Editing Services

[seasoned_geek]

Softmaker needs to set up a forum on here, or perhaps a full business, where editors can hawk their services.

I've written a lot of books over the years. Geek books, and novels. I have endured the pain and indignities of finding editors willing to use something other than MS Word on the various sites.

servicescape.com
editorworld.com

etc.

Every one of those sites was created by a geek that didn't go to college for an IT degree. They set up an intake that is basically focused on MBA's less than 5 page memos and blog posts only accepting MS Word documents.

I don't let anyone open/edit my TextMaker document file with an MS product. MS has a deliberate habit of trashing files that weren't created with their tools. I had to stop using LibreOffice because no two versions of LibreOffice could edit the same file without completely trashing it. The heroic editor who edited my Emacs book had to install the exact same version of Linux Mint I was using so she had the exact same version of LO and it ran like a 3-legged Chihuahua in deep snow on her machine. With all of the images it didn't run so good on my 20-core machine either.

So, if Softmaker wants to really boost the professional image of TextMaker, it needs to spin up some venue where editors willing to use TextMaker who are well versed in the bible (Chicago Manual of Style) can ply their trade to professional writers using TextMaker.

Once I solve my current lack of editor problem y'all can be looking for

Twenty of Two - The Infamous They
Five Nuclear Wars You Can Win


at Barnes & Noble web site.

Might have to wait until August for the editor I wanted to use to free up though.

Just my 0.0002 cents.

[SuperTech]

Thank you for your post. I have forwarded this improvement suggestion…

[Woody44]

As an author and sometimes professional editor, I would certainly like to see this.

For what it's worth, I wrote a book on formatting books for print using FreeOffice Textmaker. (I mention LibreOffice occasionally, too, but the book was written around TextMaker.) I'd love to be able to promote my book, but I don't want to break any rules for the use of this forum and get myself banned.

[SuperTech]

For what it's worth, I wrote a book on formatting books for print using FreeOffice Textmaker. (I mention LibreOffice occasionally, too, but the book was written around TextMaker.) I'd love to be able to promote my book, but I don't want to break any rules for the use of this forum and get myself banned.

As your book is about TextMaker, you can post its link.

[Woody44]

Thank you. I hope it will be of help to someone.

The book is available an Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Self-Publish-You ... 146&sr=1-7

[lgsl]

I don't let anyone open/edit my TextMaker document file with an MS product. MS has a deliberate habit of trashing files that weren't created with their tools. I had to stop using LibreOffice because no two versions of LibreOffice could edit the same file without completely trashing it. The heroic editor who edited my Emacs book had to install the exact same version of Linux Mint I was using so she had the exact same version of LO and it ran like a 3-legged Chihuahua in deep snow on her machine. With all of the images it didn't run so good on my 20-core machine either.

Several factos affect here:
1. The docx format MS keeps using is not a standard. They were supposed to have migrated to the strict docx format (the comboluted ISO standard they created to compete with ODT) about 10 years ago, they never did. They keep using the transitional version that is so convoluted that if you create a docx file that all it contains is a "Hello World" using the same font in their windows, mac, web, android and iOS versions, you will get 5 different file sizes with variations on its internal structure. It can get worse when you mix different versions of MS Office. In short: Not even MS own office suite is 100% compatible between OS versions.
2. Files that are edited by different people usually gets messy. The reason is, most people, do not understand the concept of paragraph and character styles and end up doing styling manually. An awful practice that tends to screw up files badly and you end up reformatting text often.
3. You should ALWAYS keep at least two versions of the file: One you share, another one you work on. It's the only way you will keep a version of the document clean and reduces the changes of corruption. Same goes for any other thing you work on.
4. LibreOffice compatibility with MS Office is okeyish, SoftMaker beats it on that regard. Where LO excels is when it comes to ODT, witch is a true ISO standard format. SMO's support of the ODT is mediocre at best, and it is puzzling since is the mandatory office document format in the EU. I know, because I have reported, over the years, lots of problems with their implementation of ODT on TextMaker

So, if Softmaker wants to really boost the professional image of TextMaker, it needs to spin up some venue where editors willing to use TextMaker who are well versed in the bible (Chicago Manual of Style) can ply their trade to professional writers using TextMaker.

