Thursday, January 29, 2009

Persona non grata

Yesterday a proposal manager (in charge of a group of writers) sent a query to one of our two proposal coordinators (they shepherd proposals through the production process).

Unlike most PMs, he knows there is something called style and wants to consider it before his writers begin their work on the proposal.

He asked her the following style questions: (1) Ft. Monmouth or Fort Monmouth? (2) Service Desk or service desk? (3) information assurance or Information Assurance? (4) Periods at the end of bulleted items or not? (5) Army/DoD Group, or Army and DoD Group?

Not only did she not refer his questions to me, her response was that (1) the items weren't that important, (2) he and his writers could decide, and (3) “the Editor will also try and catch any inconsistency that was missed by the writers.”

Let's break down the three elements of her response. First, how we treat each of these items is what style is all about. Second, I’ve been charged with developing and enforcing house style. Third, I am a nameless editor who will “try” to catch errors.

Because she cc'd me on the e-mail thread, I responded to his questions with specific answers for each item. He thanked me. She didn’t even acknowledge my e-mail to him.

Again, editing is a thankless job, and it is made even more so (what is less than thankless?) when our role is ignored or, worse, undermined.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Note to self: Handout for "So, you want to be an editor?" Career Day lecture

For the past two days, I've been editing the resume section of a proposal. There are about 125 pages of resumes, all of which contain variations of the following:

Education, Certifications, Training and Computer Skills
  • BA, Criminal Justice, University of Delaware

  • Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, Microsoft Certified Professional + Internet, and Microsoft Certified Professional

  • Operating Systems: RHEL AS 3.x, 4x, 5x, Windows 2003 Server, Windows 2000 Professional, Server, Advanced Server, Windows XP, Windows NT Workstation/Server 3.51–4.0, Windows 95/98 Novell Netware 3.x–4.11, Cisco IOS 11.x–12.x, BTOS, CTOS, MS Dos 5–6.22, Windows 3.x

  • Hardware: HP DL Series, Foundry Networks ServerIron Load balancers and SA-400 SSL accelerators, HP EVA 5000, Brocade Fabric switching, Cisco Infiniband switching, F5 BigIp, IBM PC's and Compatibles, Compaq Proliant/Prosignia 1500 – 8500R, Compaq ML 570, BayNetworks 10/100 Etherswitches, Compaq 10/100 Mbps Netelligent Hubs, 3Com Linkbuilder Hubs, Cisco 2500 series routers, Hewlett Packard Netserver LH4r and LT 6000r, Hewlett Packard printers/plotters, Hewlett Packard 80GB Optical Jukebox, Hewlett Packard Jetdirect Print Servers, APC, Compaq, and Liebert UPS's, HP ESL712 Tape Library, HP VLS6500 Virtual Tape Library, Ultrium Tape Series, Compaq 15/30 and 35/70 DLT, Procomm CD Tower, Procomm CD-R, Network General Sniffer, PentaScanner+ Cable Tester, Unisys B28 & B38 Series Micro-computer

  • Software: Oracle 10gAS, Oracle RAC Clustering, Netscape Enterprise Server 3.5, I-Planet 4.1, Dynamo 4.5, Jrun 2.3, Verity Search Engine, Interwoven, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Project, Exchanger Server 4.0/5.0/5.5, Oracle 7/8/9/10 client and server, Viewstar 4.3/5.0 client and server, EIS/Infobook, HP Systems Insight Manager, IIS 5.0/4.0, DHCP, WINS, Visio, Outlook, Symantec AV, McAfee AV, Installshield, PKZip, PVCS Version Manager, PVCS Tracker, MapInfo, Ghost, Lotus 123, Lotus Organizer, WordPerfect, cc:Mail, PCAnywhere, Brightstor Arcserve, Internet Explorer, Netscape, Erwin/ERX, Document Designer, Enhanced Multiplan, OFIS Graphics, OFIS Mail
  • Monday, January 26, 2009

    Acronyms, National Public Radio edition

    I just heard an NPR news report relating to the alleged architect of the 9-11 attacks.

    After saying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the news reader subsequently referred to him as KSM. I've previously heard this on several news outlets.

    What immediately sprang to mind was JFK, and then the classic moment from the 1988 vice-presidential debates between Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle. (You know where this is going.)

    To borrow from Bentsen's classic zinger at Quayle that evening, "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, you're no JFK."

