Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: CGL on proofreading
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Sengir
Nearly a week old but seemingly nobody here read's CGL's tumblr (or none of those who do found it notable): http://catalystgamelabs.tumblr.com/post/10...roofing-process

Admitting that something went wrong probably counts for something, even though it isn't news to anyone who paid attention The "new" process on the other hand...really? They discovered annotated PDFs? Rumor has it those annotations don't even use cuneiform anymore...
Shemhazai
I'll bet the community could create something like this:

0767908171 - Errata and corrigenda

Title list - Errata and corrigenda
Jaid
so who's got money on those three pages going to the final version without the proofer's corrections incorporated in spite of their new fancy "system"? nyahnyah.gif

(i mean, seriously, it's not as if they didn't have access to the proofreading team's work before, and they still managed to not include a lot of really obvious fixes before...)
PraetorGradivus
QUOTE (Jaid @ Feb 5 2015, 07:35 PM) *
so who's got money on those three pages going to the final version without the proofer's corrections incorporated in spite of their new fancy "system"? nyahnyah.gif

(i mean, seriously, it's not as if they didn't have access to the proofreading team's work before, and they still managed to not include a lot of really obvious fixes before...)


Oh ye of little faith.

Me, I have faith that it will contain no proofer's corrections.
Sengir
QUOTE (Shemhazai @ Feb 5 2015, 09:21 PM) *
I'll bet the community could create something like this:

0767908171 - Errata and corrigenda

Title list - Errata and corrigenda

Given that a lot of errata isn't as cut-and-dry as the dragon hordes, a bugtracker would probably be better for a community effort.
Bertramn
Relying on the community for that would be the best solution I think,
because it would be coupled with an early look into the material,
and would offer the players opportunity to to maybe even influence the products content.

Thank god they have revolutionized the process of proofreading though,
the Lutheran system just didn't work, as we have seen with the last BBB.
Cain
Really isn't all that different than the old system. That was done on a cloud doc, but otherwise the comments and approval process was the same. Which, incidentally, was the part of the process that failed.
Jaid
the only modifications that needed to be made was to actually listen to their proofreaders. think of all the stuff that people complained about that we have specifically heard proofreaders say "oh, I submitted that for correction".

the new fancy system is all very well and good, but the first thing that needs to happen is that CGL needs to actually follow up on the proofreaders feedback. no amount of improving the way they can give feedback will help until the feedback ceases to be ignored.

hopefully, the fact that they took the time to set this up (not that I suspect it was particularly hard) implies that they're actually going to act on feedback. if they do, then that (not their new fancy system) will be what improves the quality of the books.
Draco18s
QUOTE (Jaid @ Feb 6 2015, 10:53 AM) *
the only modifications that needed to be made was to actually listen to their proofreaders.


Where's our "like this post" button?
tete
QUOTE (Jaid @ Feb 6 2015, 04:53 PM) *
the only modifications that needed to be made was to actually listen to their proofreaders. think of all the stuff that people complained about that we have specifically heard proofreaders say "oh, I submitted that for correction".


+1
Ryu
QUOTE (Jaid @ Feb 6 2015, 04:53 PM) *
the only modifications that needed to be made was to actually listen to their proofreaders. think of all the stuff that people complained about that we have specifically heard proofreaders say "oh, I submitted that for correction".

the new fancy system is all very well and good, but the first thing that needs to happen is that CGL needs to actually follow up on the proofreaders feedback. no amount of improving the way they can give feedback will help until the feedback ceases to be ignored.

hopefully, the fact that they took the time to set this up (not that I suspect it was particularly hard) implies that they're actually going to act on feedback. if they do, then that (not their new fancy system) will be what improves the quality of the books.

I sure hope they will - for the greater good of the line. From the description I agree that this is the old process with new tech.
Smash
QUOTE (PraetorGradivus @ Feb 6 2015, 11:01 AM) *
Oh ye of little faith.

Me, I have faith that it will contain no proofer's corrections.


It's not faith if it's supported by evidence smile.gif
PraetorGradivus
QUOTE (Smash @ Feb 8 2015, 06:59 PM) *
It's not faith if it's supported by evidence smile.gif






Faith is defined as confidence or trust in a being, object, living organism, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant. It can also be belief that is not based on proof.

