Bryan M. Wolfe

I see a lot of anxiety from both editors and writers over the use of AI detectors. Editors are wondering if they should use them, and then fretting that writers are purposefully submitting error-riddled work just to avoid being flagged as AI. Writers are terrified that their legit work will be rejected because some faulty detector says it's straight from an LLM. There are a lot of discussions about AI use worth having. But for my money, there is a simple and singular solution to this particular quandary: 🛑 STOP USING AI DETECTORS 🛑 As a writer and an editor, I am BEGGING you to adandon them. AI dectors are notoriously bad at their one job. They can't actually detect shit. They will give you false negatives and false positives. If you don't want your writers to use AI in any way, hire writers you trust and state that in your contract. Better yet, accept that many writers will use AI as a tool and set your own guidelines around how you expect your writers to use these tools. If you want them to use a prioprietary tool, provide access to it. And then edit as you always would. Don't accept lazy metaphors or repetitive structure or overuse of any punctuation — not because they're "signs of AI" but because they're hallmarks of poor writing. Ask for sources for any data cited. Require quotes from SMEs. Provide original research as fodder for the content. Ensure the content is clear, compelling, and authoritative (or whatever your TOV guide stipulates). If you do all of that, it actually won't matter whether or how much the writer used AI to provide the draft. Don't waste your time or risk demeaning your writers by trying to find a smoking AI gun. You're not Benoit Blanc. Just hold your editorial standards high and proceed from there.

113

51 Comments

What happened to editors? In my experience, they're supposed to be mentors and guides who help writers become better. Today, all I see as editors is a barge of inexperienced people who will comment the following: "rephrase" "unclear" "change this line" "flow not adding up" (please note this is caused by the editor first blindly accepting Grammarly suggestions) "not enough keywords" "too many keywords" Do you see what the problem with this is? It teaches a writer nothing and the editor will take 0 effort to try and help the writer come up with a better line. Also, what's up with editors literally just accepting the suggestions from Grammarly and calling it a day? Wasn't it supposed to be only a tool that helps editors? Today, you can just make it the editor and get away with it I guess. Do you know what's the result of this? Writers who perpetually keep making the same mistakes and editors who can now finally preserve their jobs and keep commenting the same exact things on every article. In my experience as a content writer, I have had great editors who have taught me a lot about writing and helped me understand how to differentiate approaches based on context. These learnings have stayed with me since and helped me become a better writer. So, instead of commenting "rephrase" or "unclear", my editor would tell me to "make this section a little bit more professional, catering to a business owner." Or something like, "This section is focusing on too many things at once; cut down and focus on only one and then write about the next ones in a different line or section." Is this so hard? Later, when I was an editor, I did the same for some junior colleagues who worked with me as a part of a team. In an ideal world, when you keep helping a writer improve their craft, the job of an editor diminishes over time. Since we all don't work at magazines, is this why the current class of editors across agencies are just desperately trying to hold on to their jobs and not do their job at the same time? I don't know, you tell me? . . . . #editor #lookbossiamdoingmyjob #ihavemadeawhitepageyellow #whatdoyoumeanGrammarlysuggestionsarenotright