    If a tree falls in the forest . . .

    Similarly, if a proposal center staff has mandatory team building (an oxymoron if I’ve ever seen one, moron being the operative letters), but not everyone who impacts that staff’s productivity participates in the session, what results can be hoped for? Not much, if anything; just increased frustration and anger.

    In brief, our problems relate to one simple, but powerful dynamic. We have a process and procedures for workflow, but everyone who submits work to us effectively ignores our "rules" and, importantly, is outside of our “jurisdiction.”

    We have no control whatsoever over proposal managers and writers (almost all of whom are contractors), nor can we dictate anything to a host of VPs who review, edit, and sign off on proposals. Thus, our system carries little if any weight beyond our offices.

    Without the buy-in of those principals, our Feb. 6 team building session will be like a flight whose passengers all want to have lunch in Paris but the pilot sets his bearings for Boston.

    Speaking of lunch, our hapless, moronic manager—who set up the session—promises a good one halfway through the proceedings.

    Sunday, January 25, 2009

    Out of the Loop

    The first thing I do when editing each proposal section is to review the graphics for errors. These are the elements of the proposal created by our graphic artists that I can’t access (edit) through Word. I mark them up and hand them off to a proposal coordinator for assignment to one of the graphics staff.

    All too often the proposal coordinator tells me that the graphics in question have already been replaced. I don’t know—or care—if the new versions have been proofed. Why don’t I care?

    First, because, despite an explicit directive from the proposal center manager that every graphic should come to me for proofing before it is placed into a proposal, that rarely happens. And second, the proposal coordinators consistently fail to apprise me of the status of material that I’m responsible for editing.

    I am plagued by dysfunctional management and supervision.

    Saturday, January 17, 2009

    The soul of the machine

    As you know, when working on a computer the "Oh, sh!t" moment can come at any time.

    On PCs it's often the dreaded Blue Screen of Death. That's one of the countless reasons I made the Big Switch to Macs about six years ago.

    Because I do some editing at home on my iMac and some in the office on my PC—emailing files back and forth—I run the risk of files being corrupted in one fashion or another.

    My company, being a leader in the IT field, has a computing infrastructure that keeps the Blue Screen at bay. But the system can't do anything about what can go wrong when one uses different versions of software on different operating systems.

    Since I mix and match, so to speak, this is one message I fear: "The default format for Word 2004. This format is shared by Word 97 through Word 2003 for Windows, and Word 98 through Word 2004 for Mac. Compatibility check recommended."

    I recently lost a full day's worth of edits (at home) on the endnotes section of a book I'm editing. When I opened the files in the office, all the superscript numbers in the text and their partners in the endnotes had changed from arabic to roman.

    Lesson learned: Don't change computers midstream through a project.

    Ten things about editing

    1. Always have a plan B. (Backup your files.)

    2. Don’t hold your breath waiting for thanks. (It’s an ungrateful world out there; one in which most editors are invisible.)

    3. If you are not absolutely the last person to touch a “product” before it goes out the door, you can count on someone else screwing it up. (That’s why there’s version control.)

    4. Learn to live with clutter. (Keep hard and soft copies until works are published. Questions arise and revisions take place.)

    5. Many people are overly sensitive and easily offended. (Reread every author query that you write. Then wait. Then read it again before sending it.)

    6. Never let your guard down. (If you read ten pages of clean text, page 11 will contain errors.)

    7. Save, save, save. (Computers crash. Enough said.)

    8. The devil is in the details. (Read very single character on every page.)

    9. Use every tool at your disposal. (Always run spell and grammar checks.)

    10. Whether or not you succeed in a job doesn’t necessarily relate to your performance. (The best editor in the world will fail if he’s not a team player.)

    Thursday, January 15, 2009

    Abracadabra

    I used to work for a company that valued editors, understood that quality editing takes time, and built sufficient time into production schedules to allow that to happen. Managers often told us that it was time to “do your magic” when they gave us assignments. This is not the case where I currently work.

    Yesterday I received word that next Tuesday I’ll receive 125 pages—the technical part of a proposal—to edit by COB Wednesday. I’m supposed to receive the material around noon. If the past is a prelude, that means around 5 p.m.

