Here we go...
I have been a writer for bleacherreport.com for a little over a month. I have written several articles. I enjoy writing the articles, and I have my own writing style.
However, I am an editor as well.
I do not go around changing the content of other articles. I simply look for errors such as, spelling, grammar, punctuation, spacing, capitalization, formatting, etc...
I do not change the pictures nor do I try to make an article one of my own. It is not the job of the editor to do so.
There has been more than one occasion in which my article(s) have been totally changed. If I use (parentheses) that means I wanted it like that. If I use ... that means I wanted a ....
So, please feel free to look at my articles to see if I missed a comma or forgot to put in a simple word. But, DO NOT change my article to make it what you think it should be. Do not change my picture to one I did not choose.
I make mistakes, and they need correcting. Just don't make an article worse than it was.
OH YEAH! Do not remove tags. If I write about the sweet sixteen, i may tag it with "final four" or "elite eight", big deal. It's ok.
Now if I were to tag it with "NFL", I might expect a deletion.
Chances are, I will just revert to my original post after you waste your time editing.
Think yew an hav uh nise dey.
comments (32) write a comment »
write a new comment
4 months ago
you go Scott! give 'em heck!
4 months ago
Amen
4 months ago
I'm with you. To be honest, I think that editors ought to have to send you a proposed revision before it's actually changed and out there for the world to see. My first article got the tags changed and a picture of Huet added. My article was about a Habs goalie in 1911. Please tell me what Huet has to do with that??
I've actually taken classes on professional editing, and it's really a more collaborative process than what's allowed here. Why isn't ours?
from 4 months ago
I agree Jennifer, the author should have to approve the changes. I think if the BR is worried about the content/grammar, then they can withhold an article from being published on a front page until it has been edited and approved (or simply approved).
4 months ago
It would help if you didn't draw attention to the article by placing an inappropriate apostrophe in the title (Editors not Editor's).
Were you trying to be ironic?
4 months ago
Thank you for speaking up Scott. I have been a contributor to this site for a week now and both of the articles I have written were altered a fair bit from the original. All writers have a style that is distinctive to the individual writer, and for someone to have the nerve to change it to look like it was written in thier own style instead of that of the original writer is in my humble opinion nothing more than plageurism.
We are essentially amateurs. We don't get paid for this. So I ask what is in it for the ones who feel the need to change our columns to look more professional? I know what I mean in my articles. That is why they are written that way.
PLEASE STOP EDITING OUR ARTICLES. LET US WRITE THEM OUR OWN WAY!
4 months ago
Like Andrew, I'm interested to know if the author realizes the mistake made in the title of his article.
That said, I can't disagree more. Bleacher Report allows you the opportunity to make your views public, and allows you to write on any topic you want --even ones that suggest the site on which you published this article is ineffective! That's kind of like having your cake and eating it, too.
BR has a set system of editors. They also set forth several guidelines for every writer on the site's blog, which Ryan Alberti updates regularly. And you can't blame them; they want the site to look as professional and cohesive as possible.
Bleacher Report has made it clear how they want their articles to look. If you want to use ellipses, parentheses, or anything else, feel free to do so on your own blog.
Just my 2 cents.
from 4 months ago
I agree with Tim. I completely disagree with you. And what's up with all the unnecessary tags?
4 months ago
Accepting any type of editing is one of the most difficult things for a writer to accept - but it must be accepted, because it is part of the process. That being said, if a particular editor is taking liberties or changing things in an innappropriate way, they should be called out on that - just the way a writer is called out if his or her article is shit.
4 months ago
I'm going to have to disagree with you as well. BR has a set of rules for posting, and you need to follow these formatting, spelling, and punctuation rules.
Now, it would be a different situation if someone, say you, wrote an article and someone like me (high-schooler) edited it to how I think it be. You obviously have more experience than I do, so I shouldn't be tinkering with your work.
