The Vent and Rant Thread

[PeterT]

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by PeterT

I love this. +100!

Hitch

[cromag]

Got an Ipad?




There are some good ones involving a costume made for a dog, as well. (My kids will make a fortune when they write their tell-all memoirs.)

[covingtoncat73]

My poor brother and sister in law have had nothing but bad luck. Now someone hit and ran my sis in law's parked car.

[Hitch]

Really, I should go all rant-y about this on one of the bookmaking forums, because the folks there would understand this, but a) it's print, and b) this is de place to rant:

I have a client who's "in the biz" (publishing, editorial services), and for whom we've made a big reference-type book. Years of blog entries, crafted into one big eBook. Hooray.

Now, he's decided he's going to do a print copy. Fine. He's got a friend, who's offered to do the print layout for FREEBS. Alrighty. You know, I'm as cheap as the next person, in terms of not liking to spend dough, so...I get it. I really don't mind him going with her, instead of hiring us. I mean it.

BUT...indeed, I get a call. The freeber (as this person shall herein be called) has called HIM, and is saying "uh, this gorgeous 13-page index I created for you, I'm having trouble getting the PAGE NUMBERS to match." (Danger, Danger Will Robinson!! Danger!!)

I instantly know what's coming. I ask, "So-and-so, is Freeber, perchance, doing your print book layout...in WORD? And--and--did she manually TYPE the index?" Now, I don't know WHY I bloody bother to ask any more, but...

Sure enough, he sends me the files today. First, is an email, forwarded from him to me, with his discussions today with her. She got a quote from an Indian company to "do" the Index (which again--the entries are already typed, right), but the pricing does not include putting in the page numbers." (Uh...so, then, as she's already typed the index entries...what DOES it include? If she'd asked me, I'd have told her that Indian firms rather notoriously don't include the page numbers in indices. They create concordances, more or less, sans page numbers, and that's what you get.)

Now, this is after I tell him, yesterday, that general "make index" pricing in the trades is $5/page, for each page of the book in the body (not counting frontmatter, etc.). I still don't mind that he's trying to do this as cheaply as possible, 'cuz, hey, I'm in business, too. Everybody gotta eat. His book has 80K words, so, ~300 pages, plus or minus, he's going to be getting off uber-cheap, if he can get it done for $500-$1000. Given that the entries are already typed (if I had seen this yesterday), I'd have told him, it's closer to $3.xx/page, if you already have the list.

So anyway, I get the files. {SIGH}

• Yes, the book "final" document, the quasi-index, etc., are all in WORD.
• Yes, she's used a Createspace template.
• Yes, she's created a separate Index document--by TYPING IT MANUALLY.
• No, she did NOT use the built-in cross-referencing feature, that one uses, to create Indices, in Word.
• No, she did NOT use STYLES.
• In fact, she tells him (in yon forwarded emails) that she "just learned about Styles when [she] was nearly done." (AAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, what's in this bloody file, then????!!!!! Watch out, Will Robinson, make room in the escape pod!)
• And, yes, Virginia, there is a Table of Contents--also TYPED BY HAND IN A TABLE.

So, yon book--which needs fixing, AFFORDABLY, mind you--has a 13-page, two column index (how many thousand entries is that????) which is, right now, worthless. The TOC is, again, worthless, unless you want to sit there and play whack-a-mole, each and every time you make changes to this thing. She didn't use STYLES, or HEADINGS, so...can't make another TOC (hundreds of sections, remember) easily, like any twit with Google can learn how to do, in about TEN MINUTES, if she'd bothered to look.

I need to emphasize: both of these people, mind you, are publishing professionals, BOTH having spent LIFETIMES in the biz. BOTH of them.

And he asks me, "well, isn't there a program that will JUST put the page numbers in?" I nearly lost it. I said, "YEAH, if she'd done it RIGHT from the damn beginning, there IS."

Worse, he tells me, "I know that there must be some easy way to do this, because otherwise, nobody would ever self-publish. They couldn't afford it." I mean...no s**t! That's why word-processors have ALL THOSE BUILT-IN FUNCTIONS. If that's what you're using to make your PDF, or whatever. That's why grownups use at LEAST MS Publisher, not WORD, to create book documents for printers.

