Forum: Editors/Reviewers Hangout

Well you can contact Gary on the link on the page I linked to above.

Author lists only display once you have a story being posted. o the account should still be there, but you won't see it on the author lists until the first chapter of the first story is posted. In a similar process a new Universe or Series won't be in their lists until the 2 nd story is posted to justify it being a multi-story universe or series.

edit to add: If you use the SoL messaging system to contact Gary it's a lot more private and you can give him your usual email address without the world knowing about it.

You're welcome.

So it's likely to become a universe.

If you're not yet sure it's going to be a universe or series, just write the stories and leave that decision until after you have a few, because you can always create a universe or series and add the stories to it later.

but it still reads a lot like a dialogue driven screenplay. Lacking in things like background / room descriptions, leaving it to the reader to imagine what the room itself contains / appears.

Those are normally added during the revision process, which many who post as they write don't partake in. Once you get the basic details in your first draft, you go back and add in anything that's missing (like physical descriptions and 'response shots', as well as clarifying anything left unclear and jettisoning anything not material to the central story (i.e. which doesn't move the story forward)).

That's so much more than a mere personal habit. That, and not writing frivolous stories, is the true calling of an author.

It's also why I stopped performing last-minute reviews before I post each chapter. When I did, I'd routinely insert a whole collection of new typos. It produced a lot of new editors, as various people kept catching them for me, but it wasn't helping my reputation any.

However, I also have a habit of putting in new mistakes while fixing the reported ones.

You and me both, brother. Luckily, other brothers help fix my funky corrections.

Anyway, if you'll send me a sample, I'll show you how I work.

Just for further validation, TeNderLoin also works with me and does excellent work. He's also become a very good author in his own right, so he'll often run short of time if you finish a story while he's in the middle of one. On the other hand, he's also got a decent feel for pacing, character development and story tensions, which is especially helpful if you're not familiar with those yourself.

I don't use editors for my SOL stories (and it probably shows) and elsewhere I rarely use more than one, but when I do the editors receive the story simultaneously.

AJ

When you folks send stuff out to your editors, do you:

send to 1 editor, get return, make corrections, send to editor 2 etc. etc.

I do it this way, because the first time I tried the other way it was a total mess to copy the changes into the master file because I couldn't always find what they wanted to change due to it already having been changed via an earlier editor return.

Typical story is 50,000 something words - if the editors note 100 words for changing it's easier to use the 'find' option to locate the change in the text than to go through page by page. But if the text is already changed it can't be found.

Typical story is 50,000 something words - if the editors note 100 words for changing it's easier to use the 'find' option to locate the change in the text than to go through page by page. But if the text is already changed it can't be found.

Important point! If you're using a word processor, learn how to use the "Review" feature (different software packages call it slightly different things, though they all offer the same functionality).

The Review function allows you to skip directly from one edit to the next, without having to search for color-coded changes. It's a real time saver, and it also allows your editors to state questions on the side of the story, and shows both the original text and their proposed changes. You simply 'accept' or 'reject' their changes, or reword it to fit your particular story, and then move on.

I've found, the more time you spend fudging with each chapter, the more you're likely to make largely unnecessary changes. This helps the overall story, but you end up with a bunch of new material which never gets reviewed by your editors—which is only a recipe for disaster!

By the way, for comparisons sake (with Ernest) my stories started out around 150,000 to 250,000 dropped for a while to 50,000 to 70,000, and is now back up to around 80,000 to 120,000 (a much happier middle ground). Just for context's sake, I typically average around 20 chapters per book.

Important point! If you're using a word processor, learn how to use the "Review" feature (different software packages call it slightly different things, though they all offer the same functionality).

They do, and the one used by MS Word is not compatible with anything except MS Word, thus the editors who use Word have to colour mark the text for me to see the changes. For the editors who also use Libre Office I simply use the Show Changes or Compare options. Neither of those work with a file worked over in MS Word because word uses non-standard format coding that doesn't translate across. I tried Compare on one Word edited document and found every damn word listed as changes because Word changed all the font formats to its default font.

I tried Compare on one Word edited document and found every damn word listed as changes because Word changed all the font formats to its default font.

That's why I never make changes in the editor's copy, but also transcribe/copy the entire chapters into my 'master file', so I preserve my own formatting.