4 months ago
I have experienced some isues with the editing of my aticles too but I brought them up with Ryan or the editor in question in private not in an article for everyone to see. It's not as bad as you make it out to be, first of all. We need editors and your title is a perfect example, because a lot of people don't know how to use proper grammar, sentence structure, etc. There is not enough time to run the changes by us first.
So I disagree with airing out dirty laundry in public. We're trying to get something good going here and establish some credibility here Scott.
And remember, you always have the option to reject the changes and revert back to your version.
4 months ago
WOW!! I figured this article would generate some interest. I must first of say, the mistakes in the title and the article were purposely made. Well most of them. LOL, I am not the perfect proofer. I need an editor(proofreader). But, I do not need my article to be re-written.
I appreciate when someone dresses up my article when i have made a mistake. However, I want my article to say what I want it to say. Not what someone else wants it to say. The editors need to do proof readings and only change inaccurate stats and such.
I never said this site was ineffective. That was just a stretch right there. If I thought it were, I wouldn't be on it.
Yes, there needs to be editors, and yes, my articles need edited.
Also, I am an editor that hopes I do not change anyone's article in any way but to make it LOOK better.
And, I know I can revert back to the original if I want to. But, it gets old, especially when the article has had 10 edits, and someone feels like they need to change the picture..
Fella's, I am not trying to air dirty laundry, I am just making a plea. Editors need to keep editing, but keep in mind, USA Today isn't gonna care to much when your resume lists Bleacher Report as part of your experience, at least not at this juncture. Although, I must say, these guys are good. Bleacherreport.com is taking off. I am impressed. I hope this site continues to grow and these guys become billionaires.
Don't think that this article is going to hurt the site. It will only draw interest.
Now, count how many mistakes I made in this comment...let me know...
OH! Andrew, just because you are in High School, does not mean you can't be a good writer or editor. I am sure you could write as good as anyone else. Thanks for showing interest.
4 months ago
By the way... how about some props for the Mark May picture...i thought it was a good choice. He is the best critic of college football (well in his mind)
4 months ago
I can understand how frustrating it must be to have your articles edited in an unsatisfactory way, and have your actual meaning and style of written changed. I know it would infuriate me. As for my own personal experience (2 articles lol) I have really appreciated the editing, my biggest problem is format, I also have a poor understanding of proper placement of commas in certain situations, and I also tend to create run on sentences or excessively long paragraphs. From what I've seen the editors do a good job, they aren't paid and you can't expect them to edit perfectly. One pet peeve of mine though is the improper use of the "good" instead of "well"...I saw this on a recent article, I checked to see if it was edited and to my surprise it had been...well anyway enough with things that only bother me :P.
4 months ago
My biggest pet peeve is about the story selection personally. I wrote a piece that got attention from 3 different media sources the other day, and it's BURIED behind 5 stories about how the Leafs 'are playing amazing' and 'what they need to do to get in the playoffs' I write a non-TML piece for the first time and as of right now, it will be seen by noone.
5 for Chirping is on Bleacher Report right now!...somewhere.
As for the editing goes, I will agree that some edits are a bit too involved, but if you want to post in a moderated medium, suck it up.
4 months ago
First of all, Mark May sucks.
Great pic though, haha.
Nice article and I agree that there should be a proposed revision sort-of screening process rather than having changes automatically made. But you seem to be a good writer and for those of us on this site, I agree. Leave our stuff alone.
However Scott, we are one hell of a minority. Everybody on this site thinks they can write, and write well. The rules in place are there for a reason. You've got every right to disagree with them as they pertain to you, but in the grand scheme of things I understand why they're there.
4 months ago
Yeah I'm not a Mark May fan either... that is why I used him on an article that I knew would draw alot of flack...lol
4 months ago
I agree that editor's shouldn't completely change the meaning of something, but if it helps it to flow better, then it is perfectly acceptable. If you don't like it that much, just change it back. I also think that for the most part, they should leave the headlines alone
4 months ago
The only problem I have with the editing process on here is that there are times where 6 or 7 different people will edit an article. At a certain point it becomes too much. I'd prefer it much more if only say 1-2 people could edit one article in addition to the writer before it was locked from editing for other parties.
