Careless reviewers

[DavidBulley]

My article was rejected because of "typos" one of which, according to the person who rejected it, was that i miss-wrote "patients" instead of "patience." But I meant more than one patient! Obviously the reviewer used a simple grammar checker and either did not read or does not know what he (or she) is talking about.

The other comment was about comma use. But since my first sentence includes the name and title of a dentist there are more commas than in most sentences. Now I know why they say they cannot reply to specifics! It saves them the embarrassment of being wrong.

Sorry folks, I'm a pro. I've written for a buck a word and have more editing experience than the entire staff here. I thought i might whip off a couple hundred words, sell non exclusive rights and see how it goes, but this is absurd. I write for people, not machines.

[Constant]

Just had a quick look at this, and it seems that you wrote "patience" and the editors asked you to change it to "patients."

Here's the sentence in question:

"Upon further investigation he discovered that he had even lost patience that couldn’t stand waiting in his waiting room."

[DavidBulley]

Wow! I knew you guys were unprofessional right away, but to add typos instead of admitting you are wrong is simply outrageous. My copy on my computer has the correct word.

[DavidBulley]

Just had a quick look at this, and it seems that you wrote "patience" and the editors asked you to change it to "patients."

Here's the sentence in question:

"Upon further investigation he discovered that he had even lost patience that couldn’t stand waiting in his waiting room."

Here is the quote from your editors: "This also includes some typos. Patience instead of patients. Etc."

So you see you didn't even cheat correctly. Clearly the editors were asking me to change patients into patience, which i have completely run out of.

[Constant]

Just had a quick look at this, and it seems that you wrote "patience" and the editors asked you to change it to "patients."

Here's the sentence in question:

"Upon further investigation he discovered that he had even lost patience that couldn’t stand waiting in his waiting room."

Here is the quote from your editors: "This also includes some typos. Patience instead of patients. Etc."

So you see you didn't even cheat correctly. Clearly the editors were asking me to change patients into patience, which i have completely run out of.

I think if you'll review the editor's comment that you're quoting, you'll find he's saying that you wrote patience instead of patients.

[DavidBulley]

I think i'm all done reviewing anything here. I've published more words in national glossy magazines than your entire staff. I've learned my lesson here.

[Celeste Stewart]

It sounds like the document submitted had a typo with the phrase "lost patience" instead of "lost patients" as you intended -- I can see a word processor's autocorrect feature messing this up. Now, as for whether your document on your computer currently has this or not, I'm woncering if it's possible that you uploaded the document before saving the document one final time? That happens too. For example, if you edited the document and submitted it before saving it a final time, then CC would have the unedited version on its system. What I highly doubt is this: that CC would change your document just to save face or prove a point. Who has time for that?

If you're used to editors that quietly correct typos and send the piece on for publication, then CC is going to take a little adjustment and, perhaps, be a rude awakening. Errors will be pointed out and no praise given - ever. Many of us also write for glossies and ad agencies where we get paid much more per word than we do here. I can tell you this: CC's much harder to write for.

I'm sorry your first experience here has been unpleasant. If you stick around and get to know the system, you might come to appreciate CC's picky review team.

Edited to add: And the editors do make mistakes, too. We can resubmit with a short note explaining our word choice or usage and they'll take a deeper look and reconsider.

[carpenjoyce]

It definitely seems like Celeste is correct. It's very easy to accidentally upload a file before the changes have been saved. Even after you save the changes, the old version will still link to the site if you uploaded before you clicked the "save" button. It's in the editors' best interest to get articles approved, since their salaries are presumably paid out of the money the site makes. I can't think of any reason why they'd "cheat" and look for invalid reasons to reject someone.

Also, Celeste-- "no praise--ever" isn't entirely true. I got a lovely note from one of my editors today, saying that he never expected to enjoy reading articles on the stock market, but that he enjoyed mine. It made me feel like a million bucks!

I love this site, and I'm doing very well. But it would be nice to supplement my income from here with some of those higher-paying gigs you've referred to. Any tips on how to do that, Celeste?

[Celeste Stewart]

Carpenjoyce, when praise is rarely given, it's even more valuable - congrats!!

Getting those gigs-- maybe we should start another thread...