And while WORD shoves all kinds of invisible crap into your document, most word processors are good about 'importing' documents, converting them into something you can review. Even so, I keep spare copies of both OO (OpenOffice) and LI (LibreOffice) on hand, so I can handle anything an editor, or another author, throws at me. (I still stick with WORD because I learned to use it working in an office environment way back in the 80's and I'm so used to using it (I used to hand code index entries), I feel lost with the free alternatives.)

Just a note: beware of Google Docs, especially if you write about teen sexcapades. If anyone files a complaint with Google, they'll flat out delete your entire account, meaning ALL your work will be forever lost, and there is No appeal or review of their decision.

I'll NEVER use Google Docs. I helped one writer who did, and it almost killed him! (By the way, he is dead now, but for reasons other than Google Docs.)

I still stick with WORD because I learned to use it working in an office environment way back in the 80's and I'm so used to using it (I used to hand code index entries), I feel lost with the free alternatives.)

I used MS Word 1 on DOS back in the day, and ended up using every version of MS Word and Excel that came out up to 2007 - the forced switch to the 'Fook You Ribbon' was the final killer for me. That and the way the later versions of MS Word screwed over the older files I had saved in the earlier versions from prior years. That's when I finally moved to Open Office full-time and then moved on to Libre Office when Oracle screwed over the crew creating OO. Never looked back. I did find that OO and LO worked more like MS Word 6a than the later versions of MS Word did.

That's why I never make changes in the editor's copy, but also transcribe/copy the entire chapters into my 'master file', so I preserve my own formatting.

ayep, I save the editor copies with their name and date in them and type the edits I agree with into my master file. The issues come sin trying to locate the edits in their file when the Show Changes doesn't work.

edit to add: most of my editors no use Libre Office for my work.

The issues come sin trying to locate the edits in their file when the Show Changes doesn't work.

I'm not sure about LO, but for WORD, if they don't flag their changes (for whatever reason) you simply do a "Review > Compare", and it will flag any changes between two different versions for you. I'm sure LO has it's own version of that command, and it should solve the problem for you.

I'm not sure about LO, but for WORD, if they don't flag their changes (for whatever reason) you simply do a "Review > Compare", and it will flag any changes between two different versions for you. I'm sure LO has it's own version of that command, and it should solve the problem for you.

It works the same way in OO and LO, however, the code used by MS Word to do those is not the same as the industry standard code, so those actions when done in MS Word do not properly convert over to OO or LO - in fact you sometimes have the same issue between versions of MS Word due to code changes by the MS coders.

I once tested the MS Word Compare coding by taking an OO text file opening it up in MS Word changed one word saved it, exported back to .odt in Word, then opened it up in LO - Every word on the file was marked as different due to the way Word had coded the format information. It also showed nothing under the Show Changes option despite both programs having the Record Changes option on. MS Word doesn't like playing with anything else.

MS Word doesn't like playing with anything else.

Hence my reluctance to cross over. I'll never purchase another version of Office, but as long as the one I have (2010) which works, I'll keep using it. It's like my using .doc files. I choose that because it's the most commonly used and accessible file. Although the free versions are commendable, they're also more problematic.

But then, we're we discussing helping new authors locating decent editors?

But then, we're we discussing helping new authors locating decent editors?

True, but the software issues have an effect. There's one editor I no longer send all my work to because it's just too damn hard to deal with the screwed up format on the files because he insists on using MS Word 2013 and it's almost impossible to locate any edits he has. Just way too much work to deal with.

Now all of my regular editors use Libre Office while working on my stuff, and a few have actual found it's better for some of the other authors they edit for, too.

edit to add: I've been helping another author convert his stories to the right html code for SoL. I don't know what software his editors used, but when I did his first story I was in the editorial loop and what he sent out as the original file used only one font type and had one paragraph style. However, what he ended up with after incorporating all the edits from the others had multiple fonts and different paragraph styles, including some order list paragraphs. Clean all the excess code out for the html meant what should have been a 30 minute job became a 2 hour jobs due to all extra excess format code I had to find and remove. I suspect he cut and pasted the edits or used the edited files from some of the editors. That sort of mess only comes about from using different software with different default settings that forced their setting on the document. Having everyone suing the same software can alleviate those problems.

I've been helping another author convert his stories to the right html code for SoL. I don't know what software his editors used, but when I did his first story I was in the editorial loop and what he sent out as the original file used only one font type and had one paragraph style.

