Turns out the editor had sent the info, just in a different attachment. Semantics: when she said "assignment letter" I thought she meant the e-mail in which she officially assigned the work. She meant the "Article Assignment Sheet" that had been attached. I'd looked that over but was so tired from working all day on another thing for the same editor that I didn't even see the explanation of the term when I was looking straight at it. A good night's sleep and a clear perspective and I now owe the editor an apology. (Granted, she could have been clearer about which of the 6 or so documents she'd sent contained the info.) It was in a chart, and turns out I did in fact magically incorporate the XYZs without realizing it. (FYI: Any decent writer would have. The terms I needed to include were different tenses of the main topic.)

If you walk away with nothing, it's this: Don't be afraid to ask questions in fear of losing the opportunity. Better than getting stuck in a bad situation and working out of it.

Paula, that is SO frustrating! I agree. If you want me to follow your rules, then follow your own.

Ashley, it was waving on the original post, but I wanted to see what was up. I knew going in this was how it would end, but hey, all in the name of research, right? 🙂

Paula is lovely, isn't she? And Devon, the temptation to say that very thing – oh, I could have been in such trouble if I'd acted on it! LOL

Good call, Lori, to pass on this one. I'm glad you didn't waste any more of your time!

I wish Google would allow the profile name to be set for each blog, 1 to 1.

Yep, been there. Nothing like following the guidelines to the letter and getting back a rude response saying, "obviously you didn't read the guidelines because of x, y, z". Uh, when a, b, c were listed and x, y, z were not — YOU're the asshole, not me! 😉 (meaning, of course, the "editor" not Paula, who is lovely).

Thankfully I haven't come across anything like this. (How are they managing to disable e-mail, anyway?)

One thing I've encountered twice lately are the editors who say, "We're highly formatted so you MUST follow our guidelines closely," and expect you to include special things they never mentioned. Or if they mentioned it, they didn't explain it.

I'm all about trying to match each client's style as closely as I can, but if you say "you MUST include XYZ for each example" and then don't explain what the term XYZ means, don't snap when the writer asks what you mean! Very recently I had an editor do just that. The terse reply was, "It was in your assignment letter." Um…no, it wasn't. It also wasn't mentioned in your FAQ, guidelines, contract, or any e-mails.

Receiving no clarification, I sent in what I had with a note saying I hope that I managed to unknowingly include the XYZ by following the examples I was given.

In short: Editors/clients who demand perfection from their contributors ought to demand it of themselves, too.

Wendy, likewise. I don't normally mind Google (I use it), but as you suggested, the 916 didn't make sense.

MamaStick (I won't use your real name unless you say it's okay), thanks for commenting. I had wondered if that email (and yes, I got one, too) didn't cause grief with email accounts. I tried to respond to you via that and my Verizon account wouldn't let any of it through. I did get that response from "Andy" – I tend to ignore people who try to rally you to the cause, then ask you to vote in the upcoming election (What the HELL was that about?)…

Jenn, I suspect it is a phishing scam. That it poses as a job offer is weird. Honestly, the first red flag went up when I saw the pay rate. No one offers that on Craig's List! LOL