How to Celebrate the 4th
Hey there, DSSers!
Happy 4th of July weekend! Hope all of you are going to stuff your face with hot dogs, apple pie, and celebrate kicking the Brits asses!!!
And what better way to celebrate freedom than to read something you’re not supposed to see?
That’s why our July 4th present to all you loyal DSSers out there is a COMPLETE VERSION OF THE DEMAND STUDIOS GUIDE FOR COPY EDITORS!!
See, I told you not all Copy Editors were bad. These were uploaded to a file sharing service by one of the DS CEs who pointed out their location for us.
Now, it’s not like their the Pentagon Papers or anything, but they are fairly interesting.
I don’t know why DS WOULDN’T want writers to know this stuff anyway. That would make LESS work for the CEs and MORE MONEY for Demand Studios.
But then, I write DS articles for $15/pop and completely getting shut out of the gold rush going on at the end of the year, so what do I know about making money…
I think it’s just part of the built in system to keep the distance between CEs and Writers. I don’t think DS did this as part of some evil plan, but they probably paid a lot of money to find out that it probably made more business sense to keep Writers and CEs segregated from one another and at each others throats.
Anyway, enough of my yapping. Guides are down below. You need Adobe Acrobat to read them.
Here you go! Happy writing!
DEMAND STUDIOS COPY EDITORS GUIDES
Hey Dis: The thing is, I don’t believe they are intentionally attempting to foster animosity between anyone. I know one CE who freelances for the company and she tells me the company has issued formal directives, including guidelines, that instruct the editors to compose cordial, helpful notes to writers, and that editors who abuse writers or consistently fail to provide adequate guidance lose their editing privileges. That doesn’t sound like a company that wants to foment unrest. I just looked and I can’t find the DS thread, but I also recall reading that the rejection percentage is relatively low, and that the number of complaints they receive about editors is, when compared to the enormous volume of articles they produce, relatively insignificant. But that’s not the point. The question is does the company want us and the editors at each other’s throats. I see no evidence of that, and, based on my friend’s revelation, some evidence that Demand is endeavoring to avoid friction. Why doesn’t it work better? I don’t know enough about the inner working of the company’s system to answer that with assurance. But it’s probably because writing and editing are performed by humans, and humans, no matter how few or how many guidelines you strap on them, fuck up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron, I don’t really disagree with anything you said, but I have a question about your last paragraph. Why, indeed, does Demand foster animosity between CEs and writers? You see the results of it all over the DS forums and this site. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it’s in the top 2-3 reasons for dissatisfaction with DS.
Do you have any theories on that, or is it your contention that it’s all in the minds of those who dare to voice an opinion?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ron, I don’t really disagree with anything you said, but I have a question about your last paragraph. Why, indeed, does Demand foster animosity between CEs and writers? You see the results of it all over the DS forums and this site. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it’s in the top 2-3 reasons for dissatisaction with DS.
Do you have any theories on that, or is it your contention that it’s all in the minds of those who dare to voice an opinion?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dis: “Kicking” or “kick back” is a common term in editorial newsrooms. It simply means “send back.” There is nothing derogatory in that.
I do visit the forums, which is why I know Demand has repeatedly presented sound reasons for maintaining the anonymity of their copy editors. At least they satisfy me. They’ve made it clear that they can immediately identify the editor of any article. If I have a complaint against an editor, I send the article title or titles, and get fast action.
Honestly, I’m not sure what to make of forums as a gauge of popular opinion. It seems like such a tiny percentage of the Demand community posts, I can’t tell what the opinions of those who do post represents. Every marketing study I’ve ever read indicates that most people who post in forums do so to complain.
It’s like this place. When you read thread after thread, you feel like your part of a movement. But then you notice it’s the same few names, over and over again. I may be wrong–it’s not like I’ve counted–but it seems like there is only 30 or so regular visitors here. Such a small number out of so many writers, it seems that not many people are complaining.