Faith can be supported by evidence, it just doesn't require it.
Umidori
Far too little, far too late.

I've actually begun shopping around for other game systems entirely at this point. I suppose can always run 4E from time to time while I wait for the SR license to change hands, but CGL has lost a customer for life - short of a hell of a lot of hard work on their part making up for lost trust, I expect to never buy any of their products ever again.

~Umi
Mikado
QUOTE (Umidori @ Feb 10 2015, 06:22 AM) *
Far too little, far too late.

I've actually begun shopping around for other game systems entirely at this point. I suppose can always run 4E from time to time while I wait for the SR license to change hands, but CGL has lost a customer for life - short of a hell of a lot of hard work on their part making up for lost trust, I expect to never buy any of their products ever again.

~Umi

Seconded...
Draco18s
Oh hai guys, welcome to the bandwagon.
Medicineman
I'll get the Core Books in German and will play either 4th ed or a Mix (the best of both worlds) of SR4A and SR5
on Conventions I'll play both Editions

mit a mixed Dance
Medicineman
fistandantilus4.0
I'm hoping that they'll actually deliver. I did some proof reading way back some have some idea of at least the old process and the amount of work those guys put in. For nothing. Well, for books anyway. So I'm hopeful that things will work out.

But I've been told I'm an optimist. I know that Trash CGL is the popular opinion here, and there's plenty of valid reasons feel that way. If they're actively saying "we know this is a problem and are going to fix it" I'll reserve judgement until after they've put out whatever is next and see how their proposed Fix turns out. [Optimism] Doesn't seem fair to give them more hate when they say they're fixing something. [/Optimism]
binarywraith
QUOTE (fistandantilus4.0 @ Feb 10 2015, 09:47 PM) *
I'm hoping that they'll actually deliver. I did some proof reading way back some have some idea of at least the old process and the amount of work those guys put in. For nothing. Well, for books anyway. So I'm hopeful that things will work out.

But I've been told I'm an optimist. I know that Trash CGL is the popular opinion here, and there's plenty of valid reasons feel that way. If they're actively saying "we know this is a problem and are going to fix it" I'll reserve judgement until after they've put out whatever is next and see how their proposed Fix turns out. [Optimism] Doesn't seem fair to give them more hate when they say they're fixing something. [/Optimism]


Thing is, they've known this is a problem. They've been told. Extensively, for at minimum a year and a half now since we first got our grubby mitts on the SR5 PDF and generated an immediate dozen pages of proofing errors. We got an 'oops'... but it was too late to not go to press. Errata were generated... then they went to press with the second printing without incorporating any of the changes. Then the same issues started showing up in all of the splatbooks and PDF supplements.

At what point does optimism have to surrender to practical fact?
Sengir
QUOTE (fistandantilus4.0 @ Feb 11 2015, 04:47 AM) *
[Optimism] Doesn't seem fair to give them more hate when they say they're fixing something. [/Optimism]

As I initially said, admitting that something went wrong counts for something. And they did improve their errata releases (i.e. started releasing errata) after announcing they'd do better in that regard.

It's just that their announced improvement really can only be taken with (dark) humor...
Jaid
or, in other words, most of us would like to have them show us that they are not ignoring their proofreaders (by releasing quality product consistently) instead of telling us that it's all because they weren't using the right kind of shared document technology and now everything is going to be all better because they have new software that does the exact same thing as the old software, only with a different name on it.

after all: fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.
Draco18s
QUOTE (binarywraith @ Feb 11 2015, 03:11 AM) *
since we first got our grubby mitts on the SR5 PDF and generated an immediate dozen pages of proofing errors


Or...actually since probably War! which wasn't terribly well proofed either, ignoring all of the bullshit content.
Bertramn
Please.

No discussion of War!.
I can remember the last one.
I can still smell the bodies sometimes.
Umidori
QUOTE (Bertramn @ Feb 11 2015, 08:29 AM) *
Please.

No discussion of War!.
I can remember the last one.
I can still smell the bodies sometimes.

