Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 7274675" data-attributes="member: 53980">Having worked professionally as a proofreader in the past (unfortunately, not for the gaming industry), I can tell you that things get tweaked even potentially late into the game. While the brain is sharp the first time you proof something, by the second or third time it starts to get lazy and take short cuts no matter how hard you try to focus. You can try it yourself. Read a book. Wait a day or two, pick it up again, and reread it without glossing over any of the contents. Don't let your mind wander. Focus on every word. It's isn't easy. Now imagine if someone had gone into that book and changed a few words here and a few words there, and expected you to catch any discrepancies that might arise from them on the reread.What would be ideal would be bringing in a fresh pair of eyes late in the editorial process, but it isn't done as far as I'm aware. Admittedly, it would be an added expense as well as potential complication (NDAs have to be signed, concepts may need to be explained to this proofreader who was intentionally kept out of the loop, all while the team is running up against a deadline).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 7274675, member: 53980"] Having worked professionally as a proofreader in the past (unfortunately, not for the gaming industry), I can tell you that things get tweaked even potentially late into the game. While the brain is sharp the first time you proof something, by the second or third time it starts to get lazy and take short cuts no matter how hard you try to focus. You can try it yourself. Read a book. Wait a day or two, pick it up again, and reread it without glossing over any of the contents. Don't let your mind wander. Focus on every word. It's isn't easy. Now imagine if someone had gone into that book and changed a few words here and a few words there, and expected you to catch any discrepancies that might arise from them on the reread. What would be ideal would be bringing in a fresh pair of eyes late in the editorial process, but it isn't done as far as I'm aware. Admittedly, it would be an added expense as well as potential complication (NDAs have to be signed, concepts may need to be explained to this proofreader who was intentionally kept out of the loop, all while the team is running up against a deadline). [/QUOTE]

Verification