What do our publishers think we are about … ?

What do our publishers think we are about … ?

Home Forums General Questions What do our publishers think we are about … ?

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #618571
    Tim Stevens
    Participant
      @timstevens64731

      Yes, that is what their latest advert says about MEW.

      Regards, Tim

      #28893
      Tim Stevens
      Participant
        @timstevens64731

        ” The best coverage of today’s railway scene. “

        #618576
        Frances IoM
        Participant
          @francesiom58905

          well given the present labour relations on the railways our models may be the only working ones for much of next month.

          #618585
          Hopper
          Participant
            @hopper

            Which ad, where?

            Sounds like some minion made a cut and paste boo boo.

            #618597
            JasonB
            Moderator
              @jasonb

              Odd as MEW does not really cover railway related stuff unlike ME which compared to EiM does have more loco/railway content, so if by best they mean most then yes it probably is.

              Where is the Add

              #618600
              Michael Gilligan
              Participant
                @michaelgilligan61133
                #618601
                JasonB
                Moderator
                  @jasonb

                  Thanks Michael, not taken the Railways Illustrated mag they use that description on but seems likely. Looking at ME and MEW can't see the same description being used.

                  Though a Pedant would say Classicmags are not the publishersdevil

                  Edited By JasonB on 26/10/2022 07:31:08

                  #618602
                  Michael Gilligan
                  Participant
                    @michaelgilligan61133

                    All I did was put the phrase [within quotation marks] into Google and pick one of many results.

                    I have no knowledge of, or interest in, the magazine which uses that phrase as its ‘slogan’

                    MichaelG.

                    #618603
                    Michael Gilligan
                    Participant
                      @michaelgilligan61133

                      Posted by JasonB on 26/10/2022 07:28:58:

                      […]

                      Though a Pedant would say Classicmags are not the publishersdevil

                      .

                      Pedants say all sorts of things

                      But did you look at the foot of the page that I linked ?

                      MichaelG.

                      #618605
                      Hopper
                      Participant
                        @hopper

                        It happens all the time in publishing these days, since proper proofreaders are a thing of the past.

                        Some graphic artist gets told to make up a quick ad/page/layout or whatever for something new. So they grab a similar old ad/page/layout file and use that as the impromptu template instead of starting from scratch. They usually change the copy and the pics to suit but sometimes they err and the old copy is left in place on the new layout.

                        It happens tediously often. I have seen newspapers with the previous day's day and date on the front page masthead as a result of the exact same manoeuvre by some kid graphic artist left unchecked.

                        #618625
                        SillyOldDuffer
                        Moderator
                          @sillyoldduffer
                          Posted by Hopper on 26/10/2022 08:30:08:

                          It happens all the time in publishing these days, since proper proofreaders are a thing of the past.

                          I take it Hopper never read the 'Grauniad'!

                          More seriously is there any evidence for the assertion? I read a lot of old and new books and I'm not convinced. There have always been misprints, especially at the quick or cheap end of printing.

                          Dave

                          #618631
                          John Hinkley
                          Participant
                            @johnhinkley26699

                            Nothing new there. The "Wicked Bible" published in 1631 encouraged its readers with the misprinted commandment "Thou shalt commit adultery".

                            John

                            #618638
                            Versaboss
                            Participant
                              @versaboss

                              Want some more strange stuff?

                              In issue 317, bottom left of the first page ("On the Editor's Bench" ) you can read:

                              This issue was published on June 17, 2022
                              The next issue will be on sale on July 22, 2022

                              These two lines are repeated in every issue since then. So they did the whole bunch in June?

                              Regards,
                              Hans

                              edit: deleted that dreaded smiley

                              Edited By Versaboss on 26/10/2022 15:11:28

                              #618646
                              Tim Stevens
                              Participant
                                @timstevens64731

                                The advert I described appeared in an email message sent out by the publishers on 25/10 with the heading:

                                No tricks, just TREATS! Subscribe from just £10!

