Victoria Strauss Warns of Impersonation Scams Targeting Authors

Something I'm noticing in editing content that 𝘪𝘴𝘯'𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘈𝘐-𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘴: Articles become glorified bulleted lists where every section is 1-2 paragraphs long, the paragraphs don't say much of anything, and there's no continuous thought that ties the sections together. It's not that they're total gobbledygook. The individual sentences and paragraphs might be fine. But the articles aren't providing anything useful to readers. The author doesn't have anything to 𝘴𝘢𝘺. So here's my friendly reminder as an editor (and writer): Most of writing is 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. If you don't have a clear thought you're trying to communicate to your audience, you probably don't need to be writing anything. Don't produce content just for content's sake. Start with an idea, a story, a message. Sit in thought before you turn to the pen, the keyboard, or yes, I guess, the robot 🙄

If you're an editor who's newer to the field (welcome!), you might wonder how best to handle queries and comments in a substantive edit. Here are three things to keep in mind for writing queries that yield more clarity and help maintain a positive relationship with the author. https://lnkd.in/eQhwnP9Z

Editors: How do you maintain an ethical relationship with authors? Though a few film directors—Roberto Benigni, Warren Beatty, and Laurence Olivier—won Oscars for acting in a film they directed, none have ever won an Oscar for a performance done by one of their actors. This is because every actor is entitled to kudos or raspberries for the performance they chose, regardless of anyone’s (e.g., the director’s, costume or lighting designer’s, make-up artist, etc.) influence on that performance. This also why those influencers are nominated for awards in their own field. Therefore, because writer’s make the choices that shape their work, they have the legal and ethical right to control their work unless they have assigned their rights to someone else. As an editor—a mere influencer—I am not making the choices that create the work. So, like a director, I’m only making suggestions. The author makes the final choices, and I must respect their control over that work. This is why, upon request, I happily sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA). Yet, without an NDA I still treat every client’s work entrusted to me—their text, ideas and names—as if I had signed an NDA. Doing otherwise would be at the least unethical and at the most unlawful. Should I want to use portions of a client’s anonymized pre- and post-edit work as examples of my ability, I only do so with their written permission. If I believe that an author would benefit from the help of another editor, formatter, book designer or publisher, I do not share their name or contact information without written permission. Furthermore, if any client declines my requests, I accept that with equanimity. Finally, and most importantly, to maintain an ethical relationship with a client, I prefer to work under a mutually agreed upon contract that clearly states the rights and responsibilities of both parties. For more thoughts about my Editing Philosophy, visit my website. 🌐 www.checkmateediting.com   #CopyEditing #AcademicEditing #EditingHelp #ContentClarity #Editing #Editor #NonfictionEditing #BookEditing #ArticleEditing #FreelanceEditing #LineEdit #Developmentaledit

When I first started writing content, I thought the goal was to make it sound… smart. Big words. Perfect sentences. Very “professional” tone. Basically the kind of writing that looks impressive. But over time I realised something. Most people don’t read content like they’re reading an English exam paper. They scroll. They skim. They stop only if something feels relatable. The biggest mistake new content writers make is this: They write to impress people, instead of trying to connect with them. The funny part is, The posts that perform the best are usually the simplest ones. The ones that sound like a real person talking. Not like a corporate robot who swallowed a dictionary. Now whenever I write, I ask myself one simple question: “Would I actually say this in a conversation?” If the answer is no… I rewrite it. Because good content doesn’t feel like content. It feels like someone talking to you.

AI is a sham. We are being gaslit. It's supposed to help and serve humans only as a tool. But what's happening now is all about money, money money. Tech companies advancing the AI that will make them the most money, not the AI that will help humanity the most. The trajectory needs to change. And for certain, I've also noticed huge mistakes with AI-written materials laden with flowery language that goes nowhere and endless repetition. Personally, I think generative AI is hurting authors and publishers alike.