Can I whip up a concordance document, take the worthless typed list, and then make a new index? Yes, I can. But somebody STILL will have to decide about each and every resulting entry, vis-a-vis the search results. An automated Concordance, from a list, is still just a search result--uncurated. The whole entire POINT of an index, mind you, even in eBooks--curation. And, as neither of them, obviously, have a single bloody CLUE about how the cross-references get put IN, how on earth can either one of THEM do the subsequently necessary PRUNING, to make the Index wieldy, instead of unwieldy? (No arguments. If a thing can be UNwieldy, it must also have a wieldy side. That's my position, and I'm sticking to it.)

Somebody will STILL have to re-do all, all, all (more than 800) sub-headings in the TOC into STYLES, in the actual book document, so that the TOC will build itself (so that otherwise, you don't end up screwed when you output a PDF, for CS, playing aforementioned whack-a-mole, with changing page numbers, because, again: this isn't INDD, it's WORD). There's not any magic way to fix this damned thing, without human hands and eyes and brains.

I just don't get it. I do not understand the utter lack of curiosity in learning one's tools. I don't understand how an EDITOR could possibly NOT KNOW what it takes, to make an index, automatically (sort of) in Word, marking EACH ENTRY that needs to be included. I don't understand how he could NOT know what self-publishing a printed reference book really costs, for professional assistance. I don't know how another publishing professional could POSSIBLY THINK that laying out a reference book (about publishing, mind you!!!) in WORD is the right thing to do, nor how she never bothered, in DECADES, to learn how to use the damn software properly. Not even STYLES??? REALLY??

I. Do. Not. Get. How. This. Happens. I really, REALLY don't.



Hitch

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Really, I should go all rant-y about this on one of the bookmaking forums, because the folks there would understand this, but a) it's print, and b) this is de place to rant:

I have a client who's "in the biz" (publishing, editorial services), and for whom we've made a big reference-type book. Years of blog entries, crafted into one big eBook. Hooray.

Now, he's decided he's going to do a print copy. Fine. He's got a friend, who's offered to do the print layout for FREEBS. Alrighty. You know, I'm as cheap as the next person, in terms of not liking to spend dough, so...I get it. I really don't mind him going with her, instead of hiring us. I mean it.

BUT...indeed, I get a call. The freeber (as this person shall herein be called) has called HIM, and is saying "uh, this gorgeous 13-page index I created for you, I'm having trouble getting the PAGE NUMBERS to match." (Danger, Danger Will Robinson!! Danger!!)

I instantly know what's coming. I ask, "So-and-so, is Freeber, perchance, doing your print book layout...in WORD? And--and--did she manually TYPE the index?" Now, I don't know WHY I bloody bother to ask any more, but...

Sure enough, he sends me the files today. First, is an email, forwarded from him to me, with his discussions today with her. She got a quote from an Indian company to "do" the Index (which again--the entries are already typed, right), but the pricing does not include putting in the page numbers." (Uh...so, then, as she's already typed the index entries...what DOES it include? If she'd asked me, I'd have told her that Indian firms rather notoriously don't include the page numbers in indices. They create concordances, more or less, sans page numbers, and that's what you get.)

Now, this is after I tell him, yesterday, that general "make index" pricing in the trades is $5/page, for each page of the book in the body (not counting frontmatter, etc.). I still don't mind that he's trying to do this as cheaply as possible, 'cuz, hey, I'm in business, too. Everybody gotta eat. His book has 80K words, so, ~300 pages, plus or minus, he's going to be getting off uber-cheap, if he can get it done for $500-$1000. Given that the entries are already typed (if I had seen this yesterday), I'd have told him, it's closer to $3.xx/page, if you already have the list.

So anyway, I get the files. {SIGH}

• Yes, the book "final" document, the quasi-index, etc., are all in WORD.
• Yes, she's used a Createspace template.
• Yes, she's created a separate Index document--by TYPING IT MANUALLY.
• No, she did NOT use the built-in cross-referencing feature, that one uses, to create Indices, in Word.
• No, she did NOT use STYLES.
• In fact, she tells him (in yon forwarded emails) that she "just learned about Styles when [she] was nearly done." (AAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, what's in this bloody file, then????!!!!! Watch out, Will Robinson, make room in the escape pod!)
• And, yes, Virginia, there is a Table of Contents--also TYPED BY HAND IN A TABLE.

