Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 insaniak wrote:

Davor wrote:
I don't correct everyone on the net, just the people who complain about it and then do the exact thing.

Which is an odd thing to do in this particular case, really. It's perfectly justified to complain about a professional not doing something right, even if you can't or won't do that thing right yourself. That is, after all, why we pay professionals to do those things.


Having said that, I do find it a little hard to believe that anyone who has been around this hobby for longer than 5 minutes would only just now be noticing that GW don't put a lot of effort into proof-reading. My personal favourite proof-reading highlight was an editorial in the Oz edition of White Dwarf some years back (when they had their own editorial team) apologising for the errors in the previous issue, that had typos in it.


And having said that, in the grand scheme of things a list missing a few bullets is hardly the stuff of nightmares.

BCB isn't suprised by this, he's long complained about typos and stuff, and has often argued GW "clearly doesn't have an editor" best I can figure he's a english student annoyed GW won't give him a job

You've got three options:

1. Vote with your wallet and stop buying their printed materials.

2. Write a respectful email to them pointing out the mistake.

3. Send them your (or a friend's) proofreading resume.

I agree vote with our wallet.

If they had proofreaders they'd be unable to charge £20 every 6 months for an FAQ book

BrianDavion wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Davor wrote:
I don't correct everyone on the net, just the people who complain about it and then do the exact thing.

Which is an odd thing to do in this particular case, really. It's perfectly justified to complain about a professional not doing something right, even if you can't or won't do that thing right yourself. That is, after all, why we pay professionals to do those things.


Having said that, I do find it a little hard to believe that anyone who has been around this hobby for longer than 5 minutes would only just now be noticing that GW don't put a lot of effort into proof-reading. My personal favourite proof-reading highlight was an editorial in the Oz edition of White Dwarf some years back (when they had their own editorial team) apologising for the errors in the previous issue, that had typos in it.


And having said that, in the grand scheme of things a list missing a few bullets is hardly the stuff of nightmares.

BCB isn't suprised by this, he's long complained about typos and stuff, and has often argued GW "clearly doesn't have an editor" best I can figure he's a english student annoyed GW won't give him a job

I thought the same thing. Funny thing is he was pretty upbeat until a few months ago - I figured they turned him down.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Davor wrote:
I don't correct everyone on the net, just the people who complain about it and then do the exact thing.

Which is an odd thing to do in this particular case, really. It's perfectly justified to complain about a professional not doing something right, even if you can't or won't do that thing right yourself. That is, after all, why we pay professionals to do those things.


Having said that, I do find it a little hard to believe that anyone who has been around this hobby for longer than 5 minutes would only just now be noticing that GW don't put a lot of effort into proof-reading. My personal favourite proof-reading highlight was an editorial in the Oz edition of White Dwarf some years back (when they had their own editorial team) apologising for the errors in the previous issue, that had typos in it.


And having said that, in the grand scheme of things a list missing a few bullets is hardly the stuff of nightmares.

BCB isn't suprised by this, he's long complained about typos and stuff, and has often argued GW "clearly doesn't have an editor" best I can figure he's a english student annoyed GW won't give him a job

I thought the same thing. Funny thing is he was pretty upbeat until a few months ago - I figured they turned him down.

honestly? mild typos and errors are something I can forgive, if something says "Blood Angek" we know what they mean. it's when there are REAL clarity issues (and I mean real ones not "lol assault weapons via RAW can't be used" that yeah it can be an issue

BrianDavion wrote:

honestly? mild typos and errors are something I can forgive, if something says "Blood Angek" we know what they mean. it's when there are REAL clarity issues (and I mean real ones not "lol assault weapons via RAW can't be used" that yeah it can be an issue

Agreed, although I haven't seen a product that didn't have those problems yet. At least we are light years ahead of those little printed rulebooks in the ziploc bags. "There's a rule for that but it's got another rule printed over it"

Well, assume that you want to hire a proofreader.
Two people apply. They charge the same amount for one reading. One tells you he'll find 90% of the errors, the 2nd tells you he'll find all errors. Which one do you hire?


The first one. The second dude is most likely a liar. After two readings you can reasonably expect to have eliminated 98% of the errors in a given text, most companies do not pay for two readings, though. 1-2 typos every 4 pages are generally accepted.

Also, a proofreader does not check for inconsistencies, that's not his job*. That's what a copy-editor does. You cannot properly do this at the same time, the copy-editor goes first (because otherwise he could introduce errors after what's actually supposed to be the last step before printing).

*My experience is that most proofreaders can't even tell you what the text that they read is about. It's not important for their job, recognizing logograms - and departures from them, errors - is.