88

34 Comments

Generative AI hasn't taken my job, but it has made it unfeasible. For a while, I thought I'd be okay—it was wiping out all of the entry level work, which I don't do. But then all of a sudden, the entry-level writers were competing with me for the higher-tier stuff, and clients were unwilling to pay a premium for a writer when they were used to getting things for free from generative AI. I used to pitch for work against half a dozen other writers. Now, it's not uncommon to find myself pitching against over a hundred. I've still been getting work, but at a fraction of the rate I've come to expect over the last eight years. It doesn't help that I can't even pitch for anything that explicitly states "no AI", because in my experience, those clients run whatever you write through AI detection tools until they get a false positive and then refuse to pay you. Ironically, those tools tend to flag my writing as AI generated because most generative AI tools have used my writing as training data, without my consent. I've even had people refuse to pay me under the false claim that I used AI when I have screen recordings of me writing the piece, because they claimed that I must have been using a generative AI tool on another device. When people first started talking about AI taking writers' jobs away, I didn't think it applied to me. But I was wrong. On the plus side, I've been thinking about making a change for a while now. One of the problems with freelance writing is that it's stopped me from working on my books in the evening. When I have client work, I've worked on that. When I haven't, I've spent my free time looking for more work. I miss writing for myself! And I have something super exciting lined up, which I'll be revealing over the next couple of days. I'll still be taking on freelance writing and editing assignments (and working with the clients that I already have), but I'll also be making a pivot that will allow me to take the next big step in my career and—hopefully—to make the world a better place. The threat that generative AI poses to the creative industry is no joke, folks. I count myself as one of the lucky ones because I've landed on my feet, but I know plenty of fellow freelancers who've gone bankrupt and/or lost their houses. My only advice is to know your worth. Don't be tempted to undersell yourself and to take a job writing a 60,000 word romance novel for $20 (yes, I actually saw someone do this). Generative AI is here to stay, but we're also in the middle of a bubble. You've just got to stay afloat until the bubble bursts.

269

38 Comments

The best writers online are not the best writers. They’re the best at noticing. Most people chase writing skills, but the game is actually noticing skills: > Noticing what frustrates people > Noticing gaps in existing advice > Noticing hidden patterns in your niche > Noticing emerging trends early Every viral post I’ve written started with something I noticed, not something I “knew.” Want to grow online? Train your lens, not just your pen.

82

18 Comments

Let’s talk pitching. I’d love to hear from fellow editors and freelance writers. I’ve placed stories in national outlets, but lately I’m hitting more silence than replies, even from editors I have relationships with. Here’s my process: - I keep pitches to ~200 words and grant a two-week exclusivity window with a specific date. That way, if I don’t get a reply, I can re-pitch after the two mark. - I usually follow up once after a week (sometimes twice by the two-week mark, but often just once). I never follow up until a week has passed. Absolutely no more than two follow-ups! - I tailor every pitch to each individual publication’s specific column and reshape the angle before sending it elsewhere. - I track everything in an Excel pitch log so I don’t lose momentum. It helps me remember when to follow up and re-pitch angles elsewhere. - I send an intro email before pitching blind to a new editor, highlighting my beat and past work, and asking for pitching guidelines if they’re not posted. - For subject lines, I use “Pitch: Column: Subject” so editors can immediately see why I’m in their inbox. I worry this may filter out my emails elsewhere, so editors don’t see them. I’ve heard that the pre-pandemic rule of pitching one editor at a time and following up twice (before pitching elsewhere) no longer applies. Do you agree? Have you changed how you handle exclusivity, follow-ups, or re-pitching the angle elsewhere? As an editor myself, I know how full inboxes get, especially now, with fewer editors on staff as publications shutter or lay off teams, and more freelancers flooding the field. That creates even more noise in inboxes. What drives me a little mad is that pitching feels like passive time, hours spent not earning as a freelancer. That said, actively pitching makes editors more likely to send assignments your way, based on my experience. I’m not just venting, I’d love to swap strategies so we can all navigate this more challenging landscape together. Lately, I’ve noticed that editors sometimes hold onto pitches for months, making it hard to decide whether to move on or wait it out. I’ve also been wondering if shorter “one-paragraph” pitches cut through the inbox noise better than ~200 words. I’m curious: what’s actually working for you in this landscape? What’s the one pitching strategy you’ve found most effective in 2025? Wide open to thoughts, critiques, and strategies. I've shared my methodology above.