4 months ago
As a former writer for Bleacher Report (BCS Busters) I wrote upwards of 35-40 articles last fall. While I enjoyed having my grammar mistakes edited, I did not enjoy the changes to the theme of the article. I wrote an article which called out the gross unfairness and favoritism that the SEC receives on a weekly basis throughout college football and the article was changed to a PAC-10 versus SEC comparison. I received a landslide of criticism, which I handled on my own as I answered EVERY SINGLE comment (over 100) that was thrown my way, but I didn't enjoy having to answer the PAC-10 versus SEC comparison because that was not the gist of my article.
At the end of the day, I left Bleacher Report over this issue. I DO NOT think the articles should be altered in terms on content, but I do think things like sentence structure, punctuation and spelling errors should be corrected and I enjoyed having that process available to me as I have several other full-time opportunities on my plate and do not have the time to proof read or readjust. It was bitter-sweet! I enjoyed having this service but didn't enjoy changing the theme of the article to satisfy the administration at Bleacher Report who is obviously engaged in garnering as much traffic as possible. I can see both sides of the equation. I don't visit the site very often any more, but this one caught my attention as I left Bleacher Report over this very issue so I thought I would give my take in the hopes that The Bleacher Report would listen and not run people away from the site. By the way, I really like the new look!
4 months ago
I couldn't agree with you more Scott. In the past week, I've had my articles re-titled, reworded for a different meaning, and even had actual quotes messed with!
When editing, you are supposed to clear up grammar and spelling along with rewording sentence structure to CONVEY not CONVERT the ORIGINAL MEANING of the author. I can point out at least three instances over the weekend where my article changed meaning by the edits attempted.
Yes, BR has their rules and guidelines and they should be followed, but that doesn't mean that the edits are worthy regardless of who is doing the editing. Thankfully, BR allows us to revert to a previous article. All of this doesn't mean that you go in and edit for the sake of editing.
I think that some people are editing any and everything in order to improve their writer rankings, and that's not necessarily a good thing.
4 months ago
amen to that ive had many of my articles gutted I hate it. btw the tags and all the rest was the whole point because these @$$holes can read it and then stop . im fine with picture changing if you think you have a better pic then mine, perfect example is my there will be blood article i just went with the Final Four logo. so i liked it. I say i can always change it back.
4 months ago
I've never had anyone edit my article and change the content or the "view" I was trying to give off. But I've come across a few articles where the author said that happened.
I sincerely hope the editors aren't doing that. If they are I think you should tell someone and revert your article back and leave a feedback note about it so if someone does come by they will see that you need it proof read.
I've got nothing but great things to say about the people who have edited my articles. I do have a few beefs with the "loss of tags".
However I don't understand how they choose what goes up certain places. I could have a new Indians article and it will be nowhere to be found on the Indians page. That's the frustrating part. All in all though this is a great site.
4 months ago
I can see why Scott's article (here) has generated a whole lot of controversy. My last article was edited twice and the first editor had more spelling mistakes then I had made in my previous five articles all together! Proofreading the edited articles should be a given by our mostly competent and reliable editors. As far as content editing goes - yes - I have had my own issues regarding what had been removed/altered from my writings; however, in the end I have generally liked how my articles were posted after their visitation to the 'editors studio'. I do agree with Jared's comment about locking in an article once it has been edited at least twice. Ultimately...how much editing of one article is too much? I hope that in 'good faith' most editors are editing for the goodness of the article and not to rise in writer rankings as Rob suggested. 'Peace-out' and BR is still an awesome sports writers forum!
4 months ago
Dear Bleacher Report Writers,
I just want to chime in to say that this feedback has been great, and every one of these comments are being read by Zander, Ryan, and the rest of the BR team.