You get used to it after awhile. But the nightmares will never stop. The only escape is death's sweet embrace.

QUOTE (Medicineman @ Feb 10 2015, 09:57 AM) *
I'll get the Core Books in German and will play either 4th ed or a Mix (the best of both worlds) of SR4A and SR5
on Conventions I'll play both Editions

mit a mixed Dance
Medicineman

This is somewhat off topic, but how do you like to mix the two editions? Generally I prefer the combat of 5E better, but I like 4E's Matrix stuff and Character Creation options more.

I'm kind of kicking around the idea of building an Unofficial "4.5E" ruleset and shopping around Dumpshock for feedback, since no one else has gotten around to doing it first yet, to my knowledge.

~Umi
sk8bcn
QUOTE (Jaid @ Feb 11 2015, 04:21 PM) *
or, in other words, most of us would like to have them show us that they are not ignoring their proofreaders (by releasing quality product consistently) instead of telling us that it's all because they weren't using the right kind of shared document technology and now everything is going to be all better because they have new software that does the exact same thing as the old software, only with a different name on it.

after all: fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.


So what? That's just beeing politically correct.

No commercial could ever write: "ok, our main line developper sucked" or "well, we fucking did not care yet".

Whatever the reason, what counts is to effectively improve.
Jaid
QUOTE (sk8bcn @ Feb 11 2015, 12:55 PM) *
So what? That's just beeing politically correct.

No commercial could ever write: "ok, our main line developper sucked" or "well, we fucking did not care yet".

Whatever the reason, what counts is to effectively improve.


sure, and the general consensus is that we'll believe they're going to improve *after* they've improved, not before. words are cheap.
carmachu
QUOTE (fistandantilus4.0 @ Feb 10 2015, 10:47 PM) *
But I've been told I'm an optimist. I know that Trash CGL is the popular opinion here, and there's plenty of valid reasons feel that way. If they're actively saying "we know this is a problem and are going to fix it" I'll reserve judgement until after they've put out whatever is next and see how their proposed Fix turns out. [Optimism] Doesn't seem fair to give them more hate when they say they're fixing something. [/Optimism]



The problem is, I think we have heard this before, in 4th.

The worst part is that I have several of their BAttletech books which have NONE of these problems. How can they put those books out so great and ours so shabby?
tete
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Feb 11 2015, 04:28 PM) *
Or...actually since probably War! which wasn't terribly well proofed either, ignoring all of the bullshit content.

I would say before that, now that I have read seattle 2072 cover to cover a few times the typographical errors numerous, as opposed to the stuff that is wrong which is humorous, and relatively small heck some of the possible mistakes are better plot!
sk8bcn
QUOTE (carmachu @ Feb 12 2015, 03:33 AM) *
The problem is, I think we have heard this before, in 4th.

The worst part is that I have several of their BAttletech books which have NONE of these problems. How can they put those books out so great and ours so shabby?



A different main line developper, don't you think?
carmachu
QUOTE (sk8bcn @ Feb 12 2015, 03:43 AM) *
A different main line developper, don't you think?


Perhaps they should import him over for a time to oversee what the heck is wrong then. because that would be the smart move to train whatever person they get to do so.
Draco18s
QUOTE (tete @ Feb 12 2015, 02:28 AM) *
I would say before that, now that I have read seattle 2072 cover to cover a few times the typographical errors numerous, as opposed to the stuff that is wrong which is humorous, and relatively small heck some of the possible mistakes are better plot!


Touche. I can't pinpoint when it started, as I've not been playing SR since college (that's 5 years ago now) and even then we didn't get most of the non-crunch books. Sure, Street Magic, Arsenal, and the like, but none of the primarily setting books (Seattle 2072, etc.) and I didn't read them often enough to locate or remember typographical problems. War! just sticks out as the sore thumb, due to the discussions here and my having gone out to find a copy I could peruse so I could write a letter to CGL and Topps.
Ryu
There is a proper process described in the FASA section, were a whole team is happily talking about the book page by page until the end is met.

