So happy New Year to you all out there. I know, you're thinking "it's 1:55pm, you should be working". You'd be right. I've spent from 9:00 till now writing an email to my managing editor about the, er, curious editing to a 40 page document I uploaded on Friday teatime. The working day is pretty much lost now, so I'm going to write about this instead.
What better way to ring in the New Year on here than to vent some spleen. They actually offered me a fixed contract with a fixed salary before Christmas, but haven't replied to my counter offer or follow-up emails, and suspect that after this I won't receive one. I have redacted parts to comply with my confidentiality agreement.
*********
Re: Editing/Revisions to XXXXXXX
Hi XXXXX.
I hope that you are well. I have felt up to this point that further edits to my assignments at the review stage have enhanced the documents further. However, I am unhappy with some of the additions made to XXXXXXX. In particular, I am unhappy with the following two revisions (underlined words were added by the reviewer):
Hi XXXXX.
I hope that you are well. I have felt up to this point that further edits to my assignments at the review stage have enhanced the documents further. However, I am unhappy with some of the additions made to XXXXXXX. In particular, I am unhappy with the following two revisions (underlined words were added by the reviewer):
(1) "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "
(This is the first sentence of the introduction. Most of this sentence was revised, but the misuse of the word "the" really stands out) and
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "
(This is the first sentence of the introduction. Most of this sentence was revised, but the misuse of the word "the" really stands out) and
(2) "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
These to me are clear misuses of definite articles within a sentence. If I received such sentences in a document, they would be the first things revised. The phrase "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" is also not optimal; "adverse effects" or "detrimental effects" read much better, similarly "xxxxxxxxxx" is less than ideal in comparison to "living organisms", which was introduced in the second revised sentence.
I spent approaching 15 hours editing that document. I agree with the greater part of the revisions made, as a different pair of eyes can see things that a pair that sees the same document for three days in a row can miss. However, the introduction of (in my view) prominent, unnecessary errors detracts from the end result. The document has been sent in my name to the client, as I have attached my name to the editor's report. I am somewhat unhappy at being represented as someone without a grasp of something as fundamental as the use of articles in a sentence.
Should the same situation occur in the future, and I disagree with revisions that have been made to my work, what course of action should I take? There is no way to directly respond to the feedback left in "my report" on the xxxxxxxxx. If the document has already been sent back to the client (as is indicated in the feedback), it is arguably already too late. If the client finds the two sentences highlighted in this email unsatisfactory (as he/she should), I will be the one to have my work potentially graded "unsatisfactory" in client feedback.
I apologise for the length of this email. I will always take on board criticism where it is warranted; accepting criticism is the only way to improve performance. I think my performance is much improved from when I began my association with xxxxxx. That said, I take great pride in my work and do not like to see unnecessary, highly visible errors introduced after many hours spent on a document.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
These to me are clear misuses of definite articles within a sentence. If I received such sentences in a document, they would be the first things revised. The phrase "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" is also not optimal; "adverse effects" or "detrimental effects" read much better, similarly "xxxxxxxxxx" is less than ideal in comparison to "living organisms", which was introduced in the second revised sentence.
I spent approaching 15 hours editing that document. I agree with the greater part of the revisions made, as a different pair of eyes can see things that a pair that sees the same document for three days in a row can miss. However, the introduction of (in my view) prominent, unnecessary errors detracts from the end result. The document has been sent in my name to the client, as I have attached my name to the editor's report. I am somewhat unhappy at being represented as someone without a grasp of something as fundamental as the use of articles in a sentence.
Should the same situation occur in the future, and I disagree with revisions that have been made to my work, what course of action should I take? There is no way to directly respond to the feedback left in "my report" on the xxxxxxxxx. If the document has already been sent back to the client (as is indicated in the feedback), it is arguably already too late. If the client finds the two sentences highlighted in this email unsatisfactory (as he/she should), I will be the one to have my work potentially graded "unsatisfactory" in client feedback.
I apologise for the length of this email. I will always take on board criticism where it is warranted; accepting criticism is the only way to improve performance. I think my performance is much improved from when I began my association with xxxxxx. That said, I take great pride in my work and do not like to see unnecessary, highly visible errors introduced after many hours spent on a document.
Best wishes,
Andrew
****************
I'm not sure that I'll see the promotion to a contract now, but I'm sorry, I won't spend three days working on a document for only 80% of my rate (due to it exceeding 8000 words), to see it cocked up in such fashion and not speak up. Someone once told me the first sentence of the introduction is the most important in any paper; it's the one that has to grab the reader and convince them you know what you're talking about and that you can convey your ideas clearly. The revised first sentence sent to the client makes me look like a rank amateur with a tenuous grasp of the English language, not someone with two degrees and nearly 20 years' worth of technical writing experience.
So, so annoyed. Can you imagine how cross this email was before I had someone else look it over to see whether it was too cross (she said it was)? I'm not going to work for this outfit for a second longer than I have to.