There also appears to be a delusion here. Perhaps it started when the person who runs this site wrote something like (I don’t have the quote in front of me): “Demand sure does suck, and I work for the company.”
That’s incorrect. None of us work for Demand. We work for ourselves. We’re independent contractors, and Demand is OUR client. If a client is only willing to pay a certain amount, or sets conditions you don’t like, you simply move on to other clients. Why whine when no one forces you to offer your services to the company?
The gardener who grooms most of the lawns and gardens in my neighborhood doesn’t want to work for what I want to pay. So I have a different gardener, someone who fits my budget. The same equation should apply to this relationship. Continuing with a client you don’t like, or who doesn’t satisfy your needs is a form of neurosis.
And I still don’t understand why Demand would want editors and writers at each other’s throats. Karla wrote “It keeps the status quo…” What does that mean? The very fact that they have editors vetting our work is enough for them to claim rigorous standards, whether you agree with that or not. Maintaining friction doesn’t help that claim at all. How do they trumpet that to the world? They are in the business of producing content, and maintaining friction can only impede production. Why would they want that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK, Ron, I’ll concede that “out-of-hand” was a poor choice of words. I should have said the CE would “kick” your work upstairs for a ruling. Let’s keep the voice consistent with the intent that a writer’s work is something that deserves “kicking.”
I am VERY glad to hear that you have gotten good results in having your work salvaged. It would seem to me that any time a writer manages to compose a coherent article around a title, the contention that the title is “unwritable” becomes moot. It’s BEEN written. Period.
As for the adversarial relationships DS fosters, it doesn’t seem that you read the DS forums much. A day doesn’t go by when writers don’t complain about capricious, inconsistent, derisive, or incomprehensible CE behavior.
I’m not saying all writers are angels. I have no doubt many of them make the CEs tear their hair and gnash their teeth.
Writers have been asking forever to have some idea of CE identity, if only a number, so they can tell if they’re being edited by the same CE or different ones.
There’s nothing remotely unreasonable about this request. It would help writers see if THEY have a problem (if numerous CEs ask for the same rewrites or fix the same errors), or if a particular CE has a blind spot that DS should know about.
Yet DS ignores this one thing that could do SO MUCH to smooth out relations and help writers understand the editing process. Why, if not because they prefer the ongoing conflict? I agree with you that it’s totally illogical and counter-productive. Yet it’s a fact.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I doubt they would change it.
The phrase is probably only offensive to writers.
The wedge keeps things status quo. DS won’t change this process because it allows them to proclaim to the world that they have a rigorous editing process carried out by “pros.” They want to hook more writers and editors with it but we all know how true that statement actually is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mace: I do think many people here read their own biases into actions and words, but that’s pretty natural isn’t it? I think Discontented just did that very thing here. You wrote that editors can delete articles out-of-hand if an editor doesn’t understand or like the title. That’s simply not true. I’ve had two deletions, and each required a lead’s permission> I had two near-deletions, but the lead (I have no idea if it was Richard, Eve or someone else) saved one with a title tweak, and saved the other by writing that my article came close enough to the intent of the title. I would think the guidelines for editors are more complete in terms of style, since they must pay close attention to it. But the question remains why would this company want to drive a wedge between it’s creators? That seems highly illogical. I think it’s more likely that they just have too many guidelines because they’ve grown so fast.
I do agree that “demand a rewrite” is poor phrasing, but is it such a big deal? Why don’t you write to the copyediting team on the Help Desk and point out the impression it makes. It wouldn’t surprise me if they changed that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mace, I think this one sentence alone in the CE guidelines was designed to keep CEs and writers adversarial:
“If you receive an article with a title that is impossible to fulfill, kick it back to the writer either demanding a rewrite or explaining that the title is impossible to fulfill and should be deleted from the system.”
Would you have been eager to write for DS if they had told you up-front your work could be “kicked back” with a “demand” that you rewrite it, or that it could just be deleted out-of-hand if the CE doesn’t happen to like/understand the title?