Yeah, WORD is terrible at embedding useless code (foreign name fields???) that's unneeded by any but a few uses. The only real option is to turn off EACH individual data field in the settings, which is a fairly tedious process, especially if you don't understand what they all refer to. :(

Now all of my regular editors use Libre Office while working on my stuff

And that's why Ikeep handy copies of LO and OO sitting around, even though I don't use them regularly.

* VERY OFF TOPIC *

I have a couple of PDF files I suspect are identical. Is there anything (Windows XP) I can use to compare them?

Thanks, AJ

I have a couple of PDF files I suspect are identical. Is there anything (Windows XP) I can use to compare them?

There's not any that can do a direct comparison that I know of. PDF is essentially an image of the page, the same as if you used a camera to take a photo of the page. You should also be able to highlight and copy the text in the pdf then paste that into a normal word processor file, save it, and run a comparison between the two.

Drat.

Thanks for your help,

AJ

SO,question. When you folks send stuff out to your editors, do you:

send to 1 editor, get return, make corrections, send to editor 2 etc. etc.

or

send to all editors simultaneously getting "x" returns, then make corrections.

It depends. Generally, when I finish a complete first draft, it's difficult to get motivated for the often difficult talk of extensive revisions and editing. I always get a decent amount of revised chapters prepared, but will often farm them out a couple at a time, just so the edits don't overwhelm me. Typically I'll release one chapter for ever one I revise. Then, when I complete the full revision process, I'll release the rest.

I've found, with multiple editors, having everyone (or even a few) editing every single chapter,while the others only edit a chapter or two, can be nerve wracking, so I prefer to control their pace.

If, after the book's been thoroughly vetted, and a new author comes on board, I don't mind giving him the entire work, as I'm under no immediate pressure to handle all his edits at once.

That said, for a newbie, you first need to build relationships, so I'd focus on a single editor at a time, as you both learn each other's work habits, your personal writing styles (and which style guidelines you follow) and build trust in each other. Then, once that's done, you move on to the next, using your trust (or distrust) in the previous editor's work to evaluate the new editor's worth (does he catch the previous guy's edits/overlooked errors, or does he introduce entirely new errors?)

That's a more lengthy process, but it's generally worth the extra time. I wrote several books before I finally decided who I could trust and who, despite our getting along, I had to cut loose.

Also, jfyi, I generally like to stay 3 - 5 chapters ahead of my editors, often starting with a healthy 7 chapter lead (though it often dwindles to only 3).

I also like to complete two chapters each week (an extensive work schedule), revise two, edit two and revise two. That's clearly unmanageable unless you're NOT doing anything else, but it shows how I use my editors breathing down my neck to crank out chapters. It's the best way to get past the ('I've already written the damn thing' duldrums and light a fire under my ass to crank out chapters on a regular basis). My editors, however, prefer getting ALL the chapters at once, even if it's only a single editor at a time.

Also note, some editors are proofers (they review the final version to spot any last-minute typos) while others focus on content. The proofers should be the last to review a document, while the content editors should be the first—even if you haven't finished your first draft.

You'll also find that some editors are more thorough than others. Many will simply read the story, marking typos as they encounter them, but the more diligent and professional ones will read through each chapter (or the entire story), making obvious errors, and then double back, going over it in much more detail.

When you get editors like that, you've got to account for their editing style in assigning them work to best utilize their skills.

Editing my post does not have an option to rename the thread.

I'm not seeing that option. Is it even available?

No, it's not an option. I was teasing (indirectly suggesting we start a secondary thread discussing what authors need to KNOW about editing, rather than helping one author at a time). Sorry for the confusion.

Threads like this make me glad I just use Markdown in text files.

Maybe, but for me to do a Markdown Text file would cause me to triple the length of story preparation. This is due to my intended end product and the process of getting there.

Write story in Libre Office using styles - edit story and put edits in master file (multiple times) - create PDF for print book for sale and preview file - create e-pub for sale - create html for own website - create html file for SoL.

I use several paragraph styles, coloured text, and 3 levels of heading styles. All of them go well in LO, PDFs, and e-pubs with no extra effort by me. Creating the html file from a good LO file takes a few seconds, then about 10 to 30 minutes to clean up the code. The change from the personal website file to Sol takes about 3 minutes to do.

My focus is on a product to sell on the Internet which I also share on SoL. The Markdown Text option doesn't fit with my main focus at all.

Creating HTML from Markdown is a sub-second operation, last I checked.

Since I only need the HTML and have got that, why would I bother with another step to do that? The Markdown does nothing for me!