So, yon book--which needs fixing, AFFORDABLY, mind you--has a 13-page, two column index (how many thousand entries is that????) which is, right now, worthless. The TOC is, again, worthless, unless you want to sit there and play whack-a-mole, each and every time you make changes to this thing. She didn't use STYLES, or HEADINGS, so...can't make another TOC (hundreds of sections, remember) easily, like any twit with Google can learn how to do, in about TEN MINUTES, if she'd bothered to look.

I need to emphasize: both of these people, mind you, are publishing professionals, BOTH having spent LIFETIMES in the biz. BOTH of them.

And he asks me, "well, isn't there a program that will JUST put the page numbers in?" I nearly lost it. I said, "YEAH, if she'd done it RIGHT from the damn beginning, there IS."

Worse, he tells me, "I know that there must be some easy way to do this, because otherwise, nobody would ever self-publish. They couldn't afford it." I mean...no s**t! That's why word-processors have ALL THOSE BUILT-IN FUNCTIONS. If that's what you're using to make your PDF, or whatever. That's why grownups use at LEAST MS Publisher, not WORD, to create book documents for printers.

Can I whip up a concordance document, take the worthless typed list, and then make a new index? Yes, I can. But somebody STILL will have to decide about each and every resulting entry, vis-a-vis the search results. An automated Concordance, from a list, is still just a search result--uncurated. The whole entire POINT of an index, mind you, even in eBooks--curation. And, as neither of them, obviously, have a single bloody CLUE about how the cross-references get put IN, how on earth can either one of THEM do the subsequently necessary PRUNING, to make the Index wieldy, instead of unwieldy? (No arguments. If a thing can be UNwieldy, it must also have a wieldy side. That's my position, and I'm sticking to it.)

Somebody will STILL have to re-do all, all, all (more than 800) sub-headings in the TOC into STYLES, in the actual book document, so that the TOC will build itself (so that otherwise, you don't end up screwed when you output a PDF, for CS, playing aforementioned whack-a-mole, with changing page numbers, because, again: this isn't INDD, it's WORD). There's not any magic way to fix this damned thing, without human hands and eyes and brains.

I just don't get it. I do not understand the utter lack of curiosity in learning one's tools. I don't understand how an EDITOR could possibly NOT KNOW what it takes, to make an index, automatically (sort of) in Word, marking EACH ENTRY that needs to be included. I don't understand how he could NOT know what self-publishing a printed reference book really costs, for professional assistance. I don't know how another publishing professional could POSSIBLY THINK that laying out a reference book (about publishing, mind you!!!) in WORD is the right thing to do, nor how she never bothered, in DECADES, to learn how to use the damn software properly. Not even STYLES??? REALLY??

I. Do. Not. Get. How. This. Happens. I really, REALLY don't.



Hitch

Here are a dozen pillows and a big box of bubble wrap.
I have no other words.

[Freehunter]

Hitch, that sounds like the place I used to work at. They specialized in crisis management, create a crisis and then try to manage it. I was one of the "lucky" ones trying to meet more and more ridiculous deadlines for our customers. You might need the sign I posted.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Here are a dozen pillows and a big box of bubble wrap.
I have no other words.

Thanks, Cinisajoy. I ate CHOCOLATE-covered pretzels tonight. For DINNER. And that's NOT me. I'm not a Bridget Jones. I don't stress-eat; I've never sat down with a spoon and a carton of ice-cream (true, really--never have). But today...I ate Chocolate-covered Pretzels for bloody dinner.

Originally Posted by Freehunter

Hitch, that sounds like the place I used to work at. They specialized in crisis management, create a crisis and then try to manage it. I was one of the "lucky" ones trying to meet more and more ridiculous deadlines for our customers. You might need the sign I posted.

Attachment 142509

Free, I have that coffee cup, I kid thee not. Have had it for dogs' years. It goes wherever I go.

