Second time rejected for same article...

[Hugh]

Last week (or was it the week before last? Time seems to drag on when I submit things...) my article was rejected because it was "too long". I'd expected something of a learning curve at this, because it's my first time and like most new things, we've got to expect a few bumps. So my 2500 word article on conducting business in Russia was rejected. No problem.
I split my article into what I thought were more manageable 500 word chunks and re-upped the intro section.

Right after doing that, I took a quick look at some articles that had recently been accepted, including one that was tackling the very subject I was writing about. I was three lines into the summary and stopped cold when I saw the phrase "mind-field".
Mind-field.
There's no such thing. Yes, every investor must appreciate that they might be walking into a risky proposition when they're throwing their money into a culture and society far removed from their own. It can be a mine-field - but not a mind field. How on earth did a conscientious editor let anything like that through? Any person with an elementary grasp of English would be thrown off even skimming that phrase - it's just too jarring. Seeing a painfully obvious error like that does does not inspire faith in the editorial process.

So it was that last night, I got my second rejection.
Here's why...
"Please insert spaces between paragraphs so it is clear where one paragraph ends and other begins. // A full space must appear between paragraphs in the content details so it is clear where one paragraph ends and where one begins."

I tend to write according to APA or MLA. Here's what APA says about paragraphs...
"Do not add extra lines between paragraphs or sections."

So it looks like I can mangle the phrasing and spelling, but God forbid I not press return excessively after finishing a paragraph.

I'm going to try this one more time and if my Russia piece gets rejected, I'll take my well researched, long form, multi-part articles on doing business in Russia, China, India, Brazil, Singapore, France, the Philippines and Mexico somewhere else. And they will make money, I'm absolutely 100% sure of that. They're not puff piece garbage. They're explicitly laid out actionable things, like what to look for in an interpreter when you're doing business in Russia. Or how to deal with gender issues (and you will have to) if you're a western female executive.
I'd like to make money through this site by offering something useful and of high quality, so when I see junked up puff-ball stuff (ie: vapid content with errors!) make it through, I am... unsure whether I'm in the right place.

I am not enamoured of capricious editors whose powers of rejection exceed their ability to edit.
I'll try this one more time, but you people are wearing me down...

[jak]

Do stick with it, Hugh. The rules here were set because they are what CC customers want. Editors have to abide by them as well as authors. perhaps you should read through the submission guidelines again. And do remember that editors are human too, and sadly none of us are infallible. I'm sure you'll do well eventually, so all the best for the next submission.

[Hugh]

Well I thought I'd done a fair amount of due diligence in that respect, jak.
It's a little off-putting to have a style that's globally recognized amongst researchers and that you're accustomed to writing in (APA) dismissed out of hand.
But okay, that's the site's prerogative.

Here's the problem though, straight from the extended writers guideline section. Note the italicized parts.
Format
Please professionally format your articles in 12 pt. Times New Roman or Arial black font with single spaced paragraphs and a double space between paragraphs. A full space between paragraphs helps the reader to determine where one paragraph ends and another begins."

The first sentence specifically says there's to be a "double space" between paragraphs.
In the following sentence it says a "full space between" [paragraphs].

So which is it?
Two lines or one? Do we use "single line" spacing after paragraphs or double?

This isn't about my ability to read instructions. I try to be as conscientious as possible, but I do make mistakes.
I thought APA was more or less a foolproof approach and my cursory run through of the writers guide seemed to indicate that was appropriate.
I was wrong and that's okay to a point, but when I get grinded on a technicality, whoever's doing the grinding better have their rules nice and tight, because I'll follow up to the letter.
And these rules aren't nice and tight.

I do want to stay and I appreciate your support. But every day I sit and wait for approval is lost opportunity for the site owners and for me.

[SJHillman]

There is good reason CC doesn't use APA, MLA or other commonly accepted formatting practices. CC is not marketing to researchers or trade publications, they are marketing to a completely different audience - website visitors. Website visitors prefer to skim rather than peruse and our clients, the ones who use our articles to attract visitors, like articles that they can easily edit (if they buy full rights) and insert ads between paragraphs. While CC's formatting guidelines may seem to be pulled out of an anatomically impossible location, they're actually quite well thought through. I'm not saying they couldn't explain them better (as mentioned in my other post in another thread), but the formatting is set as it is because it helps sell your articles better.

[Hugh]

I appreciate that there's invariably a reason for everything and that we can disagree on whether it's a good reason or not, but as I've said in response to another posters comments here, CC isn't being quite as precise as they seem to insist its authors be.

Saying "put space(s) between paragraphs" isn't accurate enough for my liking. It could lead to one sentence after another, all mashed up into one giant blob of text.
Technically, I'd be following the instructions to the letter if I simply hit the spacebar and continued writing my next paragraph. That is, after all, what "spaces" are. I know that's not what they mean, but good writing is very clear and leaves no room for error.
I'd prefer CC worded that instruction as, "put (x) number of returns between body paragraphs".

Incidentally, my article was rejected AGAIN. For a THIRD time.
This time it was rejected because I hadn't hit the return key between paragraphs in the "Content Excerpt" section of the Submit Article page.
So I basically got the same rejection as I did for the article on the second rejection, except this time I got it for the description/article excerpt.

It's endless. And I am being constantly ground down by this process...

[Word Gypsy]

Hello Hugh,

There's a bit of a learning curve on CC, but it does get easier once you get the hang of it. That being said, I do agree that some of CC's wording could be more user-friendly for the "newbie CC" writers. Please don't take it to heart, because in the grand scheme of things, it's a minor point.

Happy writing,
WG

[Hugh]

Yes, there is a learning curve, isn't there?
I just wasn't prepared for it to take a 3 rejections and counting, over the span of a month.
Then to read that some people are effectively banned from submitting after x number of rejections and this whole process just seems a pointless waste of my time. The 20-30 hours I spent researching and writing the long-form 2500 word article has now blossomed into 50 hours. That's another article's worth of time I've spent simply trying to get it to measure up, not to some high falutin' "language/readability standard", but simply to a submission format that CC likes.

1st Rejected - Has to be be shorter. Fine - I cut it into 4 pieces. (Strange that "suggested prices" would include pricing on 2000+ word articles though...)
2nd Rejected - Not enough "spaces" between paragraphs. I double the "spacing after" paragraphs. (Okay - they don't use MLA or APA)
3rd Rejected - Not enough "spaces" between paragraphs in the "Summary". (OMG... seriously? Wait... no... seriously?)

It drains out every last bit of the energy and enthusiasm I brought to this process.
And as far as I can tell, not one person at Constant Content has yet to read a single word of the article.

It's additionally frustrating because as I'd mentioned in another post, seeing an accepted article that contained the phrase "is a mind-field" (when they obviously meant mine-field), really makes the hyper-fastidious editorial process I've been subject to seem a bit much.
Here I am getting rejected for not having enough "spaces" between paragraphs and typos like that get through? Wow.

I've got my last kick at the can in the "edit process" once again and if it's rejected I think I'm going to have to say I gave this place my best shot - I really have.
Thanks for your encouragement (and jak and SJ's too), regardless of how this turns out.