Good writing with little errors...

[DavidFarrell]

I wanted to see what the thoughts of other writers are on this matter; I am a very good writer and have received top honors on the sites I write for. Unfortunately, those sites are ore of the type where you can get away with minor grammar flaws and old habits die hard.

Since coming to CC, over half my articles have been rejected for grammar flaws, saying they need to be touched up first. I make the requested changes and the articles have been accepted. So I'm not to worried in that regards.

My only fear is this; do I have a certain time to get the hang of the system here or are they OK with sending articles back for slight revisions. I am trying my best but I realize I am a horrible proofreader. I keep adding to my articles or rewriting parts when I'm supposed to be checking grammar, then I have to go back and check again; next thing I know an hour has gone by. I am really trying to work on my focus and become a better proofreader and CC is the perfect opportunity to grow.

But I would like imput from other writers. Do they get fed up with writers who consistently make the same stupid grammar mistakes over and over again? I'm not trying to be lazy here; I definitely am trying to learn. I just keep making the same similar errors; it's like I fix ten of them and miss one or something like that.

[jadedragon]

You have the right attitude. You Rock!!

Try writing and setting the articles aside for a day. Fresh eyes and a mind dedicated to proofing should help a lot. A slight delay in getting the articles submitted is no big deal because they sit waiting for a sale anyway.

[sleepydoc]

I am brand new here and had my first submission rejected. I also don't feel like I'm a poor writer (but probably no one does, I guess) and have had no problems elsewhere, but am a bit perplexed by the 'rejection' status here. Maybe it wouldn't be so confusing or stinging if they called it 'revision needed' status, but I digress. The requested changes included omitting one comma, adding one comma and rewording two other sentences (which I need to go back and assess again after letting it sit for a day or so, as I didn't think they were grammatically incorrect or particularly awkward) in a 550 word article about a medical topic that requires specialized knowledge. Is that the level of error that will get articles routinely rejected? I resubmitted, but haven't heard back. I have three articles now -- the one I resubmitted, another I wrote for the general queue and one that was in response to a public request. The other two are still in review status and the public request is about to expire so I'm not sure I'm doing ANYTHING right here at this point. I think it's been three or four days.

I hope this doesn't sound like a complaint as it isn't meant that way -- their site, they can run it and require anything they want. I'm just trying to get it figured out (yes, I read the 'stuff' about submissions and guides for the authors). Just wondering if anyone else felt the same way when they started here?

[DavidFarrell]

Sleepydoc, one of the first things that I did here was browse the forums extensively. As for your article, I'd make the revisions as requested, double check, and resubmit. If you are concerned about grammar, CC has a detailed page on the extended guidelines which I found useful.

[TamathaCampbell]

Hi, Sleepydoc. Welcome aboard.

As to your question about whether that is the usual level that can get an article sent back for revision, the short answer is "yes." Typos, a dropped letter, accidentally repeated words,... anything like that will apparently result in the article being sent back for revision. The idea is to have a technically flawless article.

It certainly stings, though.

[sleepydoc]

I don't want to hijack the original thread, but I already feel better. I had two other articles. One was accepted outright. The other was 'rejected' and requested only one revision (which was spot-on) by the way. It was accepted shortly after the correction was made.

I think it is just the word 'rejection'. I don't do well with rejection, failure, etc. as most of us do not and it is used differently here, than with other editors. But also, to those of us in the medical field, failure and its relatives are not considered options and there is a bit of PTSD with words like that,

I still wish they'd call it "revision needed" instead of rejection, though

[TamathaCampbell]

You have a point about the word "rejection."

Congrats on the accepted articles. I look forward to hearing that you've sold one.

[Lysis]

What is so "stinging" about a rejection from CC? I don't get it. You got rejected. It happens. If it upsets you that much, writing isn't your thing. Everyone gets rejected and usually it's over and over again in everything in life.

They did actually tone it down a little. The email used to read "Your article has been rejected" in the subject. Sucked seeing that email come in, but it's just a part of the system.

[Judith]

I agree with Lysis. A little rejection, now and then, will keep us on our grammatical toes. Becoming a good writer is much like becoming a good athlete. Remember the old saying, "No pain, no gain!" I'm from the old school of Journalism and "back in the day"if an editor didn't like your work, he just might tear it into a few pieces and toss it on your desk. We didn't have computers then so it meant retyping the whole piece and getting it back in before deadline. That could mean working till ten or later at night. I don't think anyone ever had that happen more than once.

[sleepydoc]

Lysis -- Thank you for your input. I get it, but respectfully disagree with your assumption about my ability to continue being a writer based on my distaste for a word.
Just because I don't like the word 'rejection' doesn't necessarily mean that "writing is not my thing". I admitted that I was being sensitive to the word, NOT the process. I attempted to joke and put the little laughing emoticon so it wasn't taken too seriously. But thanks for your concern and advice about writing and life, although I will respectfully decline to take it.

I have absolutely no problem with the editorial process and believe me, medical school and residency provided more cruel, condescending, frequent, stressful and personal criticism than I've ever encountered from any editor, anywhere, so I can certainly 'hack it'. I was simply venting a little and trying to get a feel for how it worked here--that's it. I thought a little commiseration with other members here might be helpful, as it often is in new situations (CC, not professional writing, which I have been doing for years), so I added my feelings to the OPs thoughts. Guess that wasn't such a good idea.

I actually like being challenged to 'raise my game'. It's in my nature to strive for perfection and now that I have had more interactions with the editors, I like how it works. They have been helpful, polite and...correct. I just didn't like the word 'rejection', still don't. Didn't think that would result in controversy.

And thank you TamathaCampbell, you had actually answered my question quite well and politely. That's what I really wanted to know so I could meet the expectations of the site, which it seems I am getting better at doing.

[Lor]

..........never mind

[sleepydoc]

DavidFarrell, I wanted to apologize for taking over your thread. I hope that you have gotten good answers to your question, as I have nothing to add (newbie here). And thanks for the tips- I do appreciate it. I use grammarly (keeping in mind its limitations) sometimes when I've been 'too close' to an article or read it too many times to be able to evaluate it myself. I know those programs miss some stuff, but they do remind me of certain things that I miss too.

[DavidFarrell]

Nah, it's OK. My biggest question is, at what point do the editors get tired of finding minor errors?

[jellygator]

I don't know, but I sure hope I never find out.

[Lysis]

They have the choice to basically tell you that you're hanging on a thread (in other words, clean up your act or get suspended) or they can just suspend you without warning.

Just make sure you proof. Read the content aloud. That's my trick that pushed me from lots of rejections and a warning to having lots of accepted articles and a few rejections for minor errors.

A lot of content farms out there have made people think that any ol' junk can get accepted online, and people are surprised when they hit CC and the standards are a lot higher.