mudbunny;16935770 wrote:
It might be more useful for the October releases.
Or the eventual re-release in the Best-Of book.
You know we are about to start paying for this stuff right?
(Because so far all issues with the final copy of the magazine have transfered to the Compendium as well.)
R&D got notified of them (their location) about 24 hours before the downtime. I have asked Solice to ask R&D to comment in the threads when they have looked at them and to comment if there are things that are errata and things that are not errata.
Give them time.
Give them time.
Wow...they need time to process and correct errors? We can't allow that. The trolls would starve to death if that were to occur.
Not enough time to take say an hour to go through the threads and find the errors we identified and then fix the issues before passing us the final issue?
You know we are about to start paying for this stuff right?
No, not enough time.
The errata threads were posted on the 27th. The compiled magazine was posted on the 30th, which meant they were compiling on the 29th (if not the 27ths and 28th) to have the finished product ready. Going through an approving errata is not a one-day thing, it's slow since you need managers and developers and editors to all look at the change and sign off.
Check the dates and times, it's really not hard.
Just empower a single person that you trust with a grasp of the rules to do consider things as he makes the changes. It's not really different than what an editor is supposed to do anyway, if the authors aren't at hand before the deadline.
'Course, if they had editors there might not be the problems in the first place -- as it is they only have proofreaders (well, maybe one guy who gets the articles at 4 in the morning and has to finish in 10 minutes each) it seems, who are unwilling or unable to correct actual rules problems.
Well, I don't think you really need a whole team to approve most of the errata.
Just empower a single person that you trust with a grasp of the rules to do consider things as he makes the changes. It's not really different than what an editor is supposed to do anyway, if the authors aren't at hand before the deadline.
So basically, you think it's a good idea for them to put, say...Titanium Dragon in charge of all Errata? That's just an example, but I'm sure you get my point.
The errata threads only started up at the beginning of the week.
R&D got notified of them (their location) about 24 hours before the downtime. I have asked Solice to ask R&D to comment in the threads when they have looked at them and to comment if there are things that are errata and things that are not errata.
Give them time.
Thank you.
Concern addressed.
Now we get to see how they go with using it this month.
So basically, you think it's a good idea for them to put, say...Titanium Dragon in charge of all Errata? That's just an example, but I'm sure you get my point.
If it is really a "magazine" in some way, then there ought to be permanent staff members in charge of putting the issues together, pressing writers on deadlines, etc.
Part of that team includes the editor-in-chief, who I suspect should have the power/ability to make most judgment calls (if not go over to the author's desk or e-mail him/her and ask about it, which I suspect should be easy most of the time).
If the editor-in-chief doesn't want to deal with that directly, there should be at least one other person that is trusted to handle such parts of the magazine.
95% of the "errata" so far is of the, "Duh, how did we miss that?" variety, not really anything that requires much in the way of wrestling with rules or dealing with balance issues.
"DeeDeeDeeee!"
Say there is a rule that needs an extra sentence added to clarify it. What happens if that extra sentence pushes the paragraph a little over the end of the page or out of the space reserved for the stat block. Do you remove earlier parts of the article to make room? Do you change the size and position of images? Perhaps if there is a bunch of errata you have to expand the article by a page which means finding some stock images to fill the space and reformatting from scratch.
Frankly, unless they have a week or so to get the job done in I would not expect any errata to make it into an issue.
Also, it should be noted that making changes in a publication like Dungeon and Dragon isn't as simple as some people think. It's not like an essay or a forum post or something where you can add and remove sentences and words at will. Anything but the smallest of cosmetic changes is likely to require a bunch of new layout work.
Say there is a rule that needs an extra sentence added to clarify it. What happens if that extra sentence pushes the paragraph a little over the end of the page or out of the space reserved for the stat block. Do you remove earlier parts of the article to make room? Do you change the size and position of images? Perhaps if there is a bunch of errata you have to expand the article by a page which means finding some stock images to fill the space and reformatting from scratch.
Frankly, unless they have a week or so to get the job done in I would not expect any errata to make it into an issue.
Actually, having worked in Journalism before, I have to say that if you're good at it, this really only takes a few hours.
But come on guys lets not make it sound like building PDFs take a supercomputer to compile and a VP to sign off on the changes after having a multi-department committee meeting.
I can cut wotc some slack on a new process and getting the errata going. Thats a person issue.
But come on guys lets not make it sound like building PDFs take a supercomputer to compile and a VP to sign off on the changes after having a multi-department committee meeting.
Not a flame here at all, but how do you know that's not what they do (V.P. sign off that is)?
[And no, this is not what I personally believe, but it's been my experience that lots of people make assumptions about things based on what they've personally know or think ... and don't think that something similar might be done differently -for better or worse.]
I have no idea how Wizards' publications and web content are managed, but mapping my own experience onto the scenario, I wouldn't be surprised if it goes something like this.
- An article goes live.
- It's discussed in these forums and elsewhere by fans, and errata is generated.
- The errata is communicated to the appropriate people (R&D if it's crunch, a given property's design team if it's "fluff," editorial or copy desk if it's simple grammar, etc. Some errata might involve two or even all three of these teams/people).
- The decision on whether or how a particular error should be corrected is made and communicated to the editor.
- The editor tasks a designer (hopefully the original designer, but if that person's not available, then this next bit gets even trickier) with the correction.
- The designer makes the correction, which may or may not necessitate a cascading series of design corrections and adaptations.
- The designer submits her new draft to the editor.
- The editor approves and sends it to the website manager.
That may seem a little crazy to some of you, but in fact, I would not only be surprised to find out that the process isn't at least that complex, I'd be disappointed if it wasn't. Producing professional publications--especially these kinds of data- and graphics-intensive publications--is a complicated effort that is almost always better handled by teams than by individuals.
also, i believe it's wrong to assume that most of the stuff posted actually is related to R&D as a whole - most likely, the articles are really only written and tested by the ones making the articles.
Not a flame here at all, but how do you know that's not what they do (V.P. sign off that is)?
[And no, this is not what I personally believe, but it's been my experience that lots of people make assumptions about things based on what they've personally know or think ... and don't think that something similar might be done differently -for better or worse.]
No flame taken
I dont have any inside information and I could be off on this but...
If WOTC does take article submissions that are reviewed to the point of having typos on monsters with initiative +97 or daily powers that are colored red instead of gray and they need a VP to sign off on that correct then they have big problems.
Now in all seriousness I can see and agree with Christopher_Rowe's timeline. I only expect October articles to be fixed before they are compiled in the begining of Nov. It would be a waste of time to do it sooner for fear of finding one more mistake and having to redo it again.