quality of recent WotC products

[diaglo]

OR it could have something to do with the volume of material they have to edit.

my comment wasn't directed at the books. it was directed at the error in the text i quoted.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Well, the thing to me, is that Wizards produces some products that have great value to them. I've mentioned it before, but I love full color products in hardback and the fact that 95% or more other publishers have the same or greater problems, means that while it's not okay, I'll take it with the same grain of salt I always have.

 

[wedgeski]

Assuming it takes 3-4 months to write a 200-250 page book, it would only take about 8 hours to completely proofread and edit (including the statblocks) said book.

What?!! No way would it take 8 hours to proof a 250 page, densely typed book, not only for obvious spelling and grammatical errors, but also for accuracy within the D&D milieu, as well as for the numerous 3.5 stat blocks it includes. No *way*. If I was project managing such an undertaking I'd probably set aside 40-50 man hours to do it, minimum. That's one week of one person's time... quite apart from the fact that I'd want more than one pair of eyes on it as well.

The thing is, none of us have any clue how these manuscripts looked before they were given to the proofreaders. They could have been given such sloppy work that they were far more concerned with capturing the more egregious mistakes in the time allotted than worrying about the minutae. Not only that, but it's the minutae that takes the most time to capture (the old 80/20 rule).

Personally, I'm disappointed in WotC's editing lately, but I know from first-hand experience how hard it is to do right. I think it's far more likely that these projects aren't having enough money spent on them than everyone at Wizard's is a layabout. At the end of the day, a project only has so much time and manpower to go around.

 

[jaerdaph]

While I admire John Cooper's diligence and agree he certainly provides valuable feedback for publishers and consumers, I'd be willing to wager that at least 80% of the errors he picks up would go unnoticed by you and the rest of us average users.

 

[GlassJaw]

Now, the average hardcover is at least 192 pages, the average adventure module is 32 to 64 pages, and the core books are 320 pages long! There's simple MORE material to edit; therefore, more errors.

Not an excuse IMO. The material I have to proofread is usually in the thousand page range and of a highly technical nature - much more difficult to proofread. Quality is a mentality. It's something a company has to subscribe to and make a priority. When someone posts 2 reviews of the newest products and almost every statblock has an error, something is grossly wrong.

my comment wasn't directed at the books. it was directed at the error in the text i quoted.

Ahh. So once again you have nothing constructive to add to a thread. What a shock. You didn't capitalize "my" and "it", so there.

While I admire John Cooper's diligence and agree he certainly provides valuable feedback for publishers and consumers, I'd be willing to wager that at least 80% of the errors he picks up would go unnoticed by you and the rest of us average users.

Does that make it ok? To be completely honest, I find the "who cares?" attitude to be abhorrent. WotC has gained the reputation of releasing poorly edited products. Just the thought places them under much more scrutiny. It even goes beyond the simple spelling errors and typos. What about incorrect mechanics and 3.0 references? It seems that I'm in the minority on this. :\

And how do you know that I'm "average user"?

 

[diaglo]

Ahh. So once again you have nothing constructive to add to a thread. What a shock. You didn't capitalize "my" and "it", so there.

the point being.... that most of us over looked the or for of in the original quoted text.

which i believe is what happens to most of the errata in the WotC books. people just overlook them.

edit: what a shock ... i do post constructive material. in fact i do it all the time... if you paid attention..

edit2: per PKitty's request

 

[Desdichado]

I probably should have made my point more clearly. What I meant was that these, and other, messageboards show how poor the generally accepted standard of written English has become and that's why, it seems, so few seem to be concerned that WotC seems to keep putting out poorly edited products.

I don't know if that's actually true. Messageboards, and other internet discussion type forums are almost not treated like written language, and are instead much more conversational. I have a very different standard between conversation and written English, even to the same audience.

For what it's worth, I'm currently in a press release/official communications role at work, so I'm also conscious of writing quality.

Since everyone else is spouting their credentials...

 

[GlassJaw]

If I was project managing such an undertaking I'd probably set aside 40-50 man hours to do it, minimum

Wow. 40-50 hours? I wish John would chime in on how long it takes him to go over the stat blocks, which I would say would be the most time-consuming to proofread. If it takes him 40-50 hours, or even half that time, I doubt he would spend the time doing it.

Nothing is ever going to be perfect but having a few people spend a few hours each (by splitting up the book), it's going to be an order of magnitude better than they are now. It's not difficult.

 

[jaerdaph]

Does that make it ok? To be completely honest, I find the "who cares?" attitude to be abhorrent. WotC has gained the reputation of releasing poorly edited products. Just the thought places them under much more scrutiny. It even goes beyond the simple spelling errors and typos. What about incorrect mechanics and 3.0 references? It seems that I'm in the minority on this. :\

And how do you know that I'm "average user"?

I'm not saying it's a good thing, just not the end of the world.

I have no idea if you are an average user or not, but your initial argument included the John Cooper reviews as the basis of your argument, so I just assumed you didn't find all the errors on your own. If I'm wrong in that assumption, sorry.

Diaglo: "Average" is not a word I would ever associate with you, my GenCon luggage-photographing friend

 

[Faraer]

I'm also equally amazed that more of an issue isn't made by the gaming community.

It's because first, most of the gaming community isn't aware of it, and second, the question of exactly-audited stat blocks is only a concern to some. To me, for instance, the exact levels of skills etc. are irrelevant to my use of the book.

it would only take about 8 hours to completely proofread and edit (including the statblocks) said book.

As wedgeski says, that's ridiculous.

But ultimately, Wizards won't release 99.9999% perfect books unless the extra expense earns extra revenue. Yes, this is a shame.

Also, Serpent Kingdoms and Shining South are also recent WotC books. Do they have the same stat imperfections?