Thursday, April 30, 2009

Pew Editor Fired: “Search and Replace” Gone Terribly Wrong

WASHINGTON, April 30 (Geuters) — People experienced in the use of the “search and replace” function in word processing software understand that, even though it’s a valuable tool, it’s also a potential minefield.

Editors in particular understand this. Copy Editor Ruud Ozkapici at Pew Research, however, evidently had a mental lapse in running a search and replace and has been fired for the results.

The following is part of the result of Ozkapici’s search and replace, in which he inadvertently searched for “religion/religious” and replaced it with “underwear” rather than “religious affiliation.”

Underwear Changes in the U.S. in Flux

April 27, 2009, Executive Summary

Americans change their underwear early and often. In total, about half of American adults have changed underwear at least once during their lives. Most people who change their underwear leave their childhood underwear before age 24, and many of those who change underwear do so more than once. These are among the key findings of a new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The survey documents the fluidity of underwear in the U.S. and describes in detail the patterns and reasons for change.

The reasons people give for changing their underwear—or leaving underwear altogether—differ widely depending on the origin and destination of the convert. The group that has grown the most in recent years due to underwear change is the unaffiliated population. Two-thirds of former Catholics who have become unaffiliated and half of former Protestants who have become unaffiliated say they left their childhood underwear because they stopped believing in its teachings, and roughly four-in-ten say they became unaffiliated because they do not believe in God or the teachings of most underwear. Additionally, many people who left underwear to become unaffiliated say they did so in part because they think of underwear people as hypocritical or judgmental, because underwear organizations focus too much on rules or because underwear leaders are too focused on power and money. Far fewer say they became unaffiliated because they believe that modern science proves that underwear is just superstition.


In his unsuccessful defense (following discovery of his error just prior to publication), Ozkapici said he was preoccupied with “underwear” when he was editing the report. “I had ruined many of my wife’s panties when I did the laundry,” he said, “and I promised to pick up new ones for her that day.”

Weapons of Mass Destructzzzzzz....... cont'd

Proofing the final layout of the WMD book continues to be a challenge. The author alternates between the esoterica in the entry below to this kind of obviousness:

"Sharing views on a regular basis is crucial for different cultures and religions to be able to live together in peace and understanding."

If I listen hard enough between the lines, I believe the author is playing "I'd Like to Buy the World a Coke."

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Weapons of Mass Destructzzzzzz.......

I just started a final proof of a book on the proliferation of WMD. Here's a sample:


The publisher should put this one on tape and market it as a sleep aid.

Friday, April 17, 2009

The Wall knows and demands, "Feed me!"

We just learned that one of our proposals won, to the tune of $49 million.

The proposal center manager sent us the following message:

It looks like we won are on a roll. [Yep, she omitted "and."] We need to put the cover of this proposal on the wall.

A continuation of no thank you's, no bonuses, no attempt to get us raises, which have been postponed indefinitely in light of the economy. But, by all means we must add the proposal cover to our "win wall."

My response to her email, copied to everyone in the center, was:

I’m sure the wall will be very pleased to receive additional compensation, of a kind. And if it could speak, it would utter a great big "THANK YOU."

Intro to Mismanagement 101

Our proposal center manager is the most incompetent manager I’ve ever known. And that is saying something—I’ve been working since 1966!

We are in the final stages of completing a proposal. The Gold Team (i.e., final) review has been completed, and I checked to see if the desktop publishing specialist had properly made their edits. What I saw in my review is evidence of what could be a case study in how not to put together a proposal.

Here are some key steps (there are many more) the proposal center manager should have taken to ensure an infinitely better product than the one we are about to submit.

1. Hold a kickoff meeting with all writers and reviewers to describe in detail the writing and review processes.

2. Distribute and review the proposal style guide.

3. Bring about a consensus on which reviewer is the final arbiter on content changes.

4. Meet with reviewers to capture how each of their changes could impact the material reviewed by others.

5. Meet with desktop publishing specialists and graphic designers to define style, and to agree on consistency guidelines.

6. Properly screen the temp editors.

7. Provide me (the lone staff editor) the opportunity to review our proposal style with the temp editors.

8. Ensure there is a mechanism in place to track changes that would be the target of global searches/replaces just prior to production.

The above touch on just a portion of what needs to be done on a writing project that involves multiple writers and reviewers. This is fairly obvious to those who have edited in just such an environment.

The proposal center manager, however, has chosen not to manage—by any stretch of the imagination—any key area of our operations. Rather, she busies herself by cleaning the whiteboards in our conference rooms, hassling her direct reports, and holding worthless weekly staff meetings during which she utters platitudes such as, “We’re all a team here,” “We’re all adults here,” “Remember to do your timesheet daily,” and “Do you want to have a pot luck lunch?”

She is universally regarded as a joke. Yet she survives. None of us can figure out how.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Non mea culpa

Big proposal due this week. Too big for me to handle alone.

We brought in two temp editors yesterday.

I did a final review of the proposal to ready it for the Gold Team review—the Suits’ last chance for input prior to production.

Part of my review included eyeballing the sections done by the temps.
Oh.My.God. Typos (spell check not run; unforgivable); the company name spelled wrong (cardinal sin of the first order); and more.

I ran down the litany for the proposal coordinator—the best defense . . .

But the temps are long gone. And the Suits know where I live.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Persona non grata V: Sisyphus reporting in

For the current proposal, I developed (based on the Request for Proposal) an extensive list of acronyms and key terms. The list represents the style to be used by the writers.

