5 Tell Tale Signs of a Bad Editor

We’ve all suffered through nightmare editors: the kind who make outrageous demands, sit on your article for months before requesting a million rewrites, and never seem to know the ETA on your paycheck. I tried to compile a list of warning signs to avoid this type of shady character altogether, but instead I came up with some signs that you may encounter as you get further into the editing process.

1. They give you a vague direction on your story angle, then ask twenty billion clarifying questions after you’ve turned in the article. I try to avoid this by anticipating any issues before they happen (yes, this is hard, especially when you’re first starting out). I’ve even been known to email an editor to approve a source before I do an interview: “just wanted to check in and make sure this is the type of source you had in mind.” A thorough editor appreciates this because it saves them from asking you to rewrite later and possibly delay printing.
2. They give you a topic and word count that are totally incongruous. For example, a 150 word piece on the history of Greece or a 2,500 word feature on Uggs (can you say Ugh?!). I was once asked to write a multiple-choice quiz in fewer than 250 words. I can be succinct when I need to be, but 250 words is REALLY short! I asked the editor to expand the word count, but she never got back to me, so she ended up with the World’s Shortest Quiz and I had a clip that was practically useless. I didn’t work with said editor after that. Good editors understand what a reasonable word count is, rather than making you a slave to layout or budgeting concerns.
3. They make assignments and update their writers via mass email (and don’t even bother to use bcc). I’ve cut most of these editors out of my life, thankfully. Half the time I used to email them back and the story topics were all snatched up! If an editor wants to make an assignment to me, she can email me directly and not her complete list of fifty-some-odd writers.
4. After they make an assignment, they don’t send a copy of their pub’s style guide and ignore all of your style-related questions. Not all websites or magazines have their own style guide, but the editor should certainly know whether they favor past or present tense for quotes and if they use the serial comma. A response like “whatever you think is best” rubs me the wrong way, because it shows a complete lack of respect for language.
5. They are not sure when the article will run or when you might see your check. In fact, they’ve stopped responding altogether! It’s one thing if you’re paid on acceptance (and “acceptance” is often defined a bit too liberally for my tastes), but if you’re getting paid on publication, it’s not fair to string you along. I also hate it when you're writing for a publication that's not available on newstands and they "forget" to send you a contributor's copy. Sorry, but these editors aren’t worth my time or yours!
6. UPDATE: They actually make your article worse by inserting factual errors and typos or distorting the meaning of the article. Dawn rightfully pointed out that this is another gripe that writers (including me) sometimes have. Even though I listed #1 as a pet peeve, I'd rather they ask me to clarify than commit textual homicide.

To be fair, there are some great editors out there, too. Check back later this week for the flip side of this topic.