Fauly copy editing

Article title on Autoblog.com:

"BMW issues stop sale on M5 and M6 models over fauly oil pump."

Yahoo! needs a copy editor

In a story about the Saints win over Detroit:

“We were pulling out all the stops,” Brees said. “We play aggressive. We’re not going to apologize for that. That gives guys in the huddle a lot of confidence. We’re not going to pull the reins back. It’s pedal to the medal.”

Advertising with forked tongue

Mobiledia.com is looking for a staff writer. Its ad on Mediabistro.com includes this mixed message:

"Our ideal candidate has also cursed at an editor and threatened to resign at least once because some idiot wanted to change his or her perfect lede."

But later in the ad: "We don't focus on output. Instead, we try to develop good writers. We believe if we can help you write better, everything else will fall into place. We'll challenge you to push yourself and grow, but we also offer support through coaching and mentorship."

Guess what: You can't have it both ways.

"How to Slice an Orange"

I just copy edited an article with that title. I had to bring all 28 years of my editing experience to bear on that challenge.

One for the ages

A fellow Demand copy editor sent an article back to the writer for a rewrite. The writer then bitched on a Demand forum about not understanding what the copy editor wanted.

The copy editor posted her reaction on a Facebook group that some 120+ of us have formed:

"Hmmm...unless by 'not sure' he meant that he has no idea what I was saying, which since I was saying that I had no idea what he was saying, would be ironic."

My article copy editing day begins

First up is a "How-to" article: Under "Things You'll Need" are "Potectuive gloves" and "Googles."

ETA: Excedrin.

Pulling no punches

One of my fellow article copy editors included the following note in a rewrite request to a wordy writer:

"If you're going to use that many words, make sure each one has a job to do."

Bravo.

Where gun opponents fear to tread

I just copy edited an article titled, "The Best Way to Clean a Muzzleloader Shotgun."

Couldn't wait to finish it.

Bad writers will be the death of me.

From an article on troubleshooting a refrigerator: ‎"if the ice maker is not fulfilling both of these responsibilities"

There's nothing worse than an irresponsible ice maker.

Zen and the art of conscience maintenance

I just copy edited an article on Weed Eater strings. It had five sections like this one: "The 0.080-inch, 40-foot replacement Weed Eater strings are available in three different formats: the Tap N’ Go I L.H, part no. 952-701589, which is compatible with Weed Eater models BC 24W and 30B; GTI 19T; HP30SBP; TBC57; XR105; XT 125KT and 125T; and YP140, as well as the Tap N’ Go II Dual Exit, part no. 952-711564, which is compatible with the Weed Eater BC3100."

I've heard tell that some copy editors might not check all the "facts" in this sort of material. Can you imagine being that irresponsible! We're talking weeds here, people.

Deep Questions

How many editors can dance on the head of a writer?

If an editor corrects a typo and no reader is aware that the typo ever existed, has the edit actually been made?

In sicness [sic] and in health

One of my fellow editors asked for my opinion the other day related to "[sic]." I've got her back, she's got mine.

V: Quoted material in MS: "Despite any efforts put into the surge, the first six months of 2007 was still. . ." Would you insert [sic] after "was"?

ME: Either that or just fix it without the sic, to not draw attention to it. Of course I couldn't find this in CM [Chicago Manual of Style], but aren't we allowed to simply fix errors of this kind?

V: So I should change the "was" to "were" and leave it at that? Suppose that would work.

ME: It works for me. Who's going to object?

The thrill is gone.

Got up early this morning to get a jump on my work.

I've completed one online article, sent two back for rewrites, and proofed four pages in my current book project.

I already need a work break.

Where Bad Writing Goes To Die

Here's how my online article editing job works in terms of article selection.

After I log in, I pull up my queue which contains ten titles ready for editing. I can select any one of the ten. Once I pick one, I can do one of three things with it: edit/approve/submit it, edit it and submit it to the writer for a rewrite (this generally seeks clarification), or save it back to the hold area of my queue. If I choose the latter, I have 24 hours to edit it.