    I have repeatedly told the proposal coordinators that I can edit roughly seven pages an hour; on average. If the writers don't follow our style rules (which is a near certainty), or if the material is badly written, that number can go way down. In addition, I’ve said that after about ten straight hours of editing, I've just about reached my daily limit.

    Sadly, for me, this message has, and will continue, to fall on deaf ears.
    It never ceases to amaze me how few people understand that a thorough edit cannot be done in the time period often allotted to editing. Those folks really do expect magic!

    Tuesday, January 13, 2009

    Red flags, storm warnings, and writings on the wall

    One could conclude from reading want-ads language that many of them are cut from the same cloth; that there is some template out there used by most employers.

    The same key words and phrases appear everywhere, whatever the industry. These words apparently reflect the qualities that employers seek in their employees.

    Here are some that carry a message—a cautionary one—for job applicants, with my take on how a few of them impact editors.

  • Creative, persuasive editor: The writers (or authors and content developers) don't like their work reviewed or having to rewrite. They resist working with editors and resent author queries.

  • Flexibility, must be able to shift gears in this fast-paced environment: The environment is chaotic, unstructured, super-dynamic, and mismanaged. You will need to routinely work late hours and weekends as a result of the absence of viable systems and processes.

  • Immediate opening: This is a rarity at best. If the company is of any significant size, it will have a bureaucracy involved in recruitment, selection, and hiring. Don’t give up that temp or freelance gig just yet.

  • Professional work environment: If a company has to state what should be a given, it’s a dead giveaway that the company has problems.

  • Qualifications, “preferred” and “a plus”: Call them what you will, but these are requirements. Don’t apply without them, hoping for the best. There always will be applicants fitting the bill.

  • Sense of humor: You’re walking into a somber environment. If you have a sense of humor, you’ll be the odd man out.

  • Team player: Forget about having the final say. You’ll have responsibility without authority and will be micromanaged every step of the way. “We are a team” (or the variant, “We are a family”) is emphasized only when it suits the needs of management.
  • Monday, January 12, 2009

    The interview question that probably cost me a job

    It’s reasonable to expect editors to be grammar experts. After all, correct grammar usage is one cornerstone of good writing.

    But like some teachers who know their subject but have trouble teaching it (i.e., they’re not good lecturers), there are editors who sometimes can’t explain grammar very well. There have been instances when I have had that problem. One such occasion probably sank my chances for a job I applied for.

    After successfully navigating my way through the telephone-screening interview, I had my face-to-face interview with the person to whom I would report.

    The interview proceeded without a hitch. And then I had a “deer in the headlights” moment. From out of the blue she asked, “What is a gerund?” (A gerund, I shall never forget, is a noun formed from a verb, e.g., “swimming.”)

    I don’t remember my exact response. It was doubtless some attempt to finesse my momentary ignorance.

    Lesson learned: Regardless of how good you can walk the walk, never underestimate the importance of also being able to talk the talk.

    Saturday, January 10, 2009

    An exercise in futility

    My manager has asked me to review and update the style guide for the Proposal Center.

    Despite the fact that the guide resides in the template folder for every proposal in our content management system, I have seen very little evidence in my year with the company that any writers refer to it. And there has been no message—in any form—from the center manager to staff or contract proposal writers encouraging them to review it and to incorporate our style into their writing.

    I have sent a number of style-related missives to several people who are responsible for managing the writers. Not one of them has ever even acknowledged receipt of those mini-guides.

    I am going to resent every minute (and there will be many hundreds of them) I spend on this exercise in total futility. This will be a labor of love hate.

    Thursday, January 8, 2009

    Your mileage may vary

    Just as a great poem can conjure up an emotional response from the reader, so too can bad writing.

    For me there are certain words, phrases, and expressions that make me see red. In some cases the offenders fine their way into a writing, I believe, simply because the writer is lazy and relies on some trite verbiage.

    The increasingly popular your mileage may vary is one such case, as in this sentence I encountered today: "The savings estimates below are typical, but of course your mileage may vary; it all depends on what services you’re paying for now."

    Given that "estimates" implies that the amount of savings varies, the use of "but of course your mileage may vary" is redundant.

    Hyphens, Schmyphens

    I've written about them before and doubtless will again. For they are troublesome little creatures for many writers.

    I'm working on a manuscript whose author either missed the grammar lessons on punctuation marks or (as another author previously mentioned here) writes as if he's being paid by the hyphen; or both.

