Constant Content

Thanks for usefull information...

Hey thanks for this thread!

My recurring problem seems to be hiding important information or facts "in the weeds" (as my editor has pointed out on numerous occasions). They didn't elaborate but rewrote the intro paragraph to one of my articles. Can you guys shed some light on the matter?

My version:

Me :D wrote:If you've watched Season 8's 20th episode "Post Mortem", of the hit TV series, "House, M.D." then you may have wondered how much of the plot's depiction of antibacterial soap is fiction. In the episode, Dr. Treiber unwittingly builds up detrimental levels of triclosan by frequently washing his hands with antibacterial soap - ultimately developing neurological problems due to triclosan causing his thyroid to malfunction. Frighteningly, most of the show's portrayal of antibacterial soap is factual - triclosan is harmful.

The correct version:

The Editor wrote:Fans of the hit TV series House, M.D. might have seen "Post Mortem," the 20th episode of the eighth season, and wondered how much of the plot's depiction of antibacterial soap is fiction. In the episode, a doctor frequently and compulsively washes his hands with antibacterial soap and unwittingly builds up dangerous levels of triclosan, which causes his thyroid to malfunction and for the doctor to develop a neurological disorder. As far-fetched as the show's premise might seem, the frightening fact is that it's true -- triclosan is indeed a harmful substance.

I honestly can't tell the difference . It literally feels to me like the correct version is just an alternative version of the original.

My impression of the editor's revision of the first sentence is that they're trying to avoid saying "you". So that might be something they want you to consider.

I am not sure that this part of the editor's version works well: "...which causes his thyroid to malfunction and for the doctor to develop a neurological disorder." I wouldn't be happy with that.

Must be so frustrating for you. I wonder if shorter sentences would sometimes help you focus on the facts and not the "weeds"? (Cool way of describing it.)

Good luck anyway. Keep writing! We all have trouble with things like this sometimes and it makes us miserable for a while.

Abba

Abbamay wrote:My impression of the editor's revision of the first sentence is that they're trying to avoid saying "you". So that might be something they want you to consider.

I am not sure that this part of the editor's version works well: "...which causes his thyroid to malfunction and for the doctor to develop a neurological disorder." I wouldn't be happy with that.

Must be so frustrating for you. I wonder if shorter sentences would sometimes help you focus on the facts and not the "weeds"? (Cool way of describing it.)

Good luck anyway. Keep writing! We all have trouble with things like this sometimes and it makes us miserable for a while.

Abba

Thanks for the helpful input! I don't think it's "you" they have a problem with, but you made me look at that sentence closer and now I think I understand! The editor's version is better flowing. My version has a little more extra wordage that sort of feels superfluous and less compact when compared with the editor's. I have at least one extra "you may have" in there.

Well it's not really frustrating for me, but I was more worried about getting banned because of it . This is the first article the editor's mentioned this, and when I couldn't figure it out, I just didn't worry about it as much... and then in one or two of my subsequent articles, they made the "weeds" comment again... And then I got paranoid and started looking at all my articles after that, even the ones that got accepted without being rejected... and I saw that the editor made significant modifications (which I'm truly grateful for!)

But besides worrying about being banned, I also want to improve my writing, and figuring out the weeds problem will significantly improve my writing skills (and give less work to the editors ).

light87 wrote:Hey thanks for this thread!

My recurring problem seems to be hiding important information or facts "in the weeds" (as my editor has pointed out on numerous occasions). They didn't elaborate but rewrote the intro paragraph to one of my articles. Can you guys shed some light on the matter?

My version:

Me :D wrote:If you've watched Season 8's 20th episode "Post Mortem", of the hit TV series, "House, M.D." then you may have wondered how much of the plot's depiction of antibacterial soap is fiction. In the episode, Dr. Treiber unwittingly builds up detrimental levels of triclosan by frequently washing his hands with antibacterial soap - ultimately developing neurological problems due to triclosan causing his thyroid to malfunction. Frighteningly, most of the show's portrayal of antibacterial soap is factual - triclosan is harmful.

The correct version:

The Editor wrote:Fans of the hit TV series House, M.D. might have seen "Post Mortem," the 20th episode of the eighth season, and wondered how much of the plot's depiction of antibacterial soap is fiction. In the episode, a doctor frequently and compulsively washes his hands with antibacterial soap and unwittingly builds up dangerous levels of triclosan, which causes his thyroid to malfunction and for the doctor to develop a neurological disorder. As far-fetched as the show's premise might seem, the frightening fact is that it's true -- triclosan is indeed a harmful substance.

I honestly can't tell the difference . It literally feels to me like the correct version is just an alternative version of the original.

To me what stood out is the the last sentence. You started off by saying most of the portrayal of antibacterial soap is true but then you finished off with a fact about tricolosan which is confusing. If you would have said, for example, ... most of the portrayal of antibacterial soap is factual, using it too frequently can cause a build up of tricolosan that would have fixed the issue too. If that was the issue, of course.

Seems that he changed the pov