                                If no-one else was sent the message, I can copy the whole thing for you, but I'm sure you'd rather I didn't.

                                I agree that the description applied to MEW was an error – indeed the same description was also applied to other titles. But it brings to mind an expression, as we have recently chaged proprietors, about frying pans and fires. i've always been a cynic.

                                Regards, Tim

                                #618701
                                Hopper
                                Participant
                                  @hopper
                                  Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 26/10/2022 11:31:12:

                                  Posted by Hopper on 26/10/2022 08:30:08:

                                  It happens all the time in publishing these days, since proper proofreaders are a thing of the past.

                                  I take it Hopper never read the 'Grauniad'!

                                  More seriously is there any evidence for the assertion? I read a lot of old and new books and I'm not convinced. There have always been misprints, especially at the quick or cheap end of printing.

                                  Dave

                                  Twenty-plus years working in the newspaper and magazine industry, including stints in various subediting and editor's roles. (Following a midlife career change out of engineering.) When I first started in the early 1990s there were layers of subeditors and check subeditors and senior subeditors that everything progressed through before going to the compositor's floor where they had their own proofreaders of the printing plates and later on the paste-ups that plates were made from in a photo etching machine. Yes, even still, errors sneaked through. But not too many.

                                  In the 21st century as print industry revenue declined, they first got rid of all the compositors and proofreaders as the printing platemaking process was computerised. The subeditors in the editorial department simply hit a computer key and the aluminium printing plate came out of a machine next to the press and was installed unchecked onto the press.

                                  Then they got rid of most of the sub-editors, having the reporters check their own work and write their own headlines etc. Page layouts were done by kids just out of college with a graphic design degree who were barely literate. They are notorious, in my repeated personal experience, for reusing old pages and layouts as impromptu templates and letting old copy through into the new page/item as per the ad Tim has seen.

                                  Then check subeditors and senior subeditors were eliminated. Basic subediting was outsourced to remote contractors with no stake in the game. Pretty much it was left to the remaining editor him or herself to do all the final checking. The last newspaper I worked at in 2010 had a staff of about 200 people all up. Today it has 35. Not one subeditor among them. The impact on quality is very noticeable.

                                  Book publishing has gone the same way. Former layers of editors, copy editors, compositors and printer's proofreaders have all been laid off. Authors are sent the galley proofs to check themselves, which is fraught with danger. Where I used to rarely see an error in a book I was reading, I would say these days it is unusual for me to read a book where I don't spot one or two errors at least.

                                  And the internet side of publishing is the same free-for-all as the rest of the internet. All done by graphic artists, web-masters and self-appointed "content generators" with limited final checking. They do a pretty good job using computer spell checkers and AI grammar programs but some horrible clangers slip through almost continuously. Voice to text transcription software is the obvious culprit in many cases, with similar sounding wrong words making it through to the final page.

                                  And yes, the Grauniad is certainly not immune, particularly to the voice-to-text clangers in recent times!

                                  #618747
                                  duncan webster 1
                                  Participant
                                    @duncanwebster1

                                    From long experience you cannot check your own work, you know what you meant it to say and so will not notice errors or ambiguities. The only exception is if you leave it aside for a while so you sort of forget what you meant, not really applicable to journalism, which is real time.

                                    #618750
                                    Hopper
                                    Participant
                                      @hopper

                                      Yes self-checking is fraught with danger. You simply do not see your own errors — and we all make them. But it saves money and that sadly is the name of the game in today's world.

                                      Edited By Hopper on 27/10/2022 12:32:59

                                    Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)
                                    • Please log in to reply to this topic. Registering is free and easy using the links on the menu at the top of this page.

                                    Latest Replies

                                    Home Forums General Questions Topics

                                    Viewing 25 topics - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)
                                    Viewing 25 topics - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)

                                    View full reply list.