The wonderful one was an editor who asked me to write short (300-800 word) pieces on some local companies. The only overriding guideline was to focus on each company's importance to the community. Two of these companies had 60+ year histories we needed to convey, and I knew I'd need to give readers a rough idea of their products/services, and how many people they employ locally. That's a lot of info for a few hundred words. One of my assignments was to rewrite copy another writer had turned in that had missed the mark. Grammatically it was fine. She covered the basics, but she spent nearly three paragraphs explaining where the company name originated — something I accomplished in under 10 words. She focused on minutia instead of substance. As soon as I read that copy I knew what to change, even before my follow up interview with the company owner. The editor said he was thrilled with my copy.

The awful experience is still fresh, so this may get a bit rant-y, so feel free to scroll right down to the last sentence.

It was a service piece for a major magazine. The editor provided a list of 12-15 things to include, but said I could change it up depending on what I find. She said to ask questions. My first question was about the types of sources she wanted — I wasn't asking for sources, but she provided a couple for me to try. Because it was my first piece for her, I sent her a list of the sources I was planning to contact just to see if I was on the right track. She approved them all, including the two she'd suggested.

Three months after I turned in my initial copy she sent it back for revisions, saying two sources (the ones she'd suggested!) weren't credible enough. And despite having told me I could interview spokespeople, she axed a third source because it was a spokesperson for a trade organization. The editor also insisted that I include one of her original topics, which I'd already told her had been completely debunked by a national research organization; she told me to find something else to fill that void. So on top of the other changes she wanted (some of which were valid), I had to find and re-interview three sources in less than two weeks and rewrite the entire 1,000-word article. Then she cut five days off my deadline and demanded my revision the next day (because for some reason their sales team needed it). When I said I'd do my utmost to make the new deadline (a Friday), she said she'd give me until Monday morning, and insinuated that I wasn't acting professional. What? I turned the revision in on time, and all she said was, "Got it." It's been three months and I haven't heard a word since.

While 95% of the editors I've worked with over the years have been easy to work with, there are a few full-time editors who are nightmares. I don't care how high-profile a publication is, I refuse to work for someone like that a second time.