Why do they skip around so much and why do they always skip MINE?!?

Hi. I didn't check status' for my own queries on Query Tracker, but I did come across an agent on Twitter, who mentioned on the #10queries hashtag or on their account, that sometimes, while looking at queries quickly, they put some queries that they are indecisive about into a "maybe" pile and continue reading more queries, then reread the queries in the "maybe" pile later, to make a final decision, on whether to request more pages or reject the query.

So, perhaps that's what is going on.

Girlsgottawrite said:

I'm not sure how much of this is a question and how much is a vent, so I apologize in advance.

I obsessively watch the timeline on Query Tracker, stupid I know. And it feels like every agent I submit to either skips around a ton (including skipping my query, of course) or just stops responding to queries for a month after getting to mine (I might be exaggerating here). It's driving me nuts! I really just need them to put me out of my misery already.

Can anyone give me some reasons why they might skip around so much?

Click to expand...

Unverified user-submitted data is always going to be patchy. It's always going to be incomplete and full of holes, and since it appears to be causing you genuine unhappiness I would strongly suggest you stop looking at it. The reason it skips around is because you're only seeing a tiny fraction of the real story.

Querytracker data isn't, and will never be, reliable. You're not gaining anything positive by looking at it.

My agent makes a point of always answering things in order, whether its queries or new projects by clients. So "they" don't always skip around so much. As with so many things, it depends on the individual agent.

And I found QueryTracker very useful in determining when to give up on an agent (based on reported response times) but EMaree is so right that it's unreliable. It's only based on those people who report, for one thing. And if QueryTracker is stressing you out, then you should probably leave it alone, maybe?

Girlsgottawrite said:

...it feels like every agent I submit to either skips around a ton (including skipping my query, of course) or just stops responding to queries for a month after getting to mine (I might be exaggerating here). It's driving me nuts! I really just need them to put me out of my misery already...

Click to expand...

I forgot to mention that perhaps they're a "no response means I'm not interested" agent.

That's okay if it is, though. At first, I felt disappointed and confused as to why agents rejected my first picture book. But, now, I'm glad agents weren't interested in the first picture book I'd written because it was too wordy, and, apparently, I've improved with my second one. So, perhaps, if your manuscript is rejected, you'll improve, too, and your next one will be better!

Adding to the QT thing, I'm trying to remember if I ever went in and fully updated my results. I know I did occasionally, but I'm sure my lack of updating my status would have skewed how those tracking results look for people subbing to the same agent. I really don't think you can make any individual assumptions about the stats there. I love QT for updated agent info, but I take the stats section in the broadest-strokes-possible kind of way.

EMaree said:

I would strongly suggest you stop looking at it.

Click to expand...

+1.

Girlsgottawrite said:

I'm not sure how much of this is a question and how much is a vent, so I apologize in advance.

I obsessively watch the timeline on Query Tracker, stupid I know. And it feels like every agent I submit to either skips around a ton (including skipping my query, of course) or just stops responding to queries for a month after getting to mine (I might be exaggerating here). It's driving me nuts! I really just need them to put me out of my misery already.

Can anyone give me some reasons why they might skip around so much?

Click to expand...

Different possibilities are in play here.

1 - it may be a no-response-means-no agent, and they've passed by virtue of silence.

2 - the agent may have put your query into a subset of pitches that they're considering, but need to mull over a bit. They're still planning to answer you, but they haven't decided if the work is for them or not.

3 - some agents don't read in order. I got almost instant responses from agents who opened their emails on a break or at lunch and mine happened to pop-in at that moment, so they opened it first. This strategy inevitably pushes older queries down, and while it's not really fair, it does happen.

So, STOP READING THE TIMELINES. You'll only drive yourself to distraction with the what-ifs.

EMaree said:

Querytracker data isn't, and will never be, reliable. You're not gaining anything positive by looking at it.

Click to expand...

This is true for a single point, but if you have multiple data it's probably correct. Wisdom of crowds.

My guess is that the agent doesn't reply to all queries, or like someone said moved it to a maybe query waiting to see if the author is going to get an offer somewhere else. Or the e-mail went to the spam folder for whatever reason. Or they saved it somewhere in another folder and forgot about them (I have one of those e-mail folders).

I like to watch timelines. No harm, no foul. When a long time has passed, or my query is in between other requests/rejections, I just assume it's a 'no' and move on. Rarely it turns out to be a request, although it does happen with some forgotten queries. Saying that, I prefer to read the comments. They usually give you insights.

chracatoa said:

This is true for a single point, but if you have multiple data it's probably correct. Wisdom of crowds.

Click to expand...

I disagree when it comes to querying. The subset of users who collect and report data is a tiny, tiny fraction of the querying pool. If you're making decisions based on that self-reporting minority, you're making decisions based on outliers, and that's terrible business sense.