If so, they would aso have to accommodate other paper formats as APA and so on and, in short, it would become nightmare. To be honest, most of those citing mechanisms like Chicago and APA should be an afterthought. They are silly and often contradictory and ever changing.

Your idea of "editors willing to use TextMaker", i's not a solution, the solution is to move to a document format that is an ISO standard, like ODT.

[seasoned_geek]

4. LibreOffice compatibility with MS Office is okeyish, SoftMaker beats it on that regard. Where LO excels is when it comes to ODT, witch is a true ISO standard format. SMO's support of the ODT is mediocre at best, and it is puzzling since is the mandatory office document format in the EU. I know, because I have reported, over the years, lots of problems with their implementation of ODT on TextMaker

LibreOffice is a train wreck that got hit by a plane crash and is rolling downhill towards a daycare center at noon play.

LibreOffice is the reason I bought SoftMaker's Linux product.

Even on a machine with 20 physical core and 120 physical GB of RAM I could barely edit this book. For the editor who was trying to run Linux Mint in a VM on her laptop it took 45 minutes to load.

Every book in my award winning and trademarked technical book series that was written with LibreOffice can only be edited by that version on that OS. Attempt to open them with a different version of LO and you trash the file.

I came up in computer operations back when we had computer operators. I'm incredibly anal when it comes to backups. I have RAID and make daily snapshots off on another system. I even have an LS-120 in a machine that I use to create daily backups of book projects which can both be labeled and easily carried off-site for safety.

There is no SQL standard. Despite people pointing to something published by some organization there is no such standard. Just try to SHOW TABLES. In SQLite it is .tables. In RDB it actually is SHOW TABLES. In Oracle it is SELECT * FROM ... depending on whether you want user or system tables listed. In PostgreSQL it is \dt after you have done \c database_name to select a database.

There is no ODT standard. Despite people pointing to something published by some organization there is no such standard. Just try to open the same ODT file with embedded images on two different (even different Linux) platforms and it will not work. The display will be trashed.

An even better boot to the head is the LO developers can't even choose the same default font between Linux and Windows. I haven't tried MAC, but I bet there is a different one there too. When you are fully formatting a book for print this hoses page breaks and causes images to spastically appear/disappear because it is anchored to a character that is now a different size and location.

So, if Softmaker wants to really boost the professional image of TextMaker, it needs to spin up some venue where editors willing to use TextMaker who are well versed in the bible (Chicago Manual of Style) can ply their trade to professional writers using TextMaker.

If so, they would aso have to accommodate other paper formats as APA and so on and, in short, it would become nightmare. To be honest, most of those citing mechanisms like Chicago and APA should be an afterthought. They are silly and often contradictory and ever changing.

Your idea of "editors willing to use TextMaker", i's not a solution, the solution is to move to a document format that is an ISO standard, like ODT.

No, my idea is the solution. 99% of the editors on ServiceScape try to pull whatever gets uploaded into MS Word on their, often times, Apple platform, then export it with the change tracking they did. Guess what? It is trashed.

None of them can pull in TextMaker's default/internal format . . . or at least none I've encountered. TextMaker needs to steal a page from WordPerfect for its internal file format. Needs to allow font embedding so you get the exact same font no matter what system opened the file. I used that a lot when WordPerfect ruled the world.

Chicago is the bible. If you are writing books you expect people to pay money for, you use it. This is how every reader who looks at a single page before making the buy/ignore decision of your book makes the subconscious decision. They don't even know it is Chicago, they just know your book doesn't look like the others they bought so it must be a hack. They won't actually say it, just know there is "something wrong" or "doesn't look professional."

