Any Editors (big E) in here?

[Seattle Zack]

I started a gig a couple years back as an editor and content coordinator for a pretty big gaming website. Although the industry doesn't lend itself to much in the way of a literary bent, the complete lack of technical proficiency in the articles we've been receiving is appalling.

In addition to copyediting the "content" (always hated that term, it seems so dismissive, as if the dumb words on the page are merely something to fill the spaces between images and interactive flash pieces) I also prepare the layout and formatting and promotion and so on. It's more than traditional editing, but the shit I get from the writers is ridiculous.

(Then again, I see what the writers get paid, and I'm making three times what they are.)

When I was a staff writer on a gaming magazine, it was pretty stringent. We were all expected to be writer/editors, and anyone that couldn't follow the style guide got canned. Our editor was a heartless bitch, and I'm a better writer because of it.

A lot of what's commercially published online sucks, and it's partly because editing seems to have gone out the window. It's certainly true for erotica, and although I don't follow much online publishing for things like fantasy genres and the like, I have no doubt it's true there as well.

Part of it (as it was explained to me by a middle management sycophant who has never touched a computer game) is that "today's content is disposable ... they read it, they throw it away." He even tried to argue that the illiteracy was somehow charming, as it "adds an immediacy to the content." Yeah, everyone wants to read something that looks like it came from a 14-year old's blogspot posting.

Any editors here who do this for a living? What's your take on the quality of online publication?

 

[AsylumSeeker]

(Then again, I see what the writers get paid, and I'm making three times what they are.)

Congrats! You're making MUCH more than me!

 

[CopyCarver]

I started a gig a couple years back as an editor and content coordinator for a pretty big gaming website. Although the industry doesn't lend itself to much in the way of a literary bent, the complete lack of technical proficiency in the articles we've been receiving is appalling.

In addition to copyediting the "content" (always hated that term, it seems so dismissive, as if the dumb words on the page are merely something to fill the spaces between images and interactive flash pieces) I also prepare the layout and formatting and promotion and so on. It's more than traditional editing, but the shit I get from the writers is ridiculous.

(Then again, I see what the writers get paid, and I'm making three times what they are.)

When I was a staff writer on a gaming magazine, it was pretty stringent. We were all expected to be writer/editors, and anyone that couldn't follow the style guide got canned. Our editor was a heartless bitch, and I'm a better writer because of it.

A lot of what's commercially published online sucks, and it's partly because editing seems to have gone out the window. It's certainly true for erotica, and although I don't follow much online publishing for things like fantasy genres and the like, I have no doubt it's true there as well.

Part of it (as it was explained to me by a middle management sycophant who has never touched a computer game) is that "today's content is disposable ... they read it, they throw it away." He even tried to argue that the illiteracy was somehow charming, as it "adds an immediacy to the content." Yeah, everyone wants to read something that looks like it came from a 14-year old's blogspot posting.

Any editors here who do this for a living? What's your take on the quality of online publication?

I've been editing/freelance writing for a living for more years than I care to count. My "take" on the quality of online publication is that no blanket generalization is possible. I've seen a few sites sites that rival the quality of The New Yorker, and some that are so piss-poor that they must be Bill O'Reilly's doing. Most online publication, unfortunately, seems to have about 50% of the merits of quality print media.

My take on pay scales for writers and editors is that both deserve far more than they get.

 

[Seattle Zack]

That's awesome, CopyCarver. Much as I enjoy the unbridled style of sites like Slate, that seems to be the exception. They're high-brow snooty, and that seems to turn off a lot of readers.

Most "online journalism" sucks, and the main reaons is the egregious misspellings and grammatical errors. I can't tell you how many times I've winced at seeing "alot" employed as a regular adjective. Enough to drive a guy to drink. Excessively.

--Zack