It allows you to focus on your words and the structure, in an environment better for writing, rather than futzing with style. You can add that later with CSS.

I disagree. I see the styles up in the layout format, and then just concentrate on the words I'm using. For the main text area I use the default paragraph, and quotation paragraph with 3 heading styles and a simple click applies whichever one I want. The other styles are the contents, headers, and footers which are all preset fields and automatically processed by the preset format layout I use.

Thus to write I open up a new layout file, assign a name, save, then type a chapter heading, apply the heading style I want for that chapter, then just type away with the words for the story. A simple highlight and click applies the bold and italics where I want it. I end up with a print ready pdf via a single click, import into Calibre to create an e-pub, then save as html for the html file which I can leave as is or clean up and post to Sol - I clean up and post. I end up with a simple 3 or 4 line CSS.

edit to add: I use bold, italics, red text, blue text, some green text, and indented paragraphs as well as plain text with justified and centred paragraphs. The bulk of the CSS is for the coloured text.

A 4-line CSS however sounds absolutely abysmal, and the document probably looks terrible, unless you're working some serious magic. But to get a nice, typographically appealing document, I'd expect a fair bit more.

The short CSS file works perfectly as the only things it needs to do for me is to identify where I want the text centred or in the colours I use. The result is about what you see on SoL.

As to the extra typing you say I need to do Markdown, I find it's a lot easier to what I do than having to remember to type in the extra code as I go, the way you do when typing basic html code in Notepad etc. Without having to work on including the code I can focus on writing the story.

I mean, the use of asterisks and underlines to indicate emphasis in plain text is really old. When I was learning to type in elementary school, it was already an established convention.

Maybe it was, but it wasn't taught to me when I did typing classes because we were taught to just type the text. However, to do it that way requires the inclusion of extra characters in the text that would have to be removed to create a normal Print Ready PDF, a normal e-pub, and a normal HTML file, so Markdown is extra work that's a waste of time for me.

There's no reason for me to include the extra characters for the Markdown or the HTML in the story master file, in fact, there's plenty of reason for to not do what you suggest. The fact the html is the last and final level copy of the lowest priority makes it damn stupid to do all that extra work just to make it work for Markdown.

I agree, but since there are options to 'save as' HTML, PDF, or plain text, I think it would me nice to be able to save as markdown as well.

I agree, but since there are options to 'save as' HTML, PDF, or plain text, I think it would me nice to be able to save as markdown as well.

I think we can all agree on that. However, many are us are not ready to jump on the markdown boat in regards to publishing yet.

Why would you have to "remember" something that is fundamentally already part of the typographical convention of the text?

Because some of us never had he training. I never took a typing course and never used HTML in plain text. When I used a typewriter, if I wanted Bold, I would backspace and over-type to make it bold. When I started using a word-processor, I used ctrl-b to make it bold. Underline was done with backspaces and underscores, now with ctrl-u. Easy-peasy and I see what I expect to see in the end. Typing *this* does not show me a word in bold.

This is just bizarre to me. I've been taking typing classes since I was pretty much old enough to read.

Typing was an elective at my school back in the 70s.

As I said before, to get bold with a typewriter, you backspaced and typed the same letters again. Since the key did not strike exactly the same place, the margin of error caused the letters to look bold.

In one of the Star Trek movies, which involved time travel, Scottie (I believe) tried to operate a computer with voice instructions. When that didn't work, he set to work on the keyboard. I know it was just random clacking noises, but I believe the audience were supposed to believe Scottie was touch-typing.

So even in the future, when computers were voice activated, people learned to touch-type ;)

AJ

When learning he had to use a keyboard, Scottie clasped his hands together and cracked all his fingers. James Doohan may have been using hunt and peck, but Scottie was touch-typing (or so the audience was meant to believe).

AJ

I can't remember how the timeline was presented, but much of the scene now looks dated so is probably best thought of as the recent past.

AJ

In one of the Star Trek movies, which involved time travel, Scottie (I believe) tried to operate a computer with voice instructions.

Star Trek V: The Voyage Home. Scotty first tried just talking to the computer, then McCoy handed him the mouse which Scotty tried to use as a microphone. The man in charge of the plant then told him to 'just use the keyboard" to which Scotty replied "Keyboard. how quaint". Scotty then started to hunt-and-peck before speeding up, inputting the formula for 'transparent aluminum'. It was pretty obvious to the viewers that he was NOT typing.

