Editing experience doesn't matter - Clumzzy

Editing experience doesn't matter. At least not in the way most of you think.
Editors love saying they've edited for 2, 
5, even 10+ years like that automatically
makes them elite. It doesn't.

I've seen editors with the most "experience" who have nothing impressive to show for it. 

Editing for a long time doesn't mean you got good. It often means you repeated the same basic work for years.

That's what happens at most low-tier agencies. They won't let you solve business problems.

I've seen editors with 3 months of focused practice who are already better than editors with 2 years. Why? They pushed themselves. They studied good work. They built taste. They learned design, storytelling, pacing, problem solving.

Clients don't care how long you've been editing. They care about:
Can you make my content look good?
Can you help it perform?
Can you communicate?
Can you deliver on time?
Can I trust you?
That's it.

Job posts say "3+ years required" but it's usually bullsh*t. Give two editors the same trial. Editor A has 1 year, Editor B has 5. The client picks whoever sent back the edit matching their style. Whoever overdelivered something they'd actually post.

Experience only matters when it created real skill.
Time ≠ growth. 
Intentional reps = growth.

You can spend 2 years editing garbage and stay average. Or spend 6 months studying strong edits, breaking down why things work, fixing your taste, and beat someone "editing for years."

Experience helps. You know the software. Fewer mistakes. More efficient. But it's not what makes you win.

Stop leading with "I've been editing for X years." Lead with your work.
If your portfolio is strong, nobody cares if it took 6 months or 6 years.

If it's still weak after years, the truth is simple: you didn't spend those years improving. You just spent them editing.
Big difference.

-Mark, Editing launchpad