    You know the weird dynamic that can occur when the more you look at a certain (correct) word, the more it looks wrong? Or when a repeated error begins to look correct? Such is the case with the profusion of unnecessary hyphens in this book. By unnecessary, I mean they appear in phrases that could be compound modifiers if followed by a noun. But they stand on their own in the book—in the company of their errant hyphens—and they appear so often that I've questioned my own knowledge. Some examples:

    • guns-in-schools

    • out-of-step

    • computer-accessible

    • after-the-fact

    • metal-detector

    • fellow-travelers

    • around-the-bend

    • true-believer

    • less-than-comfortable

    • face-to-face

    I mentioned this to a colleague. He articulated the issue perfectly: "I recently worked on a book that was so full of hyphens I started to doubt my ability to reason out the phrases."

    Sunday, January 4, 2009

    Drawing a line in the sand

    Testing editor applicants is not limited to prospective employers (see "Testing, Testing, 1-2-3," below).

    Several years ago, I sent the following letter to the president of an editing agency regarding its testing requirement.

    "An Unsolicited Suggestion"

    Dear XXX:

    I am one of "the 3% who pass ABC tests." [The agency uses this figure in its marketing materials to tout the quality of its temps.] I have previously done successful temp work for a number of your clients, some of whom have requested me back.

    I recently submitted my resume in response to your ad for technical editors. I just got off the phone with XXX who told me that, because I haven't done work for ABC in several years, I would have to be retested in order to be reinstated/considered. I told her that I am not willing to do that.

    I have been working in the editorial field for almost 20 years, and my editing skills are even stronger today than when I worked with ABC. I find this policy quite literally unbelievable. As someone with extensive editorial experience, I don't have to tell you that the editing skill set is not lost over a period of time when it is in constant use. In fact, it is strengthened. (Please see attached resume.)

    ABC is missing out on some significant talent by imposing this draconian requirement. It's bad enough that many employers impose an editing test on experienced professionals; they don't know any better. But for ABC to retest is an insult to our profession.

    I would urge you to reconsider this policy out of respect for the professional achievements of those who have been associated with ABC and wish to return, willing and able to solidify your competitive position.

    Testing, Testing, 1-2-3

    For the most part—and to our endless chagrin—editors are not judged on the value we add to the writings we work on, through the errors we fix and other improvements we make.

    No, our performance is assessed primarily on the mistakes we fail to correct. An editor can make hundreds of edits (literally thousands in a book-length work), but his overall contribution might be remembered for the one missing period he overlooked.

    This approach to the performance appraisal of editors extends to, or more precisely begins at, the editing tests we are required to take when applying for jobs—regardless of how much experience we have.

    How many other professions require a very experienced applicant to demonstrate his skills prior to employment? In the vast majority of cases, it is the resume—and the validation of it through reference checks and other means—that serves as proof of the applicant’s stated experience.

    And to add to the unfairness of the testing requirement, editing tests generally are not administered on a computer, which would allow the editor to utilize two of the main tools of the trade—MS Word’s spell and grammar checkers.

    Rather, the test involves working on hard copy only. In effect, editor applicants are handcuffed by editing “manually.” This doesn’t simulate the real world we’ll work in because it deprives us of critical resources that normally are at our disposal.

    Saturday, January 3, 2009

    The A Team

    This is another piece about the tendency in proposal writing to overcapitalize as a way to give added weight (i.e., importance and value) to certain words or terms. In this case, the culprit is Team.

    Many of our proposal managers instruct their writers to uppercase Team when referring to our or the Team, in other words the group of people who will carry out the contract if it’s awarded to us. (Some writers keep that instruction in mind as they draft their work; others deal with it by running a global “search and replace” before submitting their work to me for editing.)

    The managers do not, however, address how to treat the various forms that team can take in a proposal. As a result, I regularly see “the previous Team,” “the incumbent’s Team,” “a Teaming partner,” “the Teaming arrangement,” and so forth.

    Obviously this wouldn’t even be an issue if common sense ruled the day. But then, what would I have to write about!

    If it's Tuesday, I must be working for . . .

    The company I work for has Systems in its name.

    So, the possessive would be Systems' as you well know.

    Staff and contract writers routinely submit material with, for example, "Bogus System's management approach . . ."

    As the name implies, the company comprises multiple systems. And yet some of our writers would make it less so.