Star Trek V is The Final Frontier.

I stand corrected.

I think the only time I've ever touched a typewriter was in a museum somewhere along the line. As far as I'm concerned, CRT monitors have always been horrifically outdated, and everyone has always had an email address.

I used an electric typewriter in high school and college (though I used my colleges 'brand new' PDP-11 system to generate badly formatted term papers). I was trained using the old-fashioned manual (non-electric) typewriters. When I started working (after college) we were using HUMONGOUS keyboards which only produced punch tape, which was read into the computer, so yeah, all formatting was done using text code. But, computer formatting was essentially invented by Steve Jobs in the first MAC model when he introduced loadable fonts. Things have never been the same after that. Turning back to text once again seems like we're moving in the wrong direction.

I understand that NO ONE wants to learn WORD from scratch anymore, and I'd like to retire extensive word processes entirely, but Markdown was designed by designers too lazy to code, making brain-dead text look attractive.

I used an electric typewriter in high school and college (though I used my colleges 'brand new' PDP-11 system to generate badly formatted term papers). I was trained using the old-fashioned manual (non-electric) typewriters.

I suspect we are 'of an age'. Punch cards for programming on the PDP-11/40 and 11/70, with reel to reel tape for actual storage of your own programs and batch processing.

My high school graduation gift (in 1979) was a Smith Corona electric with the removable cartridges so you didn't have to use FUJ anymore. (Fuck Up Juice - aka White Out)

1979

Same year I graduated from High School.

spring chicken - I started full time work in Dec 1970 a few weeks after my last high school exams.

Same year I graduated from High School.

The year before I graduated college, so we're all (nearly) in the same (chronological) class.

The bulk of the CSS is for the coloured text.

Note: As far as I recall, Ernest is the only SOL author to focus so extensively on text color as a major publishing concern. Since print books typically don't allow any color, unless you want to pay substantially more per page produced, it's a relatively meaningless issue for most authors.

As far as I recall, Ernest is the only SOL author to focus so extensively on text color as a major publishing concern. Since print books typically don't allow any color, unless you want to pay substantially more per page produced, it's a relatively meaningless issue for most authors.

I think your first sentence is true. However, using the red and blue text the way I do makes it look nicer in the e-pub readers that allow colour and in the html version. Also, the blue is the main colour I do use for special text and it shows in the PDF as lighter text than the normal text, thus it helps to stand out as different in the print book copies.

I use Green 4 for the story title, Red 4 for Chapter headings, Blue 4 for Sub-chapter headings, and Blue 4 with italics for Notes and special text like letters within the story. If you regard normal black text as being a display weight of 4 in a print book you get a comparative black text weights of:

Green 4 = 6
Red 4 = 7
bold text = 6
normal Text = 4
Blue 4 = 3

Thus the blue does look different in the black and white print book and an e-reader that strips out colour. However, in a html file or an e-reader that allows colour to display (which is where I have the majority of readers) is looks a lot nicer with the colours to liven up the story.

I know it isn't needed, but it looks better. I regard the use of colour the same way as another certain unnamed author likes to liven up his stories by using images for the chapter heading in some stories.

This is the sort of thing you would use CSS for

I use the CSS to identify in the html files where I use the colour and where I centre a paragraph, that's all. That's why it's so short.

Within the HTML version I use the codes of h1, h2, h3, p, b, i, blockquote, and the span commands for the colour. The Save as HTML function in Libre Office adds the h1, h2, h3, p, b, i, and blockquotes for me because the master file has those styles in the layout format. What I do need to do is to change the font commands for the colour to span commands for the colour while I remove the excess format codes. All very simple.

I use the CSS to identify in the html files where I use the colour and where I centre a paragraph, that's all. That's why it's so short.

I'm a bit more adventurous with my CSS. Here's some paragraph style CSS defs I use for my stories:

p, p.MsoNormal
{
text-indent: 1.5em;
margin-right: 2.0em;
margin-left: 2.0em;
text-align:justify;
}
p.Indent
{
text-indent: 1.5em;
margin-right: 4.0em;
margin-left: 4.0em;
text-align:justify;
line-height:115%;
}
h1
{
font-size: 3.5em;
page-break-before:always;
text-align:center;
font-weight: bold;
margin-top:2em;
margin-bottom:0em;
}

This is the sort of thing you would use CSS for. In the Markdown, you provide the title/header structure, and indicate the notes, and then in the CSS you specify what those things should actually be rendered as. That's the whole point of the HTML/CSS dichotomy: in one you can focus on content and structure, in the other you can focus on what it looks like for various display types.

