Comments on: Launching bitesizeedits.com http://blog.bookoven.com/2009/12/16/launching-bitesizeedits-com/ we make books Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:01:33 -0700 hourly 1 By: Hugh McGuire http://blog.bookoven.com/2009/12/16/launching-bitesizeedits-com/comment-page-1/#comment-54757 Hugh McGuire Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:01:33 +0000 http://blog.bookoven.com/?p=2354#comment-54757 Hi David, Thanks for the comments. I think this is a misunderstanding of what we're up to. I agree completely that Bite-Size Edits could never replace a good professional proofread; less so a good professional copy edit; and certainly can't get anywhere near something like a full contextual edit. But, on the other hand, it might have some uses. The telephone is in so many ways an inferior experience when compared with talking face-to-face, and email is in some ways a poor cousin to the hand-written letter, and ... etc. Not to equate Bite-Size Edits with such tech advances, just to point out that technologies can be useful by making it easier to get some things done, even if they are "inferior" to previous (and parallel) methods. In the case of Bite-Size Edits, our real interest is connecting readers, writers, and editors together around text. In some cases these will be independent writers, who don't have access to professional editors; or, established writers, seeking a rich connection with readers through their text. A not insignificant fringe-benefit to that connection is better text coming out the other end. And the hope, actually, is that writers and editors who find each other on Bite-Size Edits might go on to forge deeper working relationships. So the question isn't so much: is Bite-Size Edits better than a professional editor? Rather: can Bite-Size Edits usefully connect writers, editors and readers? Hi David, Thanks for the comments. I think this is a misunderstanding of what we’re up to. I agree completely that Bite-Size Edits could never replace a good professional proofread; less so a good professional copy edit; and certainly can’t get anywhere near something like a full contextual edit.

But, on the other hand, it might have some uses. The telephone is in so many ways an inferior experience when compared with talking face-to-face, and email is in some ways a poor cousin to the hand-written letter, and … etc. Not to equate Bite-Size Edits with such tech advances, just to point out that technologies can be useful by making it easier to get some things done, even if they are “inferior” to previous (and parallel) methods.

In the case of Bite-Size Edits, our real interest is connecting readers, writers, and editors together around text. In some cases these will be independent writers, who don’t have access to professional editors; or, established writers, seeking a rich connection with readers through their text.

A not insignificant fringe-benefit to that connection is better text coming out the other end. And the hope, actually, is that writers and editors who find each other on Bite-Size Edits might go on to forge deeper working relationships.

So the question isn’t so much: is Bite-Size Edits better than a professional editor? Rather: can Bite-Size Edits usefully connect writers, editors and readers?

]]> By: David George http://blog.bookoven.com/2009/12/16/launching-bitesizeedits-com/comment-page-1/#comment-54755 David George Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:26:48 +0000 http://blog.bookoven.com/?p=2354#comment-54755 As an editor, copy editor, proofreader both in the trenches as a managing editor with major publishers for over 20 years, I believe that your whole premise is incredibly flawed to the point of being idiotic. This is not to say that it won't be successful, given the innate stupidity and the MTV-reality show-make-me-famous-now-driven mentality of the general public. If you "break up" the editing or proofreading tasks among several sets of eyes you'll rule out ANY possibility for a coherent and consistent final product. This will keep my professional proofreaders in business for a long time into the future, since the crap generated by your ridiculous tool will need to be fixed by a pro. For that I thank you. David George As an editor, copy editor, proofreader both in the trenches as a managing editor with major publishers for over 20 years, I believe that your whole premise is incredibly flawed to the point of being idiotic. This is not to say that it won’t be successful, given the innate stupidity and the MTV-reality show-make-me-famous-now-driven mentality of the general public.

If you “break up” the editing or proofreading tasks among several sets of eyes you’ll rule out ANY possibility for a coherent and consistent final product. This will keep my professional proofreaders in business for a long time into the future, since the crap generated by your ridiculous tool will need to be fixed by a pro. For that I thank you.

David George

]]>