I'm not afraid to admit that I'm a slow editor, but I don't believe that clients should have to pay more just because I'm taking my time to provide better work. I've learned over the years that reading the text slowly, carefully, and multiple times yields better results. I read through manuscripts three times before I'm comfortable sending my work back to clients. The first read is to simply take in the story, learn about the characters, and understand the plot. Unless I come across an obvious error that's easy to fix, there really isn't any editing being done at this time. No style choices are made. I might make a few notes on my style sheet, but that's the extent of it. I've found that doing this preliminary read is helpful because by the time I get to the next read, where the heavy editing happens, I'm already familiar enough with the plot and characters that the new revelations of the story don't distract me from my task of editing. That first read is the fastest of the three passes, whereas the second read is the slowest because that's where the bulk of the actual editing is done. Finally, I read the entire manuscript a third time as basically a final proofread of my work. Here I ensure my style changes are consistent, flesh out any comments I've left for the client, and obviously see if I missed anything. All of this is a lot of work that takes time, but it's what I've found to work best for me and results in a manuscript I am proud to return to my client. The amount of time it takes me to do all of this (usually about a month per manuscript) is also part of the reason why I don't charge per hour. I charge based on the word count. To me, this is the simplest, most straightforward way to do things. A client can tell me their word count before they even send me their manuscript and I can immediately give them a price based on that word count. If I charged per hour I would have to estimate how much time it would take me, and if I ended up going over that estimate, that could result in an unhappy client. Then there are other factors that could determine how many hours are required to do the editing. You can look up a past post of mine that talks more about this, but an example would be if a manuscript is in a much poorer state than expected. This would automatically increase editing time and result in the price increasing, which isn't fair to the client. The last thing I want to do is take advantage of my clients. I am thankful for every person who entrusts their manuscripts to me, and part of what I strive to give them in return is a clear price for the work. No surprises. This has been the reasoning to why I charge per word instead of per hour. I believe the majority of editors do the same, but I'm always flummoxed when I do see people charging per hour. To me, the per-word rate is by far the better way to go, and I don't see myself ever changing my mind about that. Timothy #amediting #writingcommunity #editing #proofreading
I'm fascinated to learn how editors calculate and function and process their work flow. We all have to figure out what works best for us and our specialization and clientele. Thanks for sharing your system! I have a similar slow, multi-pass process. But I don't calculate based solely on word count. I also consider the type of edit and scope of project (maybe that goes without saying?) - after looking at the manuscript. I start with my per word base rate but then consider my estimate of how deep the edit will need to be, how many rounds will be required, my understanding of where the author is in their writing journey, and what they want from the collaboration. Just as it seems perhaps unfair to charge per hour, since really efficient, speedy editors will get a lot more done in less time and will thus be paid less for the same quality result as slower, more methodical editors (although that leaves time for more projects, so it may work out fine) - so it doesn't seem fair to charge the same amount to an experienced author with a 'clean' manuscript who just needs a copy edit as I would a newbie author who needs more explanation and word craft coaching in a deeper line edit.
Logical reasoning. However, if the manuscript is in poorer state, you, the editor, get paid the same and have to spend longer on it, which could hurt your income. (I'm just playing devil's advocate here.)
Fantastic post and great to see someone do what I've come to realise is necessary for each manuscript. Editing work takes time and reading multiple times bears great fruits. I prefer quality over quantity of editing jobs.
Freelance editor (academic journals)
1moI prefer to charge per hour. Many of the manuscripts that I receive are written by scientists whose first language is not English. They vary enormously in the time required to process each thousand words to a reasonable standard and it would be difficult to find a rate per thousand words that gives a fair result consistently. I have had some experience charging per thousand words. Usually, I feel (very) short changed. In theory, when text is in a good condition, a rate per thousand words could work in my favour. However, these days, text that's in a good condition is offshored or edited by AI (sometimes with hilarious results), or otherwise farmed off to those who are not expected to engage with the content meaningfully. Only in one case have I found that charging per thousand words works both for me and for the publisher -- here, the manuscripts are in good condition but they do require some intelligent human intervention. So, in summary, charging per thousand words works poorly if the manuscript is in a bad state (because I am underpaid), or a good state (because the customer decides that my services are not needed for it); however, it works well for everyone if the manuscript is somewhere between these two extremes.