Writing, testing and proofreading is outsourced, then there is a "new process" were lead dev and layouter are the only ones responsible for quality. (Youīve not done project work if you think "everyone pages through a last time" will accomplish much.) A virtual company should be able to set up a (video) conference call for handling the old process. And Iīm certain some proofreaders would happily spend even more time if they can make sure their work is used. "This person is handling editing and this one layout" is not a dedication to quality games. That would be everyone in power checking in before files went to the printer after the amount of quality and errata complaints they got. At least for the major releases.

Itīs easy to blame the face, but there should be a team behind.
Demonseed Elite
I don't actually know what CGL's problem with editing and proofreading is. Frankly, I don't understand it either. Someone is clearly dropping the ball, repeatedly, and I guess at the end of the day, I have to blame the line developer, since the buck basically stops there.

In my time as a SR freelancer, I worked with multiple companies (FASA, FanPro, then CGL) and multiple line developers (Mike Mulvihill, Rob Boyle, and Peter Taylor). The entire time, though, we used Yahoo Groups for coordination of our material. Not the fanciest form of web-based work collaboration. But we made it work. We read over each other's material, found errors, and reported them. And the editors and the line developer took those reports and actually did something with them. It wasn't rocket science and no, it wasn't perfect, but it most cases it worked pretty well. I don't know how that fairly basic process of proofreading totally broke down.
Sengir
QUOTE (Demonseed Elite @ Feb 15 2015, 06:13 PM) *
I don't actually know what CGL's problem with editing and proofreading is. Frankly, I don't understand it either. Someone is clearly dropping the ball, repeatedly, and I guess at the end of the day, I have to blame the line developer, since the buck basically stops there.

I assume that the PDF annotations they herald as the grand new thing are the "shared review" feature of Adobe. Which would imply that the problem with the previous state of things simply was that proofreader feedback wasn't aggregated, but spread out over ten files from ten readers...
Cain
QUOTE (Sengir @ Feb 15 2015, 12:05 PM) *
I assume that the PDF annotations they herald as the grand new thing are the "shared review" feature of Adobe. Which would imply that the problem with the previous state of things simply was that proofreader feedback wasn't aggregated, but spread out over ten files from ten readers...

Nope. They moved to Google docs, but was otherwise the same thing. Some of the proofreader comments are still on the shared docs.
Shemhazai
To be honest, the typos don't bother me much. My university textbooks were full of them, even to the point of making the examples wrong. I actually think it's funny that the index has an entry for "Auctioneer Business Clothes."

I find the excuse of amateur proofreaders using lousy technology as part of a sub-optimal process to be rather plausible. Who knows? Maybe they just didn't have enough money or people to handle all the 11th hour BS that needed to be done to get the thing printed, so a lot of work wound up going to waste.
binarywraith
If that's the case, why did they go to press with the second printing of the core book months later without so much as adding the known errata?
Shemhazai
QUOTE (binarywraith @ Feb 16 2015, 01:08 PM) *
If that's the case, why did they go to press with the second printing of the core book months later without so much as adding the known errata?

We have no idea.
Draco18s
Didn't we have a book that lost errata from one printing to the next?
Jaid
QUOTE (Shemhazai @ Feb 16 2015, 06:45 AM) *
To be honest, the typos don't bother me much. My university textbooks were full of them, even to the point of making the examples wrong. I actually think it's funny that the index has an entry for "Auctioneer Business Clothes."

I find the excuse of amateur proofreaders using lousy technology as part of a sub-optimal process to be rather plausible. Who knows? Maybe they just didn't have enough money or people to handle all the 11th hour BS that needed to be done to get the thing printed, so a lot of work wound up going to waste.


that sounds remarkably like the problem has absolutely nothing to do with the proofreading process so long as they actually follow the proofreading process (which the available evidence points towards not being the case). if nobody is willing to do anything with the feedback the proofreaders give, it doesn't matter what technology they use. the feedback will remain sitting there uselessly in a document whether it's an e-mailed attachment, a google document, a shared PDF, or whatever else.
carmachu
QUOTE (Umidori @ Feb 10 2015, 05:22 AM) *
Far too little, far too late.

