Primary Source: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=839396&page=5
Secondary Source: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=841126
From Chris Perkins:
Allow me to wax philosophical on the topic of errata — a topic very near (but not so dear) to my heart. It's come up a couple times in this thread already.
What we call "errata" ...
Some people don't know this, but the RPG R&D team only issues errata when we need to make a rules clarification, solve a rules contradiction, or fix something that could ruin the play experience. We don't count basic typos as "errata" — except when a typo means the difference between a monster having AC 19 and AC 119!
Niggling typos are recorded and corrected in future printings of a book.
How we gather errata ...
R&D relies on our Customer Service team to gather most of the errata, since they're dealing with rules issues all the time. We also pluck stuff from the message boards. We have two "errata-keepers" on the R&D team who collect everything and determine when errata should get posted. (That's not the extent of their job, by the way. It's one of their many chores.) A year ago, we had one errata-keeper trying to do everything. He went crazy, so now he sorts our dungeon tiles.
What we think of errata ...
We not perfect. We don't like it when errors creep into our printed books and magazines, and that can happen in many different and annoying ways. Reducing errata is an ongoing goal, both for our in-house people and our freelancers. Anyone who's ever worked in publishing knows the horrible feeling of dread that occurs when you open up a book you worked on and see that first typo leap off the page and smack you in the eye. Whenever possible, we try to put extra sets of eyes on a manuscript, and we're aware that errors can sometimes sneak into a book even after it's been through the editors. I'd estimate that, on average, 0.0001% of the 3.5 million words we publish every year contain errors. We're trying to reduce that percentage. Granted, it doesn't help our case when we spell "aasimar" a-s-s-i-m-a-r. LOL
When will we see new errata? (page 7 of the discussion)
A couple months ago, at the urging of the folks in Customer Service, R&D got back on the errata bandwagon after falling off a few times in 2006. We recently started updating the errata documents again. I'll check with the responsible parties, but you should begin to see errata updates soon, in batches likely.
What will you do to see the books being produced error-free in the first place?
We're increasing the size of our in-house RPG editing team (which currently consists of four insanely busy people). That's one step in the right direction.
I supposed I'm out of data commenting on this, but you're claiming 3.5 errors per year.
Whoops. I meant to say we have about 350 errata-worthy errors per year. Looking to push that number down.
Logan
FYI, we're trying out an errata process for new books first of all and we're working out the kinks still. We need to get the process going before we consider going back to old books.
Just don't want anybody to have expectations that we'll errata any specific books that we aren't currently planning to.
As a side question; is there anything that, we as the board members and/or consumers can do to assist you in your errata-related efforts and make the job easier and quicker for all involved?
If we can keep errata for a single book consolidated into a single thread (and keep that thread on-topic as much as possible), it makes it much easier to collect the data. Page references and specifics are also helpful. We don't consider typos and other errors that don't significantly affect gameplay to be errata-worthy.
Keep in mind we're starting with new books first, then working backward if we have time. So new books are a priority.
I think some further guidelines on this would be good. What "significantly affects" gameplay? For instance, I've seen corrections that show that monsters spent too many skill points, or not enough, is that errata-worthy? Personally, I'd say yes since otherwise it makes it much harder to advance the creature.
There's a big subjective gray area there and we're still trying to figure out what will and won't qualify as errata. Skills are especially tricky. If a monster's short a feat, that's probably important. If he's missing 4 skill points, it's probably not worth the time we'd have to spend on it (time better spent working on new books).
It's not really an issue we can give strong guidelines on. If it's in an errata thread, we'll put it in our database, but we won't necessarily turn everything in there into errata. Showing that a monster should have a parenthetical synergy bonus is not worth errata. If there was a typo and it should have a +13 Hide instead of +3 (or +113), that might be.
On the errata, can we assume WotC will be drawing partly from the numerous user-created threads for errata on these boards and on ENworld (I think that's where they've been doing reviews and such)?
Yes, among other sources.
####
Merric's Notes:
So, there you have what I could find on new errata - mostly from the Future Releases forums on the Wizards boards. Wizards are beginning to expand their online presence - there are posts on other matters by Mike Mearls, Chris Perkins, Mike Lescault (the new online liason), Rodney Thompson, and Logan Brunner(?). I'll gather a few more into important topics, although it's really worthwhile doing a little browsing of your own.