We're moving towards stronger systems (Submittable works, but isn't used for querying, and QueryManager looks promising but doesn't post the stats publicly afaik), but we're not there yet. We might never get there, because some writers will always choose to keep their data private or to move towards representation in non-standard channels.

I like to watch timelines. No harm, no foul. When a long time has passed, or my query is in between other requests/rejections, I just assume it's a 'no' and move on. Rarely it turns out to be a request, although it does happen with some forgotten queries. Saying that, I prefer to read the comments. They usually give you insights.

Click to expand...

This is solid advice. My ideal system (for agents whose guidelines specified a response) was: nudge on the three month mark with a different e-mail subject, because the over-eagerness of spam filters should never be underestimated, and if you hear nothing after that assume it's a 'no'.

(I say 'my ideal' system because I was usually too scared to nudge, which was silly and self-destructive of me, but there you go.)

chracatoa said:

This is true for a single point, but if you have multiple data it's probably correct. Wisdom of crowds.

Click to expand...

But the multiple data points on QueryTracker are highly self-selecting. First, only a portion of all queryers are inclined to report. And of those, there is a further subset that will only report positive outcomes, but not negative ones. (No one likes to talk about rejections.)

Aggy B. said:

But the multiple data points on QueryTracker are highly self-selecting. First, only a portion of all queryers are inclined to report. And of those, there is a further subset that will only report positive outcomes, but not negative ones. (No one likes to talk about rejections.)

Click to expand...

Yep, plus you’d get assholes like me who forget to update and so on and so forth. It’s just not a reliable source.

My way of dealing with querying was to assume everything’s an R. Even when I got requests, I’d assume those would also end up as an R. I had a Google Sheets thingy to keep track of how many queries and fulls/partials I had out, and once a month had passed, I’d send out another batch of queries.

Putputt said:

Yep, plus you’d get assholes like me who forget to update and so on and so forth. It’s just not a reliable source.

My way of dealing with querying was to assume everything’s an R. Even when I got requests, I’d assume those would also end up as an R. I had a Google Sheets thingy to keep track of how many queries and fulls/partials I had out, and once a month had passed, I’d send out another batch of queries.

Click to expand...

Oh. I sent out new queries every two weeks. And at least one any time I got an R no matter if it had been two weeks since the last batch or not. Because I'm stubborn. (Which is probably why my agent was #179 as far as queries go.) [Also, that was due to having folks report he didn't take stuff that was Fantasy. Which it turned out was not true or I would have queried him sooner. But... it worked out.]

Putputt said:

My way of dealing with querying was to assume everything’s an R. Even when I got requests, I’d assume those would also end up as an R. I had a Google Sheets thingy to keep track of how many queries and fulls/partials I had out, and once a month had passed, I’d send out another batch of queries.

Click to expand...

Ditto. I have a beautiful color coded spreadsheet that I update. (It's so pretty!) But yeah, I assume they're all a big fat R. Saves myself a lot of disappointment.

You also have to consider that, as popular at QueryTracker is, it's only used by a percentage of actual querying writers. An even smaller percentage of those use the service to track their queries, and a smaller percentage of those update it. I love QT, think it's awesome, I use it, but I track everything on my own spreadsheet, because QT is not (nor could anyone source possibly be) comprehensive.

Carrie in PA said:

You also have to consider that, as popular at QueryTracker is, it's only used by a percentage of actual querying writers. An even smaller percentage of those use the service to track their queries, and a smaller percentage of those update it.

Click to expand...

It's true, but if you keep that in mind, it does give you reliable information. There's still a lot of people like you and me that update it frequently and correctly, and it's good enough to give us information. I'll give some examples.

For this agent, I knew that I'd get a quick response after my query. Lo and behold, I got the rejection the same day.

Other agents respond in batches, and I was able to predict when my rejection would come for them. E.g. example 1, example 2.

The response rate of an agent also indicated if I'd get a response or not. Agents with more than 40% response rate would likely respond. Agents with 10% or less would not. And so on.

Of course, at the end of the day nothing there matters. What matters is a request/offer e-mail that will never come through QueryTracker. But it gives us a tiny bit of control in the midst of the emotional turmoil caused by the rejections. Hey, there's a bunch of others rejected in the same day, from the same agent. We're not alone!

I agree, QT has been fairly reliable for me thus far in providing a general range for when I should expect a response (if any). That kind of aggregate info is probably more reliable than looking at the data query by query, though.

Agents don't usually have a regular schedule for reading queries. They squeeze it in between other tasks. So they might not read any for a week and a half, and then work their way through a hundred or more; and then read through twenty a few days later, and so on. So it's going to look like they skip around when really what they're doing is reading queries when they can.

Your best bet is to stop obsessing about this, and use the time to write something else.

In the old days, you wrote out ten queries, addressed the envelopes, put stamps on them and dropped them in the mailbox. Then you went back to writing until a response came back.

That still works today, though emails save you the postage.

Jeff