170

45 Comments

Editor PSA: “Alot” is not a word. I repeat: A. LOT. Is. Not. A. Word. As an editor, I’ve seen “alot” 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘵. And every time, a red pen cries in despair. I get it. “Alot” feels like it should be a word. It’s quick. It’s casual. It looks like its cousins “along” and “abroad.” But unlike them, “alot” is just… wandering the dictionary parking lot without a pass. Let’s break it down: ✅ “A lot” = a large quantity ❌ “Alot” = a large mistake If you’re ever unsure, try this: Would you write “alittle”? “abit”? “aneditor’ssoul”? No? Exactly. So the next time you’re tempted to write 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘵, stop. Take a deep breath. Give your spacebar some love. Your future editor will thank you (and so will your credibility). #EditingTips #WritingMatters #GrammarHumor #ALotToThinkAbout #EditorLife #LinkedInWit #TheEditDerr

274

156 Comments

🔥💡📝 Pro writing tip: If your draft isn’t working, try deleting your first paragraph. Maybe you can drop the preamble and just cut to the chase. Still not working? Delete the next paragraph and re-read. Repeat this process until you have a beautiful blank page, then go outside and sit on the grass. Something will probably turn up. 🌳

69

6 Comments

Writers & industry professionals are starting to ask if the romantasy trend is going to cool down—or if it's too late to start writing it. Maybe for some it's a hope the trend will pass, but if so, bad news ahead. I recently spoke with Alex Newton of K-lytics about what he's seeing in the Amazon marketplace (Kindle specifically). Here are the high-level takeaways: 🔹 Romantasy is no fad. K-lytics’ decade of Kindle data shows that genre waves last 5-10 years, and romantasy is a factor in many Kindle bestsellers—enough to reshape the sci-fi & fantasy charts. 🔹 More generally, romance rules Amazon: 61% of 2025’s top 100 bestsellers are romance, with most other hits adding a “romance-plus” subplot. 🔹 Algorithms amplify winners. Amazon’s “sell-more-of-what-sells” loop concentrates attention. Success favors stories that remix proven tropes—see Rebecca Yarros’s FOURTH WING. 🔹 Next niche to watch: contemporary Western romance, led by Elsie Silver.

151

20 Comments

A company reached out to me about editorial consulting work; after a 15-min conversation, I said, "You need an SEO audit, not editorial work." An individual asked for consulting about voice-to-text typing; after reading his questions, I wrote back, "I'm not sure that's the right tool. Have you looked into recording audio files and transcribing them?" (he later confirmed, yes, that's a much better solution). Another group asked for editorial feedback on a newsletter, which I can't give unless I know a lot more about audience, objectives, etc., but anyway, that newsletter needs a design overhaul first and editorial work second. I could have taken money from some of these people. I could have let people believe they were on the right path. But they were not. That right there is the difference between yes-men and people who use their brains to do the work.

226

18 Comments

If you still review content for typos, not trajectory, you’re missing the point. When I first started out, I thought a “content audit” meant proofreading. I’d zoom into every line, every comma, every keyword, like a grammar cop on a caffeine rush. I'd check for grammar slips, word count, and keyword density. It looked neat and read well, but never really moved the brand forward. That’s when I realized: I wasn’t fixing their content problem. I was just decorating it. Now, if/when I audit a brand’s content, I don’t start with grammar. I begin with strategy. Here’s my 3-step framework: √ Content Fit/Relevance Does this piece sound like something the target audience actually cares about, right now? Does this piece still align with the brand’s product positioning and business goals? If not, it’s irrelevant noise. Most content becomes “dead weight” not because it’s bad, but because it’s outdated. √ Conversion Flow/Retention: Is there a clear emotional path from first line to final click? Does it hold the reader long enough to convert curiosity into conviction? If I can’t feel the brand’s voice or rhythm after the second paragraph, it’s not sticky enough. As your first audience, if I can’t trace it, neither can the remaining audience. √ CTA Intent/ROI (Return on Intent): What’s the next step this content is driving, awareness, lead, trust, or sale? If there’s no measurable intent, then it’s just another noise. When I began using this approach, everything changed; clients started seeing growth, not just “great writing.” That’s what happens when you audit content like a strategist. You stop fixing commas and start fixing direction. So here’s my question to you, when last did you audit your brand content beyond typos? When you look at your content today, are you proofreading or positioning? Because one gets you approval. The other gets you results. Drop your audit routine (or your struggle) in the comments. Let’s see how you measure direction, not just delivery.

