2+2 and Editing: Oh, the Irony

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

***WARNING: I'M MULTITABLING RIGHT NOW***


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no excuse for someone criticizing grammar and usage to commit errors in grammar and usage.


[ QUOTE ]
"Caesar's wife must be above suspicion."

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't put enough time and effort into your posts to avoid doing what you are complaining about, you have zero credibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I'm not selling these posts. I don't claim that every post I write is the absolute best in the "industry." My point is that 2+2's books are poorly edited, that this detracts greatly from the reading experience, and that decent editing is no impossible task. The fact that I don't spend a lot of time editing my 2+2 posts doesn't change that.

--Nate

[Point Point]

Mason:

You should consider outsourcing proofreading to Bangalore or Manila to "virtual assistants". They charge as little as 4 bucks per hour and you get an entire team for that. Here is a link which I found from the book 4 Hour Workweek:

Virtual Assistants from Bangalore

BTW, I had a post about how I can buy two plus two books wholesale which I hoped you would respond to but didn't. How can I buy wholesale two plus two books 6 copies at a time?

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
All --

An illustrative sentence:

[ QUOTE ]
While live play generates 30 to 40 hands per hour at a full table if things go smoothly -- sometimes as little as 25 hands per hour when they do not, Internet play yields 55 to 60 hands per hour, even more at short-handed tables -- and because the poker rooms make more money from short-handed tables and many players enjoy the additional speed and nuances of a shorthanded game, they are becoming the rule rather than the exception.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean, yikes.

--Nate

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent example. I don't even have ADD, and I find myself wondering off during that passage.

Instructional writing, in general, shouldn't be like conversation. I imagine the author pacing back and forth, talking out loud, and some scribe writing down every word. Then, "I'm done, send it to print."

[Quadstriker]

[ QUOTE ]

But next time you take a cheap shot at us

[/ QUOTE ]

Cheap shot? Isn't that a little harsh? He's pointing out flaws. Some people would thank him for that.

[Mason Malmuth]

If you're only buying six books at a time, you'll need to go through a wholesaler. Try either Baker & Taylor (btol.com) or Ingram (ingrambook.com).

[ QUOTE ]
You should consider outsourcing proofreading to Bangalore or Manila to "virtual assistants".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a foolish thing for a publisher to do.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Cheap shot? Isn't that a little harsh?

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not because he's saying that we don't care about the writing in our books. If you read my initial response, you'll see that just the opposite is true and that this concern has already proven to be very costly to us this year.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cheap shot? Isn't that a little harsh?

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not because he's saying that we don't care about the writing in our books. If you read my initial response, you'll see that just the opposite is true and that this concern has already proven to be very costly to us this year.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason --

I said you're not concerned enough with the grammar and style. If I used the word "writing" I hope it was clear from context that's what I meant. You've frequently said and shown that you care about the quality of your product; what I think is that you have some inaccurate ideas of what makes a good book.

I apologize if I offended you.

--Nate

EDIT: By the way, however much money you've lost by delaying production this year, I think you've lost twice as much money or more by not paying more attention to grammar and style.

[feint06]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
While live play generates 30 to 40 hands per hour at a full table if things go smoothly -- sometimes as little as 25 hands per hour when they do not, Internet play yields 55 to 60 hands per hour, even more at short-handed tables -- and because the poker rooms make more money from short-handed tables and many players enjoy the additional speed and nuances of a shorthanded game, they are becoming the rule rather than the exception.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, as I've said, the point isn't my editing. But an easy and obvious revision is:


"At a live table you see 25 to 40 hands per hour, but on the Internet you get 60 hands per table per hour, and even more if the game is shorthanded. Shorthanded tables are beginning to dominate online play; players enjoy the speed and challenge, and sites collect rake faster."