I wanted to take a moment to introduce myself and the role that I play in all this. I'm one of the guys who helped start this site, and have since taken up a fulltime focus on the Technology and Product side of Bleacher Report. This means that I work with the engineers to design and build all of the new features that have been rolled out in recent months.
From this perspective, I can tell you that we have been listening to your comments, and that the Technology and Product team will continue to do everything we can do address the concerns. What are some of the changes? For starters, we are going to immediately re-evaluate what role, if any, Editing should play in the User Rankings. This is not a promise that there will be an instant, overnight change, but that could very well be the result. We originally baked that in to encourage the RIGHT kind of editing, from which many of us have benefited. And the vast majority of users are doing the RIGHT kind of editing. But we will take a hard look at our current scoring system, if our writers feel that it is encouraging the wrong kind of editing.
We are also going to make things better by handing more control over to the writers from the get go. Improving writer tools is our #1 priority since we left Beta over a month ago. I don't want to spoil any surprises, but look for major improvements in this area throughout the Spring. Our hope is that we can continue to provide quality editing, but these new writer tools will make it so editing is less necessary from the get-go. That is something that benefits the whole community.
This is long enough to warrant a blog post, so I will probably turn it into just that!
Thanks Everyone,
Bryan
4 months ago
Hey guys,
First off, let me point out how exciting it is to see such an eloquent debate taking place over one of the most important aspects of Bleacher Report. It's encouraging that everyone cares enough about the site and the quality of its content to weigh in on this topic.
My big takeaway from this conversation is that there is a wide array of opinions amongst our membership regarding the role that editing plays on the network. Some of you wish that your articles wouldn't be touched after you publish them, while others feel strongly that the current editing system improves your work for the better. And as to be expected, many of your viewpoints fall somewhere in between these two.
This is extremely useful information, as in the past we took it for granted that the majority of folks enjoyed our free editing service. As a rapidly expanding sports network, it's important that we understand your concerns in the hopes of offering a unique experience that truly empowers each of you as fan-experts and writers.
In other words: if you feel that the editing process is not living up to its billing, we want to know! So major props to Scott for expressing his opinion on the matter and to the rest of you for throwing in your two cents.
As Bryan points out, you can expect a host of new writing tools in the near future that will reduce the need for editing out of the gate. Another new development that I thought I'd let you guys in on is our plan to give writers the option to "turn editing off" for their articles entirely.
Our content management team works hard to ensure that article editing is beneficial, rather than harmful, to your work. That said, we recognize that some of you may feel that the changes editors make are too intrusive for confront, or simply don't like the idea of having your work altered in the first place.
As a network serving you, the fan-expert, we're not here to tell you what you can and can't do with your writing. So instead of forcing you to constantly revert back to previous versions of your work when you are not satisfied with the manner in which it was altered, you'll now be able to make your articles unchangeable by other people if you so choose.
If any of you have follow up questions about these upcoming developments, don't hesitate to get in touch with me at zander@bleacherreport.com. Thanks again to all of you for taking part in this conversation and for your honesty and helpful feedback.
Zander Freund
Content and Community Director
Bleacher Report Team
4 months ago
And because someone has to bring up the rear...
First, let me echo everything Bryan and Zander have said, especially on the subject of Bleacher Report existing only and entirely to serve its writers. If some aspect of the site isn't working, or could be improved, it's vital that we hear about it. So...hooray for honest and open debate.
Second, in the spirit of total transparency, I'm including here BR's full body of online editing resources. If nothing else, I hope that the links will give non-editors a better sense of the BR editing philosophy, and of the level of work we expect from our editing team...
Editor's Cheat Sheet: http://bleacherreport.com/pages/cheatsheet
Bleacher Report Style Appendix: http://bleacherreport.com/pages/styleguide
Editor's Tips: http://bleacherreport.com/pages/tips
Editing Case Study: http://bleacherreport.com/pages/casestudy
I'd encourage anyone who's ever had a problem with an editor (or anyone who just wants to learn more about what makes the site tick) to take a close look at all of the above. If you find a section that could be improved, or a principle that doesn't make sense, don't hesitate to let me know at ralberti@bleacherreport.com.