[Jossi]

LibreOffice is a train wreck that got hit by a plane crash and is rolling downhill towards a daycare center at noon play.

YMMD!

[Woody44]

So, if Softmaker wants to really boost the professional image of TextMaker, it needs to spin up some venue where editors willing to use TextMaker who are well versed in the bible (Chicago Manual of Style) can ply their trade to professional writers using TextMaker.

If so, they would aso have to accommodate other paper formats as APA and so on and, in short, it would become nightmare. To be honest, most of those citing mechanisms like Chicago and APA should be an afterthought. They are silly and often contradictory and ever changing.

Your idea of "editors willing to use TextMaker", i's not a solution, the solution is to move to a document format that is an ISO standard, like ODT.

Yes, a good editor should be able to adjust to the editorial style required by the client. In my experience, the "big three" in the United States are the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS), the Associated Press (AP) style book, and the APA style book.

[Woody44]

LibreOffice is a train wreck that got hit by a plane crash and is rolling downhill towards a daycare center at noon play.

I wouldn't have worded it quite that strongly ... but I can't disagree. In many ways, it's proof of the adage that a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee.

Chicago is the bible. If you are writing books you expect people to pay money for, you use it. This is how every reader who looks at a single page before making the buy/ignore decision of your book makes the subconscious decision. They don't even know it is Chicago, they just know your book doesn't look like the others they bought so it must be a hack. They won't actually say it, just know there is "something wrong" or "doesn't look professional."

In general, this is true. However, many periodicals prefer the AP style guide, because it reduces "extraneous" characters somewhat. And many academic publishers demand the APA style book. A good editor should be able to use all of them. I have copies of each on my desk, although the CMOS is my default unless specifically requested to use AP or APA.

[seasoned_geek]

LibreOffice is a train wreck that got hit by a plane crash and is rolling downhill towards a daycare center at noon play.

I wouldn't have worded it quite that strongly ... but I can't disagree. In many ways, it's proof of the adage that a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee.

I would. Take an old timer's journey through word processors.

Chicago is the bible. If you are writing books you expect people to pay money for, you use it. This is how every reader who looks at a single page before making the buy/ignore decision of your book makes the subconscious decision. They don't even know it is Chicago, they just know your book doesn't look like the others they bought so it must be a hack. They won't actually say it, just know there is "something wrong" or "doesn't look professional."

In general, this is true. However, many periodicals prefer the AP style guide, because it reduces "extraneous" characters somewhat. And many academic publishers demand the APA style book. A good editor should be able to use all of them. I have copies of each on my desk, although the CMOS is my default unless specifically requested to use AP or APA.

Yes, different writing types use different styles. I was specifically talking about books.

In theory, you are correct about editors being able to edit using multiple style guides. In practice, not so much. I used to use an editor for first pass editing who was working with AP every day, but knew CMOS. They just can't stop that knee-jerk, using 21 instead of twenty one, etc. I used to think, "Gee, I'm a functional illiterate."

Then I would send out to editors who lived and breathed CMOS.

"Gee, he's a functional illiterate too!"

Used him for a lot of books though. I know what he got to work with when it came to my first and second drafts back then.


Feature request:

Enhance TextMaker to support (mostly) Chicago Manual of Style, AP style, and APA style.

You don't even need to be "current." Yes, 18 is "current" but, 15 is cheap and good enough for most.

I don't even know what version my decades old hardcover is. It's on a book shelf and I'm too lazy to get up right now.

You might even want to cut a deal with PerfectIt if you think full on CMOS support too much to chew now.

I see 2024 or whatever got professional dictionaries. If you could layer on something that can get an author to 80+% CMOS (or whatever) that would be a huge selling point. It would also make editor's lives easier.

[Woody44]

For basic editing of novels and similar books, Strunk & White's The Elements of Style would suffice as the only editorial guide needed. For reasons lost in the mists of time, I have three copies of it on my desktop reference shelf -- all 3rd edition.