Sunday, June 28, 2009

Mediaocracy on the home front

Mediaocracy is variously defined, but generally means "the system of maintaining control over a nation by utilizing the media."

For me, that definition has been turned on its head. You see, media—storage media in particular—have taken control of my personal digital and computing world.

Editors, and others who create, manipulate, and store documents, rely on effective systems of document version control and content management systems (CMS). And so it is, or should be, with the hundreds of personal files consisting of my own writing as well as freelance editing work.

An effective CMS would, in effect, allow me to see the forest for the trees. Unfortunately, what once was a clear view of the forest has been obscured to the extreme by the trees that have taken root and cluttered up my file world.

Two factors have contributed to the chaos that now exists across my files: (1) the importance of backing up files, and (2) the advances in storage media, including hardware, software, and online storage. Well, actually, make that three factors, the third being an interest in exploring and testing out the preceding #2.

So, where exactly are my files, and their copies? Various files exist in the Documents folders on two computers (my PowerBook G4 and iMac G5), on two external hard drives (USB and Firewire), on four USB flash drives (ranging from 128MB to 8GB), online (at Google documents, Soonr and DropBox), within two software applications on my computers (Scrivener and Journler), and most recently on my iPhone (the Documents To Go app).

It's been said that folks who lived through the Great Depression developed a "Depression mentality" that governed their conservative and guarded approach to personal finance for the rest of their lives. A parallel exists for those of us who have lost valuable files and data stored on our computers.

But having said that, one might conclude from reading this, that there's a fine line between backing up files and OCD. One would not be far from the truth. HELP!

Saturday, June 27, 2009

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds . . ."

If Ralph Waldo Emerson had been around when I was hiring editors, he'd have been my guy; he got it.

I'm editing a book on professional hockey—seventeen chapters filled with countless references to the NHL and other professional and semi-pro hockey leagues.

I dare say there will not be a single reader who doesn't know what any of the league acronyms stands for.

So I have to remove my full-time job hat—the one that compels me to enforce the acronym rule (spell out first time in each section of a proposal)—and follow common sense. After all, to do otherwise would be detected out there in the space-time continuum and disturb Emerson.

Something's Gotta Give

The Time-Cost-Scope paradigm is simple and goes something like this:

In considering any kind of output (e.g., goods and services), there is an ideal equilibrium or balance among the inputs T, C, and S that results in the most efficient and effective way to achieve the desired output. If you alter any one of the three inputs, this changes the "weight" of the other two and creates an imbalance or disequilibrium.


For example, let's say it takes me one hour to do an in-depth edit of five pages of material for which I charge $35. If I rush through the material and complete my edit in a half hour, the quality suffers.

And this is exactly what happened with my online editing, freelance job. The rate of pay is $3.50 per article. So the only way I could make a reasonable per-hour wage was to race through articles, thus impacting the quality. This approach quickly becomes apparent to the copy chiefs, who scrupulously review and critique the work of the copy editors.

We occasionally need to consider how much our time is worth. It's hard to argue with the position that $7 an hour is better than zero. But is that hourly wage something that a self-respecting professional would accept?

As a friend and fellow editor put it, "Those folks are running a sweat shop!" I concurred, thanked my team leader for the opportunity, and told her that I was giving up the position.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Ivan's Scammer Syntax Software (version 3.2.1)

I recently decided to play along for a while (via email) with "Marina," a "Russian" scammer.

She had chosen me from the Internets, would soon leave her little village, travel to St. Petersburg, and finally join me here in the States.

One of her many increasingly intimate, revealing, and romantic emails included the following poem:

My voice for you both tender and languid
Disturbs later silence of night dark.
Near bed sad the candle burns mine;
My verses merge murmuring, flow, rivers love,
Flow are full you.
In darkness your eyes shine before with me,
To me smile, and sounds are heard by me:
My friend, my gentle friend. I Like .. Yours Yours!

In pinetions long hopeless,
In alarms of noisy vanity,
The voice gentle sounded to me long
Also lovely fig dreamed.
And heart beat in ecstasy,
And for it have revived again
And a deity, and inspiration,
Both life, and happiness, and love


The more I read this poem, the more I am convinced these scammers use a software program that is designed to convert good English writing into what you see above—a hodgepodge of grammar and syntax errors from the perspective of a variety of other languages. It's Word's grammar and spell check turned inside out. Brilliant.

Back to Marina. As the English poet Philip James Bailey (1816–1905) wrote, "Poets are all who love, who feel great truths, And tell them; and the truth of truths is love."