--Nate

[/ QUOTE ]

I can appreciate your effort to simplify, but your revision has less clarity than the original passage. The original emphasized the difference in hands/hour between online and live game play, providing an aside about shorthanded online tables. Your revision becomes much more elementary with two competing ideas: hands/hour online vs live, and shorthanded tables vs full ring. Because it lacks a central theme, your passage actually takes more work to read despite less verbiage.

My revision would actually split the original paragraph in two: One paragraph to discuss live play, giving some examples of when things don’t go smoothly and how much this can slow down the game. I’d also mention that there are more tells for an astute observer to pick up in live play, but that dealer tips and higher rakes cut into your profits... The second paragraph would talk about online play and why it is so much faster. I’d add that reads must be interpreted solely from betting patterns and time delays, rather than hand motions and facial ticks. (I might also mention the various poker software available to track your opponents -- as well warn about the as the increased chance of collusion with the various instant messaging programs)

This, of course, assumes that these points aren't mentioned elsewhere in the chapter. It's hard to say from just one paragraph...

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
While live play generates 30 to 40 hands per hour at a full table if things go smoothly -- sometimes as little as 25 hands per hour when they do not, Internet play yields 55 to 60 hands per hour, even more at short-handed tables -- and because the poker rooms make more money from short-handed tables and many players enjoy the additional speed and nuances of a shorthanded game, they are becoming the rule rather than the exception.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, as I've said, the point isn't my editing. But an easy and obvious revision is:


"At a live table you see 25 to 40 hands per hour, but on the Internet you get 60 hands per table per hour, and even more if the game is shorthanded. Shorthanded tables are beginning to dominate online play; players enjoy the speed and challenge, and sites collect rake faster."

--Nate

[/ QUOTE ]

I can appreciate your effort to simplify, but your revision has less clarity than the original passage. The original emphasized the difference in hands/hour between online and live game play, providing an aside about shorthanded online tables. Your revision becomes much more elementary with two competing ideas: hands/hour online vs live, and shorthanded tables vs full ring. Because it lacks a central theme, your passage actually takes more work to read despite less verbiage.

My revision would actually split the original paragraph in two: One paragraph to discuss live play, giving some examples of when things don’t go smoothly and how this might affect a poker player’s patience. I’d also mention that there are more tells for an astute observer to pick up in live play, but that dealer tips and higher rakes cut into your profits... The second paragraph would talk about online play and why it is so much faster. I’d add that reads must be interpreted solely from betting patterns and time delays, rather than hand motions and facial ticks. (I might also mention the various poker software available to track your opponents -- as well warn about the as the increased chance of collusion with the various instant messaging programs)

This of course, assumes that these points aren't mentioned elsewhere in the chapter. It's hard to say from just one paragraph...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, whatever. There are any number of possible improvements. Honestly, that monstrosity of a sentence is in an introductory part of the book, and I don't think tells etc. need to be mentioned. The idea of the section is that the Internet has revolutionized limit hold'em. I don't think more needs to be said than "you get more hands online, and the increasingly popular shorthanded games are near-exclusively an online phenomenon."

--Nate

[Optisizer]

There are two key sentences in Mason's reply to OP that shows that this discussion is pointless and will never hit home...

"Unfortunately, not everyone who writes a poker book has the writing skills of a Bill Robertie or Alan Schoonmaker. If this was the case, my job would be a lot easier."

But, that is exactly the point and neither should they be expected to. That is exactly why you need to spend more time on the editing process, or hire someone that can do that. You understand the dilemma but refuse to do anything about it because you you're not prepared to give it the professional consideration it (and your readers, not to mention the authors) deserves. The reason for this most likely rests in the next quote...

"But next time you take a cheap shot at us, keep in mind that there's a good chance you do not know the complete story. And for everyone else, we at Two Plus Two are committed to producing the highest quality books in all aspects."

That is, you're nothing but a grumpy old man incapable of recognizing good constructive criticism when you have it right in front of you. Instead of listening to reason you become defensive and argumentative, labeling it as a "cheap shot". That is a totally ridiculous argument, which - come to think of it - only further underscores your flawed relationship to your own native language...