What bugs me the MOST is there is actually MORE work for me to do now, than if he'd just asked me to do the whole thing--the whole damned print book--in the first place. People just don't seem to understand that when things get bollixed, it takes more work to fix it, than to do it correctly in the first place. I admit, I was speechlessly infuriated that he could be SO CLUELSS as to say, "well, gosh, isn't there a program that will 'just' grab the page numbers for the entries, and put 'em in there?" As usual, it was so...cavalier, so dismissive of WHY indexing companies/people charge what they DO, to do what they DO. In hindsight, I should have said, "sure, just like I could use Grammerly instead of paying you to edit client X's work, right???"

Ya get what ya pays for kiddies. You heard it here first. {SIGH}

Hitch

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I. Do. Not. Get. How. This. Happens.

If you drive a car, and do it wrong, you crash.
If you build something and do it wrong, it falls apart.
If you cook meals without knowing how to, it burns.

However, this is a computer. It's easy. Everybody can do it. See?

The document looks right, but they don't know, until someone shows them, that it isn't built right.

In the 80's, using a computer was like driving a car, or cooking a meal. If you did it wrong, the thing crashed, provided the wrong output, or just plain didn't work. Everybody knew that you needed to understand computers/software to use them fully and efficiently. Nowadays, computers/software are presented as easy, everybody-can-do-it, but it's not true. It's not easy, and not everybody can do it. Still, people believe it, and have no interest in learning more than the extreme basics 'because it is/should be easy'.

One of my ex-colleagues is a graphics designer. In his new company, he has been looking into writing some HTML/CSS and Javascript so he can make little changes to templates. Some time ago he told me:

"I've followed some tutorials, and it's going quite well. Programming is way easy; one doesn't need an education for that."

Well... excuse me?

I've seen embedded software, written by 'self-taught' mechanical engineers, who thought to program their machine themselves. The fact that it actually does something after powering it on is a miracle in itself. Spaghetti-code would be a very *nice* term to use.

For some reason, people don't seem to understand that using computer software well is difficult, and writing good software is hard. As soon as a computer and/or software comes into play, people either don't touch it, or they underestimate it.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

If you drive a car, and do it wrong, you crash.
If you build something and do it wrong, it falls apart.
If you cook meals without knowing how to, it burns.

However, this is a computer. It's easy. Everybody can do it. See?

The document looks right, but they don't know, until someone shows them, that it isn't built right.

In the 80's, using a computer was like driving a car, or cooking a meal. If you did it wrong, the thing crashed, provided the wrong output, or just plain didn't work. Everybody knew that you needed to understand computers/software to use them fully and efficiently. Nowadays, computers/software are presented as easy, everybody-can-do-it, but it's not true. It's not easy, and not everybody can do it. Still, people believe it, and have no interest in learning more than the extreme basics 'because it is/should be easy'.

One of my ex-colleagues is a graphics designer. In his new company, he has been looking into writing some HTML/CSS and Javascript so he can make little changes to templates. Some time ago he told me:

"I've followed some tutorials, and it's going quite well. Programming is way easy; one doesn't need an education for that."

Well... excuse me?

I've seen embedded software, written by 'self-taught' mechanical engineers, wo thought to program their machine themselves. The fact that it actually does something after powering it on is a miracle in itself. Spaghetti-code would be a very *nice* term to use.

For some reason, people don't seem to understand that using computer software well is difficult, and writing good software is hard. As soon as a computer and/or software comes into play, people either don't touch it, or they underestimate it.

I can cook and I still burn dinner on occasion. (Usually the cream style corn).
Also do not try to shred lettuce with the kitchenaid shredder.

Now as to computer software, I once spent 3 days looking for word wrap on MS Word 97 or 98. I thought it would be a useful feature for printing recipes. Turns out it was just the concept and meant nothing more than don't hit enter when you get to the end of the line.

If I was a professional anything, I would want to use the best tool for that particular job.

[CRussel]

@Hitch: I feel your pain. As a professional writer who uses Word every single day, and all too often has to work with documents created by someone else, I continue to be ASTOUNDED at the ignorance of supposed professionals about the tool they use to make a living. Though, I admit, I think some of the blame belongs with Word -- it makes it all too easy to do lists, headings, etc., with absolutely no understanding of what you're doing. And what the consequences are!