You gotta love a scammer who's a romantic. In my case, it was up to the point when Marina asked for my full name and phone number. No doubt an airfare request was forthcoming.

Here's Marina's between two of her friends; and don't they look Russian!


Final note: I did some research on the Russian-wife scam game and quickly discovered "Marina" identified on two alert sites under two different names and hometowns.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

The Illiterati are taking over my office.

The Rookie (see entry immediately below) continues her relentless pursuit of endearing herself to anyone above her in the hierarchy. Here's another one of her needless (by any normal business standard) updates to the proposal center manager:

"Bud was able to download the Acrowizard successfully and will have 30 days to work with it and see if it is helpful and/or a tool he would most likely use.

"I will touch basis with you and Bud a few days before our trial period is over to see if it is something worth purchasing. Thanks!"

First, the "and/or": Using this construction doesn't make you appear to be a good writer. It's lazy writing and, in this case, it's not even correct. "Helpful and a tool" works, even though it's redundant. "Helpful or a tool" is a nonsensical pairing.

Second, "I will touch basis with you" . . . no comment needed.

Third, "Thanks!": Who here needs to be thanked, and emphatically to boot?

The concept of need-to-know is not part of her functional vocabulary.

We have a new temp-to-perm proposal coordinator who makes the Energizer Bunny seem catatonic. She flits around the office continuously, trying to make a good impression in more ways than I care to write about. Suffice to say she's overbearing, overreaching, and overly enthusiastic.

And she provides way too much information, most of it unnecessary. For example, I generally edit proposals after the third internal review, by the Gold Team. Their review is preceded first by the Pink Team, then by the Red Team.

The Rookie just came to me with another of her needless updates, this time to inform me that the Pink Team review date has been changed. Her update included the obvious fact that this change doesn't affect me.

One can only hope that she will burn out and get out of our collective hair.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Redundant and repetitive

From Amazon.com's review of the new Spinal Tap CD/DVD:

"Back From The Dead" is destined to be a collector's item, especially among collectors.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

The Insolent Incumbent

I edited a Request for Information (RFI) yesterday for a federal contract for which my company is the incumbent. It's a multi-year contract, and the RFI is a formality; simply some mid-contract documentation to support the continuation of our work with the government client.

The resume section was a mess—several entirely blank "Summary of Experience" sections and numerous entries that I queried.

When the proposal coordinator released the edited files to the project manager for review, he told her that he didn't have time to look at the files. She told him the files had extensive edits visible with the "Track Changes" function on, and that there were queries that required his attention. He repeated that he wasn't going to review my work, and that it really didn't matter as we're the incumbent contractor.

This begs the question, Why even bother to send projects like this through Editing and Desktop Publishing?

The it's/its confusion has me in a snit!

The results are in, and this week's most-often corrected word is it's incorrectly used in place of its.

Coming in second was there/their, with the ever-popular assure/ensure just a hair behind in third.

The multiple offenses were in a proposal for Office of Management and Budget IT support. I'm starting to think that the geek writers whose work I review hacked their grade records for English and skipped those classes.

Friday, June 19, 2009

Subject-verb Manager-editor disagreement

The proposal center manager continues her unabated assault on the English language:

"Please let GVA know when the documents has been complete."

It's a miracle I don't get migraines.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Maruchan Instant Lunch Editor's Reflex

CAUTION: HOT! HANDLE WITH CARE ESPECIALLY WHEN SERVING CHILDREN

Thanks for the warning. I'll have my kid medium-well with risotto on the side.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Waterboarding, written edition

You might remember an email from one of my coworkers who wrote to the staff, "Sorry for the incontinence" (see 3/13/09, "Not everyone . . .").

Well, he's making a return appearance. Yesterday he sent me an email with this: "But [yours truly, Bud, has never been called this before] can you please edit this graphic, [you just asked a question; the comma's so wrong!] I will bring over the hard copy [the end; period goes here dumb-dumb]"

The illiteracy that surrounds me is the bane of my existence 40 hours a week.

Friday, June 12, 2009

What is it about "unavailable" that you don't understand?

Yesterday our new temp-to-perm proposal coordinator (who, incidentally, has more energy and enthusiasm than most of us can stand) sent out an update on where a few active proposal projects stand. In her email she mentioned that there might be some weekend work and asked us to let her know if we would not be available for any of the next several weekends.

I responded by telling her that I would not be available for weekend work in the foreseeable future. (Given that I have one foot out the door, I'm not giving them one extra minute of my time or effort.)

