Content Crooner

Hello all,

Seems there is a bit of confusion about exactly what was said in a previous post this week. I have received several queries about it, so I’ll clear it up now, once and for all.

The data used in the blog post about correcting HTML errors in the body of articles was correct. I was not referencing the author’s resource box.

“But HTML is only allowed in the author’s resource box.”

This, too, is true. You still cannot put intentional HTML code in the body of the article.

The “HTML” I was referring to is when certain symbols or special characters are used in the article body box of the submissions form. For example, the infamous “curly quotes,” &, %, #, ellipses, dashes or word processor generated bullet marks, to name a few.

The software read these as HTML because they are frequently used in HTML code. It became confused and rendered them as garbled symbols in the finished text. This in turn generated an error for the author to fix.

But this is no longer the case. Our tech team created a way that makes the software more intuitive to the author’s intent than to the computer’s logic.

If this is what you gleaned from the earlier post, good. If not, then hopefully this clears that up for you.

The benefits to authors are obvious: you are no longer as tightly restricted in your composition and the overall article rejection rate has been reduced to an unprecedented level. More of your articles go out the door in less time than ever before.

This single improvement led the way to 1.8 million article distributions during our first two weeks of operation. That is what we did. It’s not “coming soon,” it’s already a fact of life at Content Crooner. It’s a done deal.

We’ve already moved on to other things to improve the service for authors and publishers. We’ll show you what we’ve done, not tell you about what we’re going to do. We’ll keep you posted as we move forward; setting the pace for those who follow.

Until next time,

Mike

“Crooner Rocks”