Home › Grading › We Edited the Editing Rubrics for the Editors

We Edited the Editing Rubrics for the Editors

Posted on by Matthew Holden

A PSA from the Department of Redundancy Department

Hey there QG writers!

Last week I wrote a blog post about the implementation of rubrics into our grading system, and since then we have received some great feedback about how we can make the rubrics better.

You spoke, we listened, and here are the changes:

Blog Rubric

Voice

  1. Sentence fluency has been removed as a criteria in this category.

Presentation

  1. Entire category removed and replaced with the Sentence Fluency/Word Choice/Conventions
  2. Choice/Conventions category found on the other three rubrics.

Citation

  1. Entire category removed and replaced with the Factuality category found on the other three rubrics.

Optimized Content Rubric

Keywords

  1. If you remove the keywords you are instructed to keep within the content, you may receive a 1.  In order to receive a 4 all “unremovable” keywords must remain in the content.
  2. You are no longer required to include more than the minimum number of keywords to receive a 4.

Sentence Fluency/Word Choice/Conventions

  1. In order to get a 4, any spelling and grammar errors found within the content should be fixed by the writer.  This is in order to address glaring errors.  Do not rewrite anything.

New Webpages

Sources

  1. Removed the requirement to include more than the required number of links per article in order to receive a 4.

Factuality

  1. Removed “Information is false” from the 2 box.  Left with “Information is misleading.”

Resource Articles

Organization

  1. No longer required to include a conclusion paragraph if one is not asked for in the style instructions.
  2. Introduction paragraph criteria now included.

Sources

  1. Removed need to exceed minimum number of links to get a 4.
  2. Added the implementation of link descriptions (if they are required) as a criteria.

Factuality

  1. Removed “Information is false” from the 2 box.  Left with “Information is misleading.”

Editing is Less Subjective… but Still Requires Our Judgment

I also would like to clear up a point about the rubrics.  One of the major concerns we heard from writers was that we were trying to make editing, an inherently subjective task, entirely objective.  Having worked with the rubrics for some time now, we can say unequivocally that this is not the case.  There are still gray areas even when using a rubric.  In some cases there are competing criteria within the same number on the rubric.

For instance:

If we’re trying to determine how well “Presentation” was addressed in a blog post, we’re looking at a few different (and sometimes competing) criteria.  We’re looking at spelling, grammar, and formatting.  Therefore, if we receive a piece with 10 spelling mistakes, but perfect grammar and formatting, we’re looking at a couple competing aspects of the piece.  The spelling warrants a 1 for “Presentation,” while the grammar and formatting warrants a 4.  In this case we usually discuss as a team and come to a consensus, and it is something of a judgment call based on our experience.

Long story short, a number grade for a particular grading criteria indicates the existence of at least one but not necessarily all of the factors needed to receive that number.

Onward and Upward

So here’s the long and short of it. Things will change, but we’re always simply trying to make things better. We are working constantly to be the best at what we do, and we cannot do that without your support and feedback. I’ve said it before… we’re a pretty open bunch… and I think the changes above (based primarily on the feedback we have received) speaks to that, so keep the feedback coming, and we’ll do everything feasible to meet your needs.

About

Matthew Holden is the Director of Content Marketing for Online Writing Jobs, and a frequent contributor to the OWJ blog. After receiving a Master’s degree in English Education from Sage Graduate School in Troy, New York, he began writing freelance, and eventually full-time, for various companies and media outlets. After spending some time writing marketing copy, he became interested in the various ways a company can market itself online through the use of different types of content marketing.

Today, as the Director of Content Marketing, Matt oversees strategy creation, production, implementation, and promotion, of content written by experts and influencers from across the country in every vertical imaginable. When he is not overseeing the creation and promotion of thousands of pieces of content a year for OWJ clients, Matt can be found writing some for himself.

Apply Now

Share this post:
Posted in Grading