I learned about heads back in the PCWrite days, when my book files had to create explicit tags for A-Heads, B-Heads, C-Heads, etc., because the publishing software was fussy, not very smart, and frankly a bit peculiar. But if I'd turned in a document without them to my publisher, I'd have had it rejected as "not suitable". And no advance cheque in the mail! I learned early that if I did things right in the first place, not only was my job easier, but the editor's job was easier. And if the editor likes you, you get more work!

The idea of creating a TOC and/or index manually is simply too absurd to contemplate. (And oh, btw, a good indexer is worth every penny you pay him or her! We often specified both the actual indexer and the number of pages of index in our contracts once we had the gravitas to demand that.)

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

If you drive a car, and do it wrong, you crash.
...<snippage for brevity>

One of my ex-colleagues is a graphics designer. In his new company, he has been looking into writing some HTML/CSS and Javascript so he can make little changes to templates. Some time ago he told me:

"I've followed some tutorials, and it's going quite well. Programming is way easy; one doesn't need an education for that."

Well... excuse me?

THIS, 1,000x this. It drives me INSANE. It's so cavalier, uttered by people who don't know what they don't know.

I see this on the self-publishing forums all the time. Smug self-pubbed authors, telling other newbs not to pay for formatting, cover design, OR an edit. It's freaking mind-boggling. "Sure, you can do it ALL in Word, with GRAMMERLY!" Urk. We don't even OFFER cover design at my shop, and I still tell people, constantly: "get a professional cover design." Get a professional edit (don't offer that, either). Same thing with software. An entire generation of Jobs-think has made computing LOOK easy, and convinced people that they don't NEED to know what goes on under the hood. Really?

I've seen embedded software, written by 'self-taught' mechanical engineers, wo thought to program their machine themselves. The fact that it actually does something after powering it on is a miracle in itself. Spaghetti-code would be a very *nice* term to use.

For some reason, people don't seem to understand that using computer software well is difficult, and writing good software is hard. As soon as a computer and/or software comes into play, people either don't touch it, or they underestimate it.

Amen, brother.

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I can cook and I still burn dinner on occasion. (Usually the cream style corn).
Also do not try to shred lettuce with the kitchenaid shredder.

Now as to computer software, I once spent 3 days looking for word wrap on MS Word 97 or 98. I thought it would be a useful feature for printing recipes. Turns out it was just the concept and meant nothing more than don't hit enter when you get to the end of the line.

If I was a professional anything, I would want to use the best tool for that particular job.

Oh, heck. I've burned cream corn before. (Not often, as I don't like it, but my spouse does.) I learned, originally--yeah, verily, t'is true--on the olden IBM OS/6, in the 70's. (Gosh, how time has flown). So, the concepts that pulled into the early WP programs were already familiar to me. I was lucky. I've also found, though, even way-back-then, some people will never understand the "what" and "why" of what they're doing. They can follow instructions, and push the right button (icon) at the right time, but not the WHY.

Originally Posted by CRussel

@Hitch: I feel your pain. As a professional writer who uses Word every single day, and all too often has to work with documents created by someone else, I continue to be ASTOUNDED at the ignorance of supposed professionals about the tool they use to make a living. Though, I admit, I think some of the blame belongs with Word -- it makes it all too easy to do lists, headings, etc., with absolutely no understanding of what you're doing. And what the consequences are!

There's no two ways about it, Charlie--Word does make it easy, because they decided, early on, to run essentially an "inference engine," to infer what the user wanted. Nobody, then, could have foreseen what we'd be doing today with it--exporting the guts to HTML, etc. It's a titch unfair to expect MS to have executed what they themselves perceived as "a computer typewriter for secretaries" as the publishing software of the future. Not like it's used today. I really hated Word, originally; I was a dyed-in-the-wool hardcore Wordperfect user, and wouldn't budge on how AWFUL Word was. But when I was writing a multi-hundred page set of CC&R's, for a major project we were doing, I had to give in and learn to use the freaking thing, and once I understood Styles, Outline view, Headings...holy crap. I realized I'd grossly underestimated it.