I found quite a few points in the CE guidelines that I don’t remember in the writer guidelines. They seem to be more complete in terms of style. Why would that be, do you think?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is your big surprise? This? Are you joking? I am bitterly disappointed by the hype. There is nothing in these files we didn’t know, and this statement below shows you have lost your compass, that your bias against Demand is such that you can no longer see the obvious. Anyone who reads these guides can see that the instructions in the guidelines represent a tweak from our guidelines simply because CEs perform different tasks. There is nothing nefarious here, and nothing to support your charge that the company wants writers and editors at each other. That’s contrary to the reason Demand is in business. My friend, you need a long look in the mirror. You’re starting to lose it.
You wrote:
I think it’s just part of the built in system to keep the distance between CEs and Writers. I don’t think DS did this as part of some evil plan, but they probably paid a lot of money to find out that it probably made more business sense to keep Writers and CEs segregated from one another and at each others throats.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is your big surprise? This? Are you joking? I am bitterly disappointed by the hype. There is nothing in these files we didn’t know, and this statement shows you have lost your compass, that your bias against Demand is such that you can no longer see the obvious> Anyone who reads these guides can see that the instructions in the guidelines represent a tweak from our guidelines simply because CEs perform different tasks. There is nothing nefarious here, and nothing to support your charge that the company wants writers and editors at each other. That’s contrary to the reason Demand is in business. My friend, you need a long look in the mirror. You’re starting to lose it.
You wrote:
I think it’s just part of the built in system to keep the distance between CEs and Writers. I don’t think DS did this as part of some evil plan, but they probably paid a lot of money to find out that it probably made more business sense to keep Writers and CEs segregated from one another and at each others throats.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Forum posts have a max length and it is really rude to post multipage documents in a forum. Guess there is one big thing in common with this place and DS: lots of people who work on the interwebs and yet cannot figure out how to troubleshoot a problem. Here you go, nice and safe for all the pussies (they will be available for three days):
http://view.samurajdata.se/psview.php?id=d008e866&page=1
http://view.samurajdata.se/psview.php?id=c8088ee5&page=1
http://view.samurajdata.se/psview.php?id=05442f3b&page=1
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bummer. Cannot get the site to open. Anyone wanna C&P in the forum? Pretty please? With sugar on top?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So from now on I should just include one reference? Good to know.
No, because then CEs will mark you down on your reference score (as many have stated on the forums), or accuse you of plagiarism because all your information came from one source.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, what a reasoned response.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The thing that jumps out at me from the first document is that the CE can scan the whole thing, including the bio, before deciding whether to take it or not. There have been several writers on the DS forums who swore that a certain CE had it out for them, and they were told repeatedly that there is NO WAY a CE knows who wrote the article until the very end of the editing process. It sounds to me like a psycho editor could spend time looking for titles someone they hate might write, and know ahead of time if their “victim” wrote the article.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
John…don’t be a dillhole. These are just perfectly normal PDF files.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Any way someone can copy and paste this shit? Perhaps over on the forums? I’m afraid to open it with the warning my computer is giving me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This line in the fact checking guidelines has me befuddled:
If there are multiple facts to check and the writer lists more than one reference, use Google rather than the writer’s links to check the facts.
What. The. Fuck. I go through the trouble of using Google to find these multiple references in the first place, and then by the very fact that I include more than one ref, all of them should be ignored? I am so confused. So from now on I should just include one reference? Good to know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah – that’s just the site it’s warning you about. I’ve heard that site might be used for other….erm…nefarious purposes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
2Sly4U, Norton warned me also that the site they’re saved on apparently has issues, but I was able to just “open” (not save) the files with Adobe Reader and Norton didn’t give me any more lip.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seriously, what is the big deal? Why would they refuse to share these with writers? There is nothing crazy here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OMG OMG ::CUMMING IN MY PANTS::
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can’t get them to load! Keeps saying it is Malware.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I second that thanks!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ooooooo, thanks! I will be reading these with great interest. And thanks to P1N, too! Happy Independence Day, DSS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0