Sixth World Almanac electronic release!, It's out NOW! Options

[Adam]

Did Matt and Adam check each others layouts?

Well, in this case: when I left Catalyst, I sent all my files to Matt and he finished the book. I did the original layout for the Timeline section, but I assume it went through changes + further proofing after I left, as what I turned over wasn't finished. I haven't seen the final book.

[nylanfs]

I know most think it's so easy to proof. It isn't. Could it be better? Yes, but I haven't found a single RPG book yet the was 'perfect'.

The more fingers in the pie so to speak on the writing the harder it is to keep 'perfect'.

One of my DM's (David Paul) for the games that cause cancer is a editor for a publisher (currently Rite Publishing) and from listening to him. There is no way I would want that job, it sounds entirely too thankless to me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

But on the other hand he's detail oriented, and there's been VERY few mistakes that I've caught in anything he's edited.

[Hagga]

Damnit, I wanted something on Thule. Now I'll have to.. I don't know, replicate Morrowind on Kamchatka island?

Actually, that sounds like a lot of fun. Unless someone knows something about Thule? I can't seem to hunt it ddown. Or anything on the TPA.

[Jaid]

Depends on who you ask and how much of a stickler they are.

Gamers want something that cannot be done. There is just too many hands that books like this have to go through to keep it at a low error rate. Let's look at 2 people who both wrote and proofed the book, John Schmidt and Michael Wich. Did they proof their own work or did they proof a certain section, that may or may not have included their own contributions. Did Matt and Adam check each others layouts?

We have no idea how they went about producing the book. All we know is 3 people were involved in development,(2 of who were the editors and also writers), 16 writers, 10 proofreaders( 5 of whom wrote as well) and 2 layout persons. 26 odd people(who are credited). That is quite a few trying to keep everything all nice and error-free.

i don't think anyone has said they expected a 200 page book to have no errors at all. but that doesn't mean we couldn't reasonably expect the number of errors to be few. when i take something in to school to be graded, it is expected that i don't make a lot of errors, and that's when *I* am paying *them*.

in this case, these people are getting paid to write (albeit not much) and then other people are being paid (well... compensated, more likely) to go through and check it for errors. expecting them to do some proofreading, and actually do at least very basic quality control (like the mentioned duplication of sidebars, which should have been noticed) before selling the product is not unreasonable.

[Endroren]

I'm sorry I offended you, but all I was doing was what people do on tech forums all day long (and I am a technology professional in my day job). One person posts a problem, another posts a likely diagnosis and people go back and forth *testing* different solutions to see what works.

If you don't agree with my diagnosis, that's okay. But please accept it in the spirit it was intended in, which was not "your iPad is broken" so much as a starting point for narrowing down what the real problem is.

I want to publicly say "No problem and sorry for snapping." As I said in the first post I was feeling crabby, and frankly I should have done the old "give it a day before you post" things - sorry about that.

And yeah - I love my iPad but I'll concede that refusing to support the necessary components is annoying - CURSE YOU APPLE! Still, odds are they aren't going to change for anyone so it WOULD be cool to get a 6WA that works on my iPad! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Adam]

Over the years, Apple _has_ made their PDF rendering libraries more robust on OS X. This isn't a case of them never changing things for the better.

[Piersdrach]

i don't think anyone has said they expected a 200 page book to have no errors at all. but that doesn't mean we couldn't reasonably expect the number of errors to be few. when i take something in to school to be graded, it is expected that i don't make a lot of errors, and that's when *I* am paying *them*.

in this case, these people are getting paid to write (albeit not much) and then other people are being paid (well... compensated, more likely) to go through and check it for errors. expecting them to do some proofreading, and actually do at least very basic quality control (like the mentioned duplication of sidebars, which should have been noticed) before selling the product is not unreasonable.

I am not saying it is unreasonable.

I am just pointing out that no one here will agree to what is reasonable.

They should feel ashamed at producing a product with this type of quality. I can sympathize with them though.

[fexes]

My brand new Sixth World poster

[MJBurrage]

My brand new Sixth World poster

Looks like it was rolled (not folded), where did you get it ?

[fexes]

Looks like it was rolled (not folded), where did you get it ?

Yep, no folds! D.I.Y. or die.

[Dr.Rockso]

So, any word on whether the print version will be devoid of this slew of errors? Forgive me if this was answered but I'm sure I intend to buy it if has as many errors as it seems to.

[Jaid]

if someone goes through, picks it apart, and hands them a huge pile of corrections, so far the usual thing that happens is that they'll update it from what i've seen.

there's a big difference between "man, this thing is full of errors" and a list of 500 specific errors with specific page references and suggested corrections for them. the first is just a complaint, the second tells them how to fix it.