Cheers!
Secondary Source: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=841126
From Chris Perkins:
Allow me to wax philosophical on the topic of errata — a topic very near (but not so dear) to my heart. It's come up a couple times in this thread already.
What we call "errata" ...
Some people don't know this, but the RPG R&D team only issues errata when we need to make a rules clarification, solve a rules contradiction, or fix something that could ruin the play experience. We don't count basic typos as "errata" — except when a typo means the difference between a monster having AC 19 and AC 119!
Niggling typos are recorded and corrected in future printings of a book.How we gather errata ...
R&D relies on our Customer Service team to gather most of the errata, since they're dealing with rules issues all the time. We also pluck stuff from the message boards. We have two "errata-keepers" on the R&D team who collect everything and determine when errata should get posted. (That's not the extent of their job, by the way. It's one of their many chores.) A year ago, we had one errata-keeper trying to do everything. He went crazy, so now he sorts our dungeon tiles.
What we think of errata ...
We not perfect. We don't like it when errors creep into our printed books and magazines, and that can happen in many different and annoying ways. Reducing errata is an ongoing goal, both for our in-house people and our freelancers. Anyone who's ever worked in publishing knows the horrible feeling of dread that occurs when you open up a book you worked on and see that first typo leap off the page and smack you in the eye. Whenever possible, we try to put extra sets of eyes on a manuscript, and we're aware that errors can sometimes sneak into a book even after it's been through the editors. I'd estimate that, on average, 0.0001% of the 3.5 million words we publish every year contain errors. We're trying to reduce that percentage. Granted, it doesn't help our case when we spell "aasimar" a-s-s-i-m-a-r. LOL
When will we see new errata? (page 7 of the discussion)
A couple months ago, at the urging of the folks in Customer Service, R&D got back on the errata bandwagon after falling off a few times in 2006. We recently started updating the errata documents again. I'll check with the responsible parties, but you should begin to see errata updates soon, in batches likely.
What will you do to see the books being produced error-free in the first place?
We're increasing the size of our in-house RPG editing team (which currently consists of four insanely busy people). That's one step in the right direction.
I supposed I'm out of data commenting on this, but you're claiming 3.5 errors per year.
Whoops. I meant to say we have about 350 errata-worthy errors per year. Looking to push that number down.
Logan
FYI, we're trying out an errata process for new books first of all and we're working out the kinks still. We need to get the process going before we consider going back to old books.
Just don't want anybody to have expectations that we'll errata any specific books that we aren't currently planning to.
As a side question; is there anything that, we as the board members and/or consumers can do to assist you in your errata-related efforts and make the job easier and quicker for all involved?
If we can keep errata for a single book consolidated into a single thread (and keep that thread on-topic as much as possible), it makes it much easier to collect the data. Page references and specifics are also helpful. We don't consider typos and other errors that don't significantly affect gameplay to be errata-worthy.
Keep in mind we're starting with new books first, then working backward if we have time. So new books are a priority.
I think some further guidelines on this would be good. What "significantly affects" gameplay? For instance, I've seen corrections that show that monsters spent too many skill points, or not enough, is that errata-worthy? Personally, I'd say yes since otherwise it makes it much harder to advance the creature.
There's a big subjective gray area there and we're still trying to figure out what will and won't qualify as errata. Skills are especially tricky. If a monster's short a feat, that's probably important. If he's missing 4 skill points, it's probably not worth the time we'd have to spend on it (time better spent working on new books).
It's not really an issue we can give strong guidelines on. If it's in an errata thread, we'll put it in our database, but we won't necessarily turn everything in there into errata. Showing that a monster should have a parenthetical synergy bonus is not worth errata. If there was a typo and it should have a +13 Hide instead of +3 (or +113), that might be.
On the errata, can we assume WotC will be drawing partly from the numerous user-created threads for errata on these boards and on ENworld (I think that's where they've been doing reviews and such)?
Yes, among other sources.
####
Merric's Notes:
So, there you have what I could find on new errata - mostly from the Future Releases forums on the Wizards boards. Wizards are beginning to expand their online presence - there are posts on other matters by Mike Mearls, Chris Perkins, Mike Lescault (the new online liason), Rodney Thompson, and Logan Brunner(?). I'll gather a few more into important topics, although it's really worthwhile doing a little browsing of your own.
Cheers!