Like I said, BR is only viable to the extent that it serves its user base. If we don't do right by you, we don't do right period. Thanks to everyone who's helped us--all of us--get where we need to go.
Ryan Alberti
Managing Editor
Bleacher Report Team
4 months ago
Hey, thanks guys for responding. It helps us to know you are trying to help. I am not sure that editing should be taken away, totally. However, some tweaks could help. But, you all are the masterminds and I am sure you will do the best thing.
I like the idea of giving more editing recources to the writer. Also, maybe starting editing rights at a certin level, i.e. analyst, senior writer, etc..., would help the matter and making new articles available to edit as soon as they are published would help. I may be doing something wrong, but they do not appear in my queue till the day after they are published.
I will follow the guidlines you set. Thanks for everything............,()" ' :;?
Scott
3 months ago
This is BCS Busters again,
Just a thought, what if the writers could assign who they would like to edit their work. Essentially you could develop a better relationship between writer and editor and the editor could begin to learn the individual styles that each writer brings to the table and in the long run it could foster not only better communication between writer and editor, but also better writing in general.
The thing that I liked about Bleacher Report is topic of reporting are aspects that do not get covered by the mainstream media. I've always believed in the team concept and maybe it would be better to assign a group of writers and editors together as part of a team. A little more organization to the overall process would lead to much better results in the long run.
Finally, Have you figured out the video capabilities that you folks were thinking about last fall? It would be great to embed video within an article as it would provide for much more professionalism when covering a content related to a topic.
3 months ago
I just want to be able to use the word "ain't" once in a while, being a rural resident of a pioneer state.
I know ain't ain't a word, but it's one to me.
I also enjoy using big words like "insalubrious" in a column too, normally in the same sentence as the word "ain't". One, I find it funny, and two, sometimes solipsist is the right word to use, and sometimes more crass insults are warranted.
Sure, I've taken some big hits from Mr. Alberti's editing but 99% of the time he improves my writing, makes it more direct.
It's an eternal struggle between the editor (who cares about the audience and such things as readability) and the writer (who is interested in looking oh so smart with his [or hers] ostentatious erudition). In the end we should probably err to the side of the audience.
about 1 month ago
Fortunately I haven't had any really bad experiences with editors. To those who get their articles gutted, all I can say is try to keep an eye on your play-by-play and revert articles as necessary. The ability to revert to previous versions is your way to get back what you had.
As for tags, I completely disagree with the author. The more random, tangential, or spurious tags that get added to articles, the less useful they are.
about 1 month ago
Well said!
I think sometimes editors may be justified in changing article content (for example, to remove something that is glaringly incorrect, and therefore potentially an embarrassment to the original author), but even in the most extreme cases it is probably preferable to contact the author with a helpful suggestion rather than going in with a chop-and-slash approach.
And, in very rare instances, it may be acceptable to add something. In such cases I think the best way to handle it would be to use the accepted standard from the magazine publishing industry and use square brackets, italics, and the "-Ed" signature. If extra content must be added, then it should be ideally at the end of the article, or immediately following the statement on which it comments.
For example:
[Since this article was written, Fred Smith actually did go on to win the Championship - Ed]
Or:
[Fred Smith withdrew from the tournament shortly after this article was written, to care for his sick goldfish - Ed]
But, take note that I said that such edits should be very rare, and you're definitely right in saying that editors should not try to take over the article and make it their own.
Finally, it is absolutely good manners for editors to include feedback in the section provided for it, to explain the purpose of the edit. This not only helps to smooth out any hard feelings, but it also helps authors to learn from their mistakes.
Don't forget, as an editor, you may misunderstand a statement made by the author, and by changing it to what you think it should be, you might totally change the whole context of the statement.
Fortunately authors seem to have some control over this, and can elect to revert to an earlier version of the article, but this depends on them having noticed that the edit occurred.
write a new comment