You and I know that many of the features that Scrivener users RAVE about, claiming they can't live without it, are ALREADY in Word (e.g., drag-drop chapters, sections, parts, etc.). They simply have never bothered to learn the tool, so they don't KNOW they already HAVE it.

Now, that's not to say it ought really be used for print book layout. It ought not. CAN it be done? Sure. SHOULD it be done? Not really. Even if you can't afford, don't want, etc., INDD or one of the others, use MS Publisher. Much better tool for the purpose. And Publisher runs much like ye olden Adobe Pagemaker, so...if one learnt one, you kinda already know the other. INDD has a much, much, MUCH steeper learning curve.

I learned about heads back in the PCWrite days, when my book files had to create explicit tags for A-Heads, B-Heads, C-Heads, etc., because the publishing software was fussy, not very smart, and frankly a bit peculiar. But if I'd turned in a document without them to my publisher, I'd have had it rejected as "not suitable". And no advance cheque in the mail! I learned early that if I did things right in the first place, not only was my job easier, but the editor's job was easier. And if the editor likes you, you get more work!

And THIS is the point I keep trying to make with people. Learnign HOW to use your own damn tools *will* make your OWN. LIFE. EASIER. Not just mine; yours.

But, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

The idea of creating a TOC and/or index manually is simply too absurd to contemplate. (And oh, btw, a good indexer is worth every penny you pay him or her! We often specified both the actual indexer and the number of pages of index in our contracts once we had the gravitas to demand that.)

I know, right? Can you bloody IMAGINE? I was gobsmacked. I mean, I'd sort of expected it, after the lead-in, but I thought...nyah. No. Nobody would do that. For 13 2-column 6x9" pages? Who in their RIGHT mind...? And sho' nuff, there it was. Oh, yeah, AND the TOC.

The bizarre part is, I think that she did use a commercial indexer. The index itself (ignoring the technical part) is FABULOUS. It's right, in terms of what should be in there. No page numbers, of course....but the content is correct. Curiouser and curiouser.

Oh, well. Another day, another nickel. Still don't know what on earth I'm going to DO with this damned thing.

Fare-thee-well, fellow travelers on the Path of Rant, for the bulk of my working day....

Hitch

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I can cook and I still burn dinner on occasion. (Usually the cream style corn).
Also do not try to shred lettuce with the kitchenaid shredder.

Yes, obviously. I can design software and thus program, but sometimes, stupid mistakes still happen. Sometimes it can be a one character mistake:

if (x = 5) { do_stuff(); }

vs.

if (x == 5) { do_stuff(); }

In the first statement, x will become 5. x is now larger than 0. In most languages, a result larger than 0 is counted as "true", so in this case, do_stuff() will always run. In the second statement, x is compared to 5, and do_stuff() will only run if x is indeed 5.

One character difference... huge wrong results/errors/bugs/crashes

[Cinisajoy]

Hey Hitch,
I actually saw on a self-published forum an "author" say "I don't notice errors when I read so readers won't notice mine."
I didn't know whether to laugh, cry or just roll my eyes.
Note at least 6 other "authors" agreed with him.

Now on self-publishing, I do know some fantastic authors. They are all consummate professionals and actually know the business. Of course, they are heavily invested in their books.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Yes, obviously. I can design software and thus program, but sometimes, stupid mistakes still happen. Sometimes it can be a one character mistake:

if (x = 5) { do_stuff(); }

vs.

if (x == 5) { do_stuff(); }

In the first statement, x will become 5. x is now larger than 0. In most languages, a result larger than 0 is counted as "true", so in this case, do_stuff() will always run. In the second statement, x is compared to 5, and do_stuff() will only run if x is indeed 5.

One character difference... huge wrong results/errors/bugs/crashes

Oh yes on that one.
Now my computer programming skills are highly limited.
If I remember the program correctly here is the only one I ever wrote.
1 Color 1
2 Color 0
3 Color 1
4 Go to 1
RUN
I wanted a strobe light for my bedroom.
Note the language is BASIC and this was in 1982 on a TRS-80.
Or a trash 80 as my brother called it when he ran out of memory while trying to design a monopoly game.