(or, in other words, if you do a full proofreading for them, they have so far gone to the effort to fix it)

[Doc Chase]

Well of course. You've gone ahead and done the editing job for them.

It's a project for this weekend, if I get off STO long enough to get around to it.

[Sengir]

if someone goes through, picks it apart, and hands them a huge pile of corrections, so far the usual thing that happens is that they'll update it from what i've seen.

From what I've heard, several freelancers pointed out continuity errors which CGL had edited into their stuff long before the Corp Guid was released, and the final (pdf) version still has them...

Oh well, Pegasus have already announced to do some massive bugfixing for the German release, which is a real irony: German and English used to differ books no longer differ because our distributors wrote their own canon. These days Pegasus gets approval from CGL for every addition they make to a book, but CGL ignores the "unified" canon.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

Depends on who you ask and how much of a stickler they are.

Gamers want something that cannot be done. There is just too many hands that books like this have to go through to keep it at a low error rate. Let's look at 2 people who both wrote and proofed the book, John Schmidt and Michael Wich. Did they proof their own work or did they proof a certain section, that may or may not have included their own contributions. Did Matt and Adam check each others layouts?

We have no idea how they went about producing the book. All we know is 3 people were involved in development,(2 of who were the editors and also writers), 16 writers, 10 proofreaders( 5 of whom wrote as well) and 2 layout persons. 26 odd people(who are credited). That is quite a few trying to keep everything all nice and error-free.

I believe that having more eyes on any given product is going to reduce the number of errors. Considering the page count of previously published material that this book touched on this was not a small project by any stretch of the imagination.

It would be fair to say that the freelancers did discuss the urgent need to get things right because of the amount of scrutiny that they knew this product would garner. No one was taking anything for granted with this product. Sadly, none of us walk on water so there ya go. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[Wesley Street]

It's a partnership. Certainly more eyes on a project are going to catch more errors. However it's also up to whoever's at the top of the totem pole on a particular project to make sure the corrections are actually implemented.

[Adam]

And to make sure that the suggested corrections are actually correct and keep within the Shadowrun style guide. Back in my day (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) I saw plenty of suggested corrections that were based on strict adherence to certain manuals of style but didn't make sense for the in-character voice that was being used. Shadowtalkers are allowed to use poor grammar, goddamnit. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Doc Chase]

And to make sure that the suggested corrections are actually correct and keep within the Shadowrun style guide. Back in my day (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) I saw plenty of suggested corrections that were based on strict adherence to certain manuals of style but didn't make sense for the in-character voice that was being used. Shadowtalkers are allowed to use poor grammar, goddamnit. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I agree - but it's telling when certain shadowtalkers are using perfectly fine grammar in one section and piss-poor grammar in the next. When they vacillate, eyebrows rise. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Adam]

Absolutely true. A better guide to how each shadowtalker should be voiced would have been a boon to authors, editors, developers, and proofers. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Doc Chase]

Absolutely true. A better guide to how each shadowtalker should be voiced would have been a boon to authors, editors, developers, and proofers. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I would also like a pony. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

6WA's example is Kane. I've seen Kane comments since 2nd Ed - and the first time I've seen his grammar fail was 6WA. Even Ghost Cartels had his voice, but he still knew where to end his sentances.

I think that's where my eyebrow rises. I get everyone's voice. They're all done very well, and kudos to the writers for it, as there are a lot of characters being written in and they're all getting good time. I'm not so sure that Jackpoint has a WYSIWYG spellcheck for commenters, though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Bira]

Finally read this. I don't mind the typos so much, but the incorrect yearly timelines did bug me a bit. It also bugged me that they couldn't think of a better flag for Amazonia than that crummy map of the Amazon river (I think I'd have kept the old flag with a few added stars and a snake instead of the "Ordem e Progresso" banner). The writeup of Amazonia also felt a bit rushed, which makes it obvious that they tried to fit what used to be a whole book chapter into a handful of pages, but other than that they even got the Portuguese names mostly right! I can totally conceive of a dragon named "Pedrinho da Metrópole", and it cracks me up (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) . It did feel nice to read about M'boi and Metrópole, though, as those were my ideas way back at the beginning of the "Shadows of Latin America" project (though I can't claim any credit for their actual implementation).

Can't say much about the other country descriptions other than "I liked them". Hard to comb for details when I don't live there.

As for the continuity errors other have spotter, they don't bother me in the least. I always plan to change stuff to better fit my own games.

[nylanfs]

Is there going to be physical copies at GenCon (to buy that is)? Yes I know I'm wishing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[JM Hardy]

Is there going to be physical copies at GenCon (to buy that is)? Yes I know I'm wishing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Cross your fingers really, really hard! I am!

Jason H.

[nylanfs]

Damn you with the teases!!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Elixir]

forgive me if this has been answered, but, where can I send some errata I noticed?