43

20 Comments

𝗧𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗪𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (Part 2 of 4) Technical writers aren’t just documentation creators; we’re also caretakers. Our responsibility doesn't stop once a document is published. When content becomes outdated, it confuses and frustrates users, impacts support teams, and erodes trust. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗼𝗰𝘀 𝟭. 𝗘𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗢𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 & 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗗𝗼𝗰𝘀 Maintain an internal index that maps documents to owners and doc locations, ensuring nothing slips through the cracks. 𝟮. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗔𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝘀 Schedule recurring reviews to identify stale content before users do. Tie reviews to release cycles so product changes don’t get missed. 𝟯. 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘀 (𝗦𝗠𝗘𝘀) Loop in developers, QA, and product managers to validate accuracy. A short SME review can save hours of user frustration. 𝟰. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗖𝗮𝗻’𝘁 𝗚𝗲𝘁 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗡𝗲𝗲𝗱 If SMEs are unavailable or requirements are unclear, don’t “fill in the blanks.” Outdated or inaccurate docs are worse than missing docs. Leave it out and flag it until you can obtain the correct information. 𝟱. 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗗𝗼𝗰 When updating a doc, check the entire doc for accuracy, not just the section you edited. 𝟲. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗩𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 & 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗢𝗹𝗱 𝗗𝗼𝗰𝘀 Archive, never delete. Old content may be required for audits, reference, or compliance purposes. Use versioning to track changes and clearly label deprecated material to avoid confusion. 𝟳. 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 Use tooling (CMS workflows, scripts, or doc-as-code pipelines) to trigger alerts when APIs, features, or release notes change. Automation catches what humans miss. 𝟴. 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 Add a feedback option to every doc. When users flag an issue, act quickly and thank them. Fast updates show the docs are active and that feedback is valued. 𝟵. 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗠𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘀 & 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗧𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘁𝘀 Watch for documentation-related tickets or repeated questions. They are signals that something in the doc isn’t clear or current. 𝗕𝗼𝗻𝘂𝘀 𝗧𝗶𝗽: Treat docs like code. If your devs wouldn’t ship untested, outdated code, neither should you publish stale documentation. (Stay tuned for Part 3: Keeping Docs Fresh Is a Team Effort.) 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀? How do you handle outdated documentation in your organization? Do you use scheduled audits, automation, or feedback loops to keep content fresh? Share your strategies! #TechnicalWriting #DocumentationMatters #WritersHelpingWriters

63

3 Comments

While some copyeditors love to trim unnecessary words (like changing “in order to” to just “to”), the real heart of copyediting is making sure everything is grammatically correct and spelled right. So, don’t worry if your copyediting job involves correcting spelling and grammar. You’re doing what’s required. #Copyediting #Spelling #Grammar

41

9 Comments

WRITERS: Don't throw away content. Instead of the Delete key, use cut-and-paste: Keep a scrap file of longer deleted passages (full paragraph or up). It doesn't have to be outlined, doesn't have to be multiple indexed files--just a simple single file where you paste the pieces you've given up on. When you think, "Maybe I should've included that line about Tippecanoe after all. How did that go?", it'll be easier to search that file than to search your memory.

18

1 Comment

It’s not hard to find good writers. Really. BUT…it is hard to produce good writing. That’s the actual problem and runs contrary to what I often hear from marketing leaders and business leaders. This is an important distinction to make. It's *not* hard to find good writers. But, good writing is hard to produce. Why? The reasons are often self inflicted wounds. If you’re having a hard time finding good writers, I can confidently refer a dozen or more to you right now. But, if you’re not set up for actually producing good writing, you’ll be doing yourself, and the writer, a disservice. This morning, I walk through the 2 biggest reasons I've observed (from companies I work with as well as 15+ years of experience leading marketing teams) why it's so hard "to find good writers." Link to subscribe in the first comment.

133

36 Comments

3 best writing advice I found from journalism style guides: "Use short sentences. Use short first paragraphs. Use vigorous English. Be positive, not negative." - The Star Copy Style Sheet "If it is possible to cut out a word, always cut it out." - The Economist Style Guide "A single rule might suffice: The rule of common sense will prevail at all times." - The New York Times Style Book for Writers and Editors, 1962. #Writing #storytelling #Ghostwriter

19

7 Comments