Metroblog

A one-time school project gone terribly, terribly wrong.

04 August 2009

My Dear Suite101.com

Hi Guys:

Since your email came from "noreply@suite101.com" (an address I've learned is morally equivalent to "go₤µ¢λyourself@suite101.com") I can't write back to you, but of course the World Wide Web is indeed wide, and so I've decided to post a reply to your reply to my "application" to write for you.

In short: Go ₤µ¢λ yourselves.

Does that seem rude? Do I sound less-than-impressed by your considered and thoughtful response from "noreply@suite101.com"? Well let me try to put this in terms you genii (reach for your dictionaries--one genius, two genii) can understand:

If you were arrested, would you prefer that the charge sheet state:
"You are being charged with committing malicious parking in a handicapped zone"
--that being the sort of thing I suspect you do for kicks.

-or would you rather it read thusly:
"You are being charged with one of the following possible offences:
1) Mopery and dopery on the spaceways
2) Extreme flatulence in a public conveyance
3) Malicious parking in a handicapped zone
4) Knowingly and with malice aforethought bringing out photos of your children to show the unfortunate clerk while the lineup gets longer behind you at the grocery.
5) Keeping a number of cats exceeding the number of rooms in your home."
Me neither, so let me enlighten you as to your approach when dismissing someone who actually took a fair bit of time to adapt and edit some work your readers might have enjoyed while I was applying to write for you.

Rejection from employment, if presented as a form letter, should never imply that a human ever looked at the submitted samples. It's obvious no-one with eyeballs (or any other kind) has seen what I submitted.

In that case, why provide the following advisory?
Your application to be a Contributing Writer to Suite101.com has been declined for ONE of the following reasons:

* your areas of expertise and samples did not reflect the search interests of our Web audience;
* your educational and employment experience did not suggest authoritative expertise re the subject areas you wish to cover;
* the tone of your samples was better suited to a site either more or less formal than our own;
* your writing sample may have had serious errors in language use, structure, grammar, spelling, or punctuation;
* your writing suggested a first-person, experiential, or opinion-based approach to material rather than an objective journalistic style that quoted verifiable sources.

Due to volume of applicants and limited editorial staff and time we are not able to field inquiries requesting more specific reasons for declining this application.
To quote a sergeant I once worked for, "Why couldn't you just have told me to ₤µ¢λ off?"

If anyone had truly read the samples I sent, then you wouldn't need this broadsheet multiple-choice approach. You'd have been able to say "We're sorry, but we're really not looking for that sort of material." Or "Your work is far too classy for a $#17-ass pack of grammatical illiterates such as ourselves," or even "We're sorry, but you spell like a Brit, and we cater to the Alabama trailer-park demographic. They don't understand the word 'neighbour.'"

Instead, you ran my samples through some sort of filter designed to mine the money-making stuff. So if my spelling didn't suit, or my turn of phrase was maybe a tad over-elaborate, it wasn't going to get through. If I didn't submit samples on the topics you failed to specify you need covered, then it wasn't going to get through. If, in other words, any thought, reading comprehension, or intellect was required to make sense of my prose, that wasn't going to do it for Suite101.com.

However, I'd like to thank you for the laugh I got when I spotted the following at the bottom of your form letter:
You are welcome to reapply at a later date should your credentials and samples change. We wish you the best with your writing career and thank you for considering Suite as a publishing platform
Let me make a slight grammatical correction for the sake of clarity, albeit from a "first-person, experiential, or opinion-based approach to material rather than an objective journalistic style that quoted verifiable sources":

"₤µ¢λ off."

Now perhaps we understand each other a bit better.

Oh,I can handle rejection alright. But form-letter rejection trying to pretend anyone with authority, or even a human, saw my work gets right on my nuts, in case you genii hadn't guessed.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Comments:

At 12:23 AM, OpenID silverstar98121 said...

I never wrote for a living, but I sure got a lot of form letter rejections. I had a pile an inch high at one time (pre-email). It felt very good to burn that pile. They don't know what they missed.

Half the time nowadays they look up your credit rating, and then decline to give you a job. Never figuring out that if your credit rating is in the shitter, it might be because YOU NEED A JOB.

Fuck them all with donkey cocks at noon on Sunday. Preferably at 4th and Main.

 
At 9:41 AM, Blogger Metro said...

While I would never advocate public bestiality without the informed consent of all parties including the audience, I must say that I concur with the general thrust (a-hem) of your sentiments.

I have no problem being rejected. Particularly for any one of the causes they cited. But their "one of the following" approach just infuriates me. Any human editor worth his salt could identify the one reason. But no editor saw my material. So screw 'em. Hard, fast, and painful.

 
At 8:59 PM, Blogger NationalPrint.org said...

suit101 really hit it with me, I have a doctoral in religious study.
I was offering my expertize in paranormal. They don't allow titles and had the same thing to say. They right out insulted my education. So all their reporter report on real reporters story's, so my sample story was a report on their reporters story and they said the source wasn't reliable. Also I used undeserved authority. I'm a F'ing real life Doctor in Religion. That give me the authority to use authority.

 
At 9:12 PM, Blogger NationalPrint.org said...

I forgot to tell you, I reapplied and told them what I thought of them.
I don't mind rejection at all, it was insulting my education that got me. They claim one girl makes 2k a week there. They are in Canada, Maybe they just hire Canadians. Some one should put in an app and use a canadian address. I ran copy scape on my blog that I posted the rejection letter on and it found a lot of blogs with the same rejection letter. It also could be the same person writing all the story's. Just putting the writer app out there to get visitors. I know they tried to charge me 70.00 for the link through click bank. Ohh and that do it hard thing, :) yeah go for it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home