She responded, copying our MoronManager, by asking me to make sure to put that information on the group calendar, which I had already done.

This morning MM came to me with a hard copy of my email to the proposal coordinator in hand, with "I will not be available for weekend work in the foreseeable future" highlighted in bright orange.

MM asked me if I could elaborate on my message. "Sure. I'm busy and unavailable." She then asked me to put that on the group calendar. "I already did that." And I thought, "Why don't you look at the f**kin' thing, you dolt!"

Considering the notion that everything happens for a reason, I think I've come up with why I've had this god-awful job, for a year and a half now. It's so that as I soon ease into semi-retirement—that is, transition out of FT work (read: quit!) into several PT freelance jobs—I can look back at this job and not miss having a FT office job one tiny bit.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Hi. My name is Bud and I have a problem with illiterates.

There's a Seinfeld episode revolving around the fact that Jerry's Catholic dentist, Tim, has converted to Judaism. Tim immediately starts telling Jewish jokes. Jerry takes issue with Tim's conversion because he believes Tim converted just for the jokes.

He shares this with a priest, who asks him, "And you are offended by this as a Jew?" Jerry answers, "No, I'm offended by this as a comedian!"

Which brings me to real life.

My illiterate manager sent an email this morning alerting the team that she'd be out today. Me and one other person were omitted from her message, which a coworker passed along to me.

I sent her an email inquiring about the obvious omissions.

Here's her response, verbatim:

"Regardomg tje notice of me being out today. This was not done intentionally, since I was sending it through my blackberry and I did not get the spelling of everyone’s last name, I sent it to those that their email was in my inbox."

Putting aside the fact that she doesn't have all of our addresses on her BlackBerry, just look at that writing.

Does this offend me as a member of her staff? Sure. But it really offends me as an editor!

"As brooks make rivers, rivers run to seas." John Dryden

As I look toward retirement (later rather than sooner due to the market's hit to my nest egg), I only see retirement in the sense that I'll be collecting Social Security and be on Medicare. I don't plan to or want to stop editing.

To that end, I've been trying to line up several freelance editing positions. I've got the nonfiction book editing and online article editing jobs in place, and I've applied for a "title proofer" position with the company for whom I edit articles.

Another one or two freelance income streams and I'll be set. The confluence of these rivulets could turn into the river that finally carries me away from the horror of my soul-smothering FT job.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Busted!

Earlier today I edited and approved an excellent article (for my online editing job) entitled, "About PMP Certification."

I just opened up another article to edit: "Project Management Professional Certification Requirements." It was written by the same author as the above article and is virtually identical in content.

I sent an alert to my team leader and the editorial team. His file will now be reviewed to determine if he has previously self-plagiarized.

Self-plagiarism is, within the context of the company's structure and processes, easy to get away with. That is, there are hundreds of editors, thousands of writers, and a largely random system of populating each editor's article review queue (ten at a time).

Evidently the stars are not aligned in this writer's favor today.

Friday, June 5, 2009

And after our croissant, we'll smoke a Gitanes.

Describing the kind of person sought, the following was part of an ad on mediabistro.com for an editor position at a consumer magazine in northern Virginia.

You:
---like working on a close-knit team where you can learn every aspect of magazine publishing
---are overflowing with creative ideas
---thrive in a fun, fast-paced environment
---enjoy baked goods on Wednesday


Hard working, creative, fun types are a dime a dozen. I'll pass, thank you very much. Give me a Wednesday doughperson anytime.

I know that when I've done recruiting, I've always hired editors whose refined palate can appreciate the finest Wednesday-only specialties from my local patisserie.

In addition to that attribute, and perhaps even more important, is that they have the self-discipline to indulge in that guilty pleasure only on Wednesdays.

Wednesday's child is full of woe joie de vivre.

Zen

From one of our desktop publishers:

"I am going to be tomorrow morning by 9:30am."

She may be language challenged, but does it really matter if she can be one with time?

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Less is less.

The following business item in radio news is ubiquitous: "The Dow was down 75 points today."

C'est tout. Fini. No context. Vacuum.

This is a completely useless piece of information without it's AWOL partner—where the Dow started or, at the very least, what percentage the move represents.

The goal of news reporting should not be to leave us wanting more.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

The first cut is the deepest!

I just did my first "Reject" of a computer-related How To article in my freelance, online editing work.

I asked the writer a few simple questions and, BAM, she came back with an article twice the original length. In responding, she introduced roughly 12 items that IMHO required elaboration. Too bad, because the original was worth publishing if it incorporated the info I sought.

So long forest, hello trees.