I’ve been thinking a lot about editing lately, as a conversation started by smart people continues to rattle around in my brain. My own experience as an editor has run the gamut from “pinch me, I’m dreaming” collaborations to “what have I gotten myself into?” moments. One thing I’ve learned is that being an editor requires a dedication to educating people about what you do and why it matters.

If you ask someone what an editor does, you’ll hear words like grammar, flow, style, accuracy, spelling, and tone, among others. Editors strive for perfection from behind the scenes, and if you are great at what you do, you are invisible.

No one will look at an edited article and think, I am certain that, once upon a time, there was a double quote where there should have been a single, and a wise person fixed the issue for my benefit. But if you let a “their” slip through in the place of a “there,” you are a complete moron.
— “What It’s Really Like to be a Copy Editor“

But editors are more than real-life spellcheckers and grammar police — real editors ship:

These are people who are good at process. They think about calendars, schedules, checklists, and get freaked out when schedules slip. Their jobs are to aggregate information, parse it, restructure it, and make sure it meets standards. They are basically QA for language and meaning.

This is only a small snippet from an article by Paul Ford that I consider a must-read for both editors and non-editors — the former because it offers language for explaining the many facets of the role, and the latter because it speaks to how important an editor is to the content process.

But sometimes words aren’t enough. How can something like editing be conveyed in a way that syncs with conventional performance (aka value) measurement tools? Enter a survey by Writing for Digital that sought to answer that very question. The result: when it comes to web copy, “well edited pages do 30 percent better than unedited pages.” That is a huge margin that quantifies an editor’s skills in a way that companies can understand.

Yet even when I explain how editing is a part of the larger process, or that well-edited content ties in to the overall perception of a company’s brand, there are times I feel it is still seen as a skill that anyone can do with limited time, resources, and reward. I don’t think this is a unique battle; I think it’s the same one that designers are fighting when it comes to spec work or clients who expect quality but cheap design. So why does the devaluation continue?

Earlier this year, The Washington Post addressed an increase in errors in its copy, citing reduced staff and the changing duties of editors in regards to the online space. This is just one example of content suffering, and Alexis Madrigal, senior editor and lead technology writer for The Atlantic, suggests that letting the quality of content hit rock bottom is the only way editing can make a comeback:

We take good roads for granted in the US; our highway system just works, so you start to think of it almost as geology, almost immutable and close to eternal. But if you take a drive on the backroads of the Yucatan, the forest encroaches, large potholes appear out of nowhere, and the signage is indecipherable, regardless of your level of Spanish.

The Internet can feel like a jungle, and journalists are in the business of providing paths through the territory. Writers might blaze the trails, but editors maintain the roads. The vines are creeping and the potholes are growing. And maybe letting the road deteriorate is really the only way to make audiences and media companies realize the value of those whose names do not appear underneath the headline.

Maybe Madrigal is right. Maybe it will take more bad “roads” before people start to value editors again. But to not fight the perception that editors are expendable would be a mistake requiring more than red ink to correct.