Am I the only one who is noticing daily increases in obvious errors that a young child would make (context/tense, duplication, spelling, etc) on 75% of websites in the past year? This is in addition to mindless, repetitive, generic nonsense, I have HUNDREDS of examples just like this. Businesses that rely heavily on Al for content writing/editing should be VERY cautious. EASIER AND FASTER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER. #protectyourself #roamingredneckwriter

Bad content gets caught by spellcheck. Vague content gets published every day. And no one notices until trust is gone. Next time you edit a draft, 𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 5 𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐫𝐨-𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐬. I run them on every draft I edit. Mine and my clients’. They take minutes. But they change how the whole piece reads. The carousel shows the five swaps I use. Most people thinks fact-checking is just for catching wrong numbers. It isn’t. It forces you to replace vague language with defensible claims. “Many companies” becomes a named example. “It has been shown” becomes a specific source. “Always verify” becomes an actual workflow. That's what claim-level editing does. Fixing errors? Nah. It fixes fixes weak writing at the sentence level. Did the idea of 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦-𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 resonate with you? #AIcontent #copyediting #contentwriting #editing

Nobody talks about bad editors. They should. I have written content professionally for years, and some of the hardest parts of the job had nothing to do with writing. They had everything to do with the person editing it. The worst editors I worked with shared one thing in common. They never explained a single change. A paragraph would come back rewritten, a section would disappear, the whole tone would shift, and there was no comment, no note, nothing. Just a cleaner version that sounded nothing like me. And when I asked why? Silence. Or worse, that particular kind of condescension that says "just trust me, I know better." Being a non-native speaker made it worse. Some editors treat that as an open invitation to rewrite everything, not because the meaning was unclear, but because it did not sound the way they would have written it. There is a difference between fixing a genuine language problem and erasing someone's voice because it is foreign to you. Good editors know that difference. Bad ones never bother to learn it. What writers actually need from an editor is not a corrected draft. It is a conversation. A note that says "this section loses the reader" or "the argument breaks down here" gives a writer something to work with and something to learn from. A silently rewritten paragraph gives them nothing except the message that their judgment cannot be trusted. The best editors I worked with made me better at writing. The worst ones just made me better at guessing what they wanted. There is a real skill to editing well, and a big part of it is remembering that the writer is a person, not a draft to be fixed.

I rejected a writer last week. Her writing was genuinely better than mine. But I still said no. And I've been thinking about why ever since. She sent a sample. Clean. Structured. No errors. I read the whole thing and felt absolutely nothing. So before I decided, I asked her one question. "What do you want the reader to feel after reading this?" She said: "Informed." And that was it for me. Informed is not a feeling. Informed is what a textbook does. I've gone through 40+ applications at Varchasv Global in the last few months. Most people who applied could write. Actually write. Good sentences, good flow. But writing well and making someone feel something — those are two completely different skills. The writers who get hired and rehired and referred — they don't start with "what should I say." They start with "what should this person feel when they finish reading." Angry. Seen. Stupid for not doing this sooner. Like they need to forward this to someone right now. That's the job. If your content looks good but nobody's sharing it — you're writing for editors, not for humans. Save this. It took me 40+ applications to figure it out. WELL we had a 2 hour Zoom call. brand, audience, purpose — all clearly on the table. she knew exactly what kind of content this was for. after all that context, INFORMED still wasn't the right answer for a creative agency's brand content #ContentWriting #WritingTips #VarchasvGlobal #HiringAdvice #ContentStrategy

A few days ago, one of my juniors sent me an article on a technical evergreen topic. At first look - I thought it was sharp. It had smart points and good research. Then I ran it through Hemingway out of curiosity. Guess what - the sentences were ROASTED! Half of them were yellow. Three were red. One sentence was 42 words long. I had to read it twice just to understand the points. So I cut - split - simplified. The article got clearer. Not "better words." Just clearer thinking. Then I thought about it from a reader's perspective, what I want as a reader? I don't look for A+ tier words, impressive research paper typos, sentences. All I want is frictionless reading. Hemingway does that job really well. Why new-Gen writers should use Hemingway Editor? With this, you can fix - ✅ Unnecessary long sentences ✅ Passive voice issues ✅ Paragraphs that exhaust the reader BTW, it doesn't make you a good writer, it just eliminates the laziness from your writing.