If, however, I don't return to that article within 24 hours, it will go back into general circulation for another editor to select.

It is reasonable to conclude that many editors use this option to avoid working on articles that are so badly written, they can't bear the thought of spending an inordinate amount of time to salvage them. After all, we're paid per article, so working on articles of this nature cuts deeply into our hourly pay.

I exercised this option today with an article about online banking. The introduction contained these nuggets:

"Traditional banking and all it alludes is slowly becoming a thing of the past." And: "Online banking gives you access to self serving features."

That was more than enough for me to send the article post haste to the Death Pool. I would imagine that there are some articles out there that don't see the light of day for quite a while, as one editor after another throws them into the dark abyss.

An Idea Whose Time Has Come

I just started editing a new manuscript. I was immediately faced with huge swaths of quoted material without references.

I think it's time that our profession organize in an attempt to stop this crap from reaching our desks, computers, mailboxes, whatever.

And I have the perfect name for our organization:

My Work Queue

When I log in to my online article-editing account, I have a list of ten article titles, each of which needs to be edited.

The titles cover a seemingly endless variety of topics, literally almost anything you can think of. For example, yesterday I edited articles on various aspects of computer use, investing in the stock market, foreign currency exchange, auto maintenance, and more.

Since we are paid on a per-article basis, no doubt each editor has figured out an approach to article selection that is designed to maximize hourly earnings.

Given that one of our responsibilities is fact checking, I would think that most editors lean toward subjects with which they're familiar, at least as far as a title can suggest, and away from the opposite, which might require more fact checking.

Many titles are questions, the answer to which presumably is provided in the article; for example, "How do I apply for Medicare?" So another "test" (i.e., criterion) that I use in selecting a title is to ask myself, How likely is it that the question can be adequately answered in the article?

Which brings me to My not-to-be-touched-with-a-10ft-pole title of the day for yesterday: "List of Jobs Requiring a Bachelor's Degree."

What do you think, about a gazillion jobs condensed into a few hundred words?

Pew Editor Fired: “Search and Replace” Gone Terribly Wrong

WASHINGTON, April 30 (Geuters) — People experienced in the use of the “search and replace” function in word processing software understand that, even though it’s a valuable tool, it’s also a potential minefield.

Editors in particular understand this. Copy Editor Ruud Ozkapici at Pew Research, however, evidently had a mental lapse in running a search and replace and has been fired for the results.

The following is part of the result of Ozkapici’s search and replace, in which he inadvertently searched for “religion/religious” and replaced it with “underwear” rather than “religious affiliation.”

Underwear Changes in the U.S. in Flux

April 27, 2009, Executive Summary

Americans change their underwear early and often. In total, about half of American adults have changed underwear at least once during their lives. Most people who change their underwear leave their childhood underwear before age 24, and many of those who change underwear do so more than once. These are among the key findings of a new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The survey documents the fluidity of underwear in the U.S. and describes in detail the patterns and reasons for change.

The reasons people give for changing their underwear—or leaving underwear altogether—differ widely depending on the origin and destination of the convert. The group that has grown the most in recent years due to underwear change is the unaffiliated population. Two-thirds of former Catholics who have become unaffiliated and half of former Protestants who have become unaffiliated say they left their childhood underwear because they stopped believing in its teachings, and roughly four-in-ten say they became unaffiliated because they do not believe in God or the teachings of most underwear. Additionally, many people who left underwear to become unaffiliated say they did so in part because they think of underwear people as hypocritical or judgmental, because underwear organizations focus too much on rules or because underwear leaders are too focused on power and money. Far fewer say they became unaffiliated because they believe that modern science proves that underwear is just superstition.

In his unsuccessful defense (following discovery of his error just prior to publication), Ozkapici said he was preoccupied with “underwear” when he was editing the report. “I had ruined many of my wife’s panties when I did the laundry,” he said, “and I promised to pick up new ones for her that day.”