The whole point of Style definitions in WYSIWIG editors, is that it translates directly into CSS style definitions for direct inclusion into epubs and websites. Markup, not so much. You still need to manually convert it at some point.

I think your first sentence is true. However, using the red and blue text the way I do makes it look nicer in the e-pub readers that allow colour and in the html version.

My issue with color text, is from working with the blind and visually handicapped. While not a large percentage of people, your colored text may very well be invisible to certain individuals. If I was you, just for those few who need it, I'd code the color titles with 'alt=""' tags, so text readers will detect it (though, if someone is using a text reader, they really don't care about the color of the text anyway).

It allows you to focus on your words and the structure, in an environment better for writing, rather than futzing with style. You can add that later with CSS.

There's a Hell of a lot more to formatting a book than simply adding a CSS. The CSS simply instructs a website/epub how to interpret the elements in the underlying document, but if there is no formatting (like identifying the different types of paragraph types), it won't buy you anything.

With Markdown text, you can't specify paragraph types, all you can do is to flag italics and bolded text like the SOL submission engine does, with underscores and stars.

Yes you can. I do it all the time.

It's not a part of the markdown commands. There may be workarounds, but without the ability to define styles, it doesn't offer much.

As far as WYSIWYG editors saving to Markdown, that's simply saving as text, and then doing a global search and replace. Since I don't subscribe to M$ Office, I'm not counting on them to add the functionality. That said, there's probably an add-on which offers the functionality, not just for WORD, but also for Open Office and Libre Office. After all, most editors who didn't grow up using Office have mostly gravitated to Markdown. While no one is rewriting or creating new WYSIWYG editors!

This is outright false.

Sorry, I didn't mean WYSIWYG, since most Markdown programs are WYSWYG themselves, it was directed at the word processing tools (i.e. no one is bothering to build a better version of WORD, or at least, a simpler, less cumbersome version of it).

no one is bothering to build a better version of WORD, or at least, a simpler, less cumbersome version of it

Seems to me that M$ is doing just the opposite.

(That said, Word is hands-down the best WYSIWYG document editor out there, hands down. Nothing else even comes close.)

Which version? There are several versions of MS Word and they aren't all fully compatible with each other.

Add in MS Word is going the cloud rental route, and you can easily understand why many people are moving away from it because cloud access isn't always there. Plus cloud systems cost more in most countries.

All of them since Word 98 or so, relative to the other offerings in the marketplace at that time. The current Word version is _amazingly_ good.

There have been four not fully compatible versions of MS Word since Word 98. If you want a touchscreen operated system then MS Word and its Ribbon are good, but if you don't want a system designed for smaller touch screens, then there are plenty that are better then MS Word.

Many people like MS Word simply because it's what they're familiar with, thus they think it's better.

I can't speak to battery life, but I've been using OO for years on a desktop PC, it almost never crashes, certainly no more often than Word does (and yes, word will crash occasionally).

Also, I have yet to find anything at all that Word can do that OO can't.

I agree about OO's functionality, even if I find WORD easier to use, especially since I have so many customizations to WORD.

However, my version of WORD on the PC crashes ALL the time! What's more, it's recover process is HORRENDOUS (it keeps trying to 'Repair' files, which invariably corrupts the files so I can't submit them to publishing sites like Smashwords.

The Mac version of WORD has no such problems. It not only crashes less often (although I don't abuse it quite as much by opening a gazillion files), when it does, it pops up multiple versions of the current file and NONE of them are 'Repaired'.

In my opinion, the PC version of MS Word is crap!

Yes, multiple times over the past decade or so, and they're both terrible. They crash frequently, drain battery life, and can't do the things Word can do.

You must have a weird computer or using a small mobile device, because my experience has been exactly the opposite, and I never had a system crash due to OO or LO, but often had that happen with MS Word due to it not telling MS Windows to clear the memory it used when shutting down.

This experience has been across something like a half-dozen computers, and on all of them, OO was much slower than Word and harder to use and more prone to crashing.

Over the years I've used hundreds of computers and I've never had one crash using OO or LO, but have had several crash due to out of memory when using MS Word, especially on Windows NT.

Have you tried Open Office or Libre Office?

I tried both. Went back to Word.

