(no subject)

[msmemory_archive]

Shared pain is lessened -- but shared proofreading is less effective.

My counterpart in our other facility and I were both asked to proofread the company's new website. She called me this morning to split the task, so we don't do redundant work. We began to discuss sections we'd already started to cover, and issues we had unearthed. In about 10 minutes, we discovered that we had both read the Software section -- and I had noticed a bunch of typos and one spectacular bad link, and she had found a lot of mismarked trademark issues, missing graphics, and some other stuff.

With a deep sigh on both sides, we've concluded that the company will be best served if both of us proof the entire thing, since we are catching different problems.

Comments

shared proofreading

[sareena99.livejournal.com]

This was SOP for the journal I used to contribute articles.
Each piece was read by the department editor, the managing editor, and then the review board. Each person edited for spelling, grammar, style, and of course, accuracy of content.
And even after all that folderol, when it was put into pdf format before being published, we STILL found errors!

[hfcougar.livejournal.com]

I work for a non-profit and have for years.

In my early days, I proofed an annual report that had already been proofed by 5 or 6 others before me. At the time our office was small enough that if a print item were important enough, the whole staff might take a turn proofing it.

It seemed a much less pointless excercise once I caught a place where they had misspelled "philanthropy".