Among the acronyms are a number that don't need to be spelled out even on first occurrence; they're that well known to the proposal reviewers.

I started editing the proposal today, completing the executive summary and one section of the technical proposal. It took about six hours, at least half of which were devoted to cleaning up the acronym mess—that is, spelling items out the first time they appear. (I bet you're getting tired of reading that. Me too.)

As I was wrapping up my work, I mentioned to the proposal coordinator that the writers had not, despite my list, spelled out many items at all. She told me that the proposal manager had given his writers a list of about twenty acronyms that could stand on their own.

I had to go back through the documents to undo much of my work; for about another hour.

Neither the proposal manager (a contractor) nor the proposal coordinator (a coworker) gave a thought to yours truly—who is responsible for ensuring consistency)—and the fact that his style decisions and list would have an impact on the editing process.

The rock gets heavier and the hill steeper—exponentially every single day.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Editors say their efforts are for naught, study finds

Editing tops the list of professions whose members feel their work makes no difference whatsoever, according to a study just released by the Pew Research Center.

The annual study, headed up by Pew Workplace Analysis Director Enoko Elenkov, surveyed the nearly 3,000 jobs on the Bureau of Labor Statistics Standard Occupational Classification list. The study’s findings are based on more than two million responses.

“We were quite surprised to see editing join the list of usual suspects, let alone come in at #1,” said Elenkov, “given that prior to this year, editing had never even broken the top 50.” Pew has conducted the survey annually since 1965.

Rounding out the top ten (in descending order) are telemarketers, quarry rock splitters, conveyor belt operators, tire builders, ticket takers, cashiers, meter readers, polishing machine setters, and data entry keyers.

“According to their responses,” Elenkov continued, “editors believe that what they perceive as the precipitous decline in the value of their work has been driven by two related developments: the ascendancy of the Internet as the primary source of information, and the subsequent decline of traditional [hard copy] reading.”

Elenkov said the vast majority of editors who responded to the survey questionnaire work in the print medium. The following typify their comments:

“The dominance of the Web has shortened attention spans with the concomitant inability of readers to spot errors. So what’s the point of what I do?”

“Who but an editor gives a damn about a missing serial comma or dangling participle, especially on a website?”

“Not one of my friends has read a book in the past year.”

“If you want to see the future of the written word, look at Twitter. Come to think of it, the future has arrived—in 140 characters max!”

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Editing as Blood Sport

This past week was a bitch: more than the usual amount of BS and dysfunction at work, and the deadline for my freelance edit of a horrendous manuscript. I made it through—barely.

Friday night, still reeling from the war on two fronts, my blood pressure was 137/78—well above average for me. Last night, my reading was 89/53.

Sometimes, numbers don't lie.

Ask an Editor

I recently had an opportunity to sit down with Anabela Cerezo, shortly after she ended her ten-year stint as chief copy editor for the London edition of the Wall Street Journal.

While I knew that Anabela could offer many enlightening comments on her career and the state of the editing profession, I wanted to get her perspective on the Obama presidency from the across the pond. The following are highlights.

Me: First, let me thank you, Anabela, for speaking with me today. I know you’re busy planning your retirement.

AC: Bud, any time spent not editing is a pleasure.

Me: Amen to that, Anabela. OK, so let’s take a look at some of the many issues on the president’s overflowing plate. First up, priorities. Should Obama focus on the environment or intelligence gathering?

AC: Place i before e except after c.

Me: How about the ongoing search for Bin Laden?

AC: A singular subject takes a singular verb, while a plural subject takes a plural verb.

Me: In terms of the financial crisis, who is more to blame, New York or Washington?

AC: To find the subject and verb, always find the verb first. Then ask who or what performed the verb.

Me: How do you see the prospects for improved relations between the U.S., Russia, and China?

AC: Between refers to two. Among is used for three or more.

Me: As they say, a trillion here, a trillion there, and we’re talking real money. What can Obama do to convey the scope of the economic problem?

AC: The simplest way to express large numbers is best. Round numbers are usually spelled out.

Me: There are many so-called experts chiming in with their recommended solutions to a host of problems. How are they doing in presenting their cases?

AC: Omit unnecessary words, and avoid a succession of loose sentences.

Me: And finally, some believe that Congress has too readily accommodated the president’s agenda. Is this claim legitimate?

AC: Use the active voice unless you specifically need to use the passive voice.

Me: Anabela, I want to thank you for taking time to speak with me this morning, and I appreciate, as always, your considered opinions. Best of luck to you.

AC: Bud, you’re more than welcome. And remember, always run spell-check.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Persona non grata IV

The players: G is one of our two proposal coordinators. S is a contract proposal manager, called in on a regular basis. He and I have had several conversations. S knows I’m the sole editor in the proposal center.

The following is an unedited email:

Hi G, Could you have a quick edit done on this paragraph (e.g. use of semi colons on last line, etc.. I need this today by say 2 PM. I need to have authors repllicate all but the yellow highlited portion in a number of sections, therefore, I want to get it right the first time! Thanks, S

As you might have noticed, S doesn’t mention me specifically. (Please note: rhetorical question coming.) Is there someone else to do “a quick edit”? G passed his request on to me, and I quickly edited S’s graph.

S was in the office today. Post-edit I passed him twice. Nary a word of greeting or thanks.

I wish I truly were invisible. I could save a lot of money at Starbucks, for example.