Put Your Money Where Your Mou- err Editing Skillz Is!

[ourchair]

Because most people don't know the different between an editor and a copyeditor.

Copyeditors edit for grammer, spelling, consistency, and continuity (and for game products, making sure that rules constructs actually follow the rules).

Editors set direction, manage most aspects of publishing beyond the author (including interacting with the author) and edit for content and publishability.

Copyeditors are frequently contractors.

Editors are usually management.

There are cases, depending on the responsibilities outlined in the position contract, where some editors do both, but mneme is correct.

I say this as a guy who does the job of both an editor and copyeditor in the same magazine.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I was a student editor at OWU at The Historian for the book review section (to be fair, we were low level copyeditors, and always triple checked everything before sending it to Dr. Spall for his final approval).

You'd be amazed at how bad college professors actually write, even when critiquing their colleagues for poor writing.

I'd apply for the job, but that was ten years ago, and my mind has atrophied since those days. Besides, grammar was never my strong suit.

 

[Seonaid]

I'd apply for the job, but I don't want to move to Washington!

 

[Scribble]

If you are not too familliar with somewhat early product (pre 2E certainly) then you can't really compare product quality with any accuracy.

Were there editing errors in early products? Yes of course there were but the major issue I was speaking about here really wasn't specifically an editing one. Overall quality control has gotten worse by far even by the standards of a mere 10-15 years ago. In 1983 TSR did not in fact produce a starter product that was rendered incompatible with the rest of the material which followed it so I have to call BS on any claim of things being "just as bad in the past". I have been buying products since 1981 and the further back I go the more satisfying and enduringly useful these products seem to be (IMHO on average-there are some exceptions).

But I kind of think you're jumping to conclusions here.

It can also be explained as in the past, even if an error was spotted prior to the release of a new product, or an eventual change was known prior to a release, it wasn't fixed.

If anything it was fixed "in post" by errata.

This doesn't mean that there weren't sections that NEEDED it, or could have been updated prior to release, or that quality control was better "in the olden days" personal preference aside of course.


For whatever reason, they fix things when possible before they hit the street now it seems, even if that means it's no longer exactly the same as a previous product release.

Pick your poison I guess.

Do you want your audience to complain that you didn't fix any of the problems they so astutely pointed out in a bazillion internet threads...

Or

Do you want your audience to complain that you fixed the problems they so astutely pointed out in a bazillion internet threads, but now it no longer matches your older products 100%

Either way they're going to complain.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'd apply for the job, but I don't want to move to Washington!

Ditto.

 

[Dice4Hire]

But really, products of late I have to stop and wonder if anyone is even reading this stuff.

I hope you don's seriously think there is no editing. I'm sure most errors are caught, but I, too, wish it were a few more.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I hope you don's seriously think there is no editing. I'm sure most errors are caught, but I, too, wish it were a few more.

Personally, I'm not doubting that there is editing done. I'm quite sure there is.

However, I get the feel that they're favoring automated editing techniques- spellcheckers, grammar checkers, etc.- over emphasizing live editing.

Its cheaper, but automated editing programs rarely catch homonyms, page referential errors and so forth. Some, not all, catch verb/subject agreement errors.

Plus, every once in a while you catch a bit of text that has been cut and pasted- a clear indication of the editing process at work. However, if you catch it, its also an indication that the process had a hiccup, usually in the form of the text being reprinted elsewhere in the same (or another) product.

And those are all precisely the kinds of things a pair of human eyes catch...as evidenced by the rapidity with which errata threads pop up.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But I kind of think you're jumping to conclusions here.

It can also be explained as in the past, even if an error was spotted prior to the release of a new product, or an eventual change was known prior to a release, it wasn't fixed.

If anything it was fixed "in post" by errata.

This doesn't mean that there weren't sections that NEEDED it, or could have been updated prior to release, or that quality control was better "in the olden days" personal preference aside of course.


For whatever reason, they fix things when possible before they hit the street now it seems, even if that means it's no longer exactly the same as a previous product release.

Pick your poison I guess.

Do you want your audience to complain that you didn't fix any of the problems they so astutely pointed out in a bazillion internet threads...

Or

Do you want your audience to complain that you fixed the problems they so astutely pointed out in a bazillion internet threads, but now it no longer matches your older products 100%

Either way they're going to complain.

No matter what kind of editing issues there are I believe products are better when there is a clear focus on what that product actually is before determining when it goes out the door. The type of drastic changes between the redbox and the rest of essentials is not in any way representative of a few editing errors that got fixed after the box went to print. It was a completely different design. The kind of design differences that illustrate how little playtesting and development goes into something before it gets rushed to the market just for the sake of getting released before the 4th quarter.

If that isn't worthy of complaint then there is no reason for companies to ever bother trying to do better.