Monday, March 12, 2007

Partial ratio results!

The world may have ended because I've finally finished going through this giant stack of partials that I had to read. I have some more that have arrived in the month of February and late January, but for the most part, this is a huge amount of what was in my office.

For your statistical pleasure:

I rejected 32 partials.

I requested 3 full manuscripts in this batch.

This is pretty typical of what I normally ask for in terms of full manuscripts, by the way.

So, let's do the math:

35 partials total.

(32/35) x 100=91.43% of partials were rejected

(3/35) x 100=8.57% of partials garnered a request for a full manuscript.

I am never, ever counting numbers like this again. From now on, I'm just going to happily tromp through my slush. Enjoy the results, if you are interested in this kind of thing. =) Snail mail rejections go out in the mail tomorrow.

11 comments:

Jodi Meadows said...

I love statistics. I just hate being the one to do the math to get them. *grin*

Thanks for counting. This is neat.

M E Hunt said...

Thanks for sharing this with us. Hmmm, a slight chance, but still a chance....

mehunt

Demon Hunter said...

Jenny,
Thanks for sharing the process!

Julie Wright said...

I'm with you Jodi. No math for me! But the statistics are fun once someone adds all the numbers for me.

kiwi said...

Folks, if things didn't go as you wish, just remember, it's only perseverence that separates the published from the unpublished--so keep editing and keep submitting.

Also, it might help to know that once you get past agent rejections, you then have to deal with the next big fish in the foodchain, acquisition editors! Rejection is part of the writer's life. Learn to channel it to your benefit and you have a chance of making it.

Christopher said...

Not that I'm asking you to do this, but I think it would be great to see a longer-term run of your statistics, to the point that you get, read, and decide on the fulls, to see how the statistics on what you make an offer on come out.

Wow, that was awkwardly worded. Luckily for all of us, I only write smut.

Kelly Swails said...

Jenny-whew! Now you've got some good numbers to throw around. The best part is, you can ride on these for at least five years. "What do you mean I reject too many manuscripts? I accept almost 9% of my partials, thank you very much."

I hate statistics. They're a big part of being a clinical laboratory scientist. (I perform testing on patient samples in a hospital laboratory.) Calculating 2 SD from the mean on cholesterol quality control is not my idea of fun. Blech. That's one of the reasons I work in microbiology--less numbers! More bugs!

Jenny Rappaport said...

I was trying to get at least a sample size of 30, before I did the stats, which is why it took so long. I can't remember whether you need 30 for a t-test or a z-test, but it's one of them.

Yes, I am a geek. =)

Kelly Swails said...

Jenny: an anonymous person posted this on my blog. I thought you would get a kick out of it.

****
I read your post over at Jenny Rappaport's blog. You've fallen into her trap. Can't you see that she relishes rejecting writers? It's a literary agent's power trip. Don't commend her for publishing those statistics. Look at the authors she publishes at Amazon's rankings. How well do they do?

We'll never know how well the one's she's rejected would have done. Literary agents serve their own tastes, not the reading public's. They love the headiness of total control over a writer's destiny. See her for what she is. Her haughtiness in the process of rejection should chill you as it should every writer.

****

Well. Consider me chilled. ;)

Jodi Meadows said...

I suspect anonymous has been rejected lately.

Pooooooooor anonymous person.

*has no sympathy for anonymous whining people*

Jenny Rappaport said...

kelly swails, I love the anonymous comment! I'm going to give it a whole post of its own! =)

My haughiness... lmao...