I've actually begun shopping around for other game systems entirely at this point. I suppose can always run 4E from time to time while I wait for the SR license to change hands, but CGL has lost a customer for life - short of a hell of a lot of hard work on their part making up for lost trust, I expect to never buy any of their products ever again.

~Umi


Yeah. I've dusted off some old classics and picked up the new editions, sadly shadowrun will stay on my self for reading purposes only for now....
Sengir
QUOTE (Cain @ Feb 15 2015, 09:49 PM) *
Nope. They moved to Google docs, but was otherwise the same thing. Some of the proofreader comments are still on the shared docs.

In that case, I have no idea what their problem was apart from simple negligence...
Cain
QUOTE (Sengir @ Feb 17 2015, 09:17 AM) *
In that case, I have no idea what their problem was apart from simple negligence...

I'm honestly not sure either. I assume someone was asleep at the wheel, but I really don't know.

I suspect that either they applied the corrections, then sent in the wrong copy; or got the files mixed up in some other fashion. Either way, they did have the corrections in hand, and I'd speculate that it involves someone upstairs of the editors.
nylanfs
Which is why we use GitHub when working on PCGen's datafiles, makes seemless merging a snap and flags conflicts to changes by different people to the same area.
Grinder
QUOTE (Demonseed Elite @ Feb 15 2015, 06:13 PM) *
In my time as a SR freelancer, I worked with multiple companies (FASA, FanPro, then CGL) and multiple line developers (Mike Mulvihill, Rob Boyle, and Peter Taylor). The entire time, though, we used Yahoo Groups for coordination of our material. Not the fanciest form of web-based work collaboration. But we made it work. We read over each other's material, found errors, and reported them. And the editors and the line developer took those reports and actually did something with them. It wasn't rocket science and no, it wasn't perfect, but it most cases it worked pretty well. I don't know how that fairly basic process of proofreading totally broke down.


During my time with RedBrick we used the same process. It's a basic process and just requires an attentive Line Developer to insert all changes and edits. At Vagrant Workshop we use the same process and it works out pretty good.
Sengir
QUOTE (nylanfs @ Feb 18 2015, 06:01 PM) *
Which is why we use GitHub when working on PCGen's datafiles, makes seemless merging a snap and flags conflicts to changes by different people to the same area.

For text files, but versioning binaries (like PDFs) is complicated at best.

Still, PDF annotations are not exactly rocket science and at least since Acrobat 9 you can do a "shared review", where several people can annotate a PDF (local copy, with the freeware reader) and mail it back to the "master" who can merge all the annotations.

PS: Even without expensive software, we had a simple way for proofing longer documents in university: Pick a spreadsheet format and have everyone put page number and comments in a simple two-column table. Recipient merges the tables, sorts the result by page number, done.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Sengir @ Feb 18 2015, 02:45 PM) *
Still, PDF annotations are not exactly rocket science and at least since Acrobat 9 you can do a "shared review", where several people can annotate a PDF (local copy, with the freeware reader) and mail it back to the "master" who can merge all the annotations.


That is what we do... Seems to work pretty flawlessly, so far. smile.gif
DWC
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Feb 16 2015, 09:22 AM) *
Didn't we have a book that lost errata from one printing to the next?


Yep. The 3rd printing of Arsenal removed all the errata items that got fixed in the 2nd printing.
Sengir
QUOTE (DWC @ Feb 19 2015, 07:54 PM) *
Yep. The 3rd printing of Arsenal removed all the errata items that got fixed in the 2nd printing.

Yet somehow I assumed the reasons for the poor proofing were not like those for the de-errata campaign, but something the human mind can conceptualize.

But hey, they did start to release some errata so I'm moderately confident there will be an improvement.
Ryu
QUOTE (Sengir @ Feb 19 2015, 11:49 PM) *
Yet somehow I assumed the reasons for the poor proofing were not like those for the de-errata campaign, but something the human mind can conceptualize.

But hey, they did start to release some errata so I'm moderately confident there will be an improvement.

Errata will actually be easier to create if you have software that can give you a list of changes you made to a document.

Letīs hope that the "new printing" process contains a "check for necessary errata" and "create errata file" section.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012