summary to reflect these changes." I did, but left the summary portion alone, and it was accepted.

So I'd guess that if you make changes that result in your summary being inaccurate, you'd have to change it. Also, if they feel the summary is too difficult to read as it is, they could also request that.