Try to open a document created using the default settings in a newer version of Word with and older version and it won't work nearly so well.

Save it as doc rather than the default docx.

Did I read that correctly? Are you suggesting forward compatibility is a thing? I don't think anybody's crystal ball has ever worked that well.

I agree he may have not stated that too well. However, if you code the software properly according to the Industry Standards the way OO and LO are I can use the current version of LO 6.0.1.1 to save a file as .odt and it will open correctly in LO 3 (its first version to align with OO 3) because the format code is the same through all of the versions, the same applies to OO. Sadly, you can't say that for MS Word because each variants uses a different set of proprietary format codes that are different to the others.

The problem with all applications is when they have novel functionality added that simply wasn't on the radar when the earlier version was developed.

True, but the code for the other functions should stay the same. Also, when there's an industry standard that says this is how you have it format or display then staying with that standard has compatibility for that.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

For the industry standards set by the international industry committees that have been in existence for many decades that grew out of the old CCITT committees. The International Standards Association (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) are a part of them. Much of what they set were hardware standards, bhut they also set software standards too.

The Open Document Architecture was set by the ITU and ISO back in 1989 after an initial set of documents were approved in 1987. Due to lack of support and back pressure from Microsoft it took another decade to get a lot of support in the USA.

Oh! You're complaining that Microsoft decided to create a proprietary document format to meet the needs of their customers,

No, my complaint is once they refused to use the Industry Standard format they kept changing their proprietary format without providing any compatibility while using the same file extension. This is not the only Industry Standard MS have ignored as part of their strategy to lock people into using their software, but it is the most obvious one.

And I see the goal posts are on the move again.

So...it sounds like you don't actually want them to continue meeting the needs of their customers, or you want them to waste time and energy backporting features to old versions.

I see you're trying to change what I'm saying. I never said anything about them backporting features or not providing what customers want. All I ever said was that they had issues due to them ignoring the the Industry Standards that were around decades ago and then not only going off on a tangent, but they frequently changed the code for new programs that could have been carried over, but was changed just to make it not compatible.

Because the half-baked standards didn't provide what customers wanted.

Since the proprietary code of the MS Word code did the same things as the Industry Standards but using different identifiers and formats it would be more accurate to say what MS did was half-baked.

since MS always had two teams working on alternate versions, they were only every half backed half-baked software.

Until recently MS word was able to adapt quite happily to the saved version so long as it was the same or older that the version being used.

That has NOT been my experience. I was using MS Word XP back in 2005 and found it always messed up any files that had been saved in versions of MS Word prior to MS Word 98. MS Word 97 files were readable with a lot of the paragraph and page formatting gone, but anything from MS Word 6 or MS Word for Windows 2a wasn't even readable text.

I mean, how dare they include features their customers asked for and then request they get paid for their labor!

Don't know why you added that, because I never said they shouldn't get paid if people want to pay them. But while you're on it, what I object to is them deliberately making them non-compatible and forcing changes by removing prior features.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. There might be new things added, creating a superset, but they're not going to outright rewrite the document structure each major version. That's ridiculous.

They need only change the name of sub-routines to make them incompatible. However, even Microsoft say they have four different versions of the .doc format that are incompatible, and two for the .docx format.

1. Word for DOS
2. Word for Windows 1 & 2.
3. Word 6 and Word 95.
4. Word 97 and later.
5. Word 2003 in the docx format.
6. Word 2007 in the docx format.

MS admits opening a MS Word document in a version of Word other than what it was

Why would the names used in the code affect how the document is parsed?

because if the instruction says to look for and use routine Alpha 2 and the routine is Beta 3 it won't use it. Duh, that's basic coding 101.

That's not how document parsers are written?

It is what you do when you write code for a process to do something within the software. If the code for the routine for the format instructions have a different name then the saved file that has it filed under one name won't have it called when the new software is looking for a different name. I simple to understand, so you should understand it.

Then surely a search at operating system level should be able to locate a story written in .doc format based on content, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

AJ

if you code the software properly according to the Industry Standards the way OO and LO are

Browsers coded to the industry standards for HTML and then the standards changed. So some things used in the latest HTML/CSS will not work with old browsers.

It's too expensive to support all old versions. It also makes the software slower.

Browsers coded to the industry standards for HTML and then the standards changed.

We'er discussing the standards for documents where the Industry Standard hasn't changed for a long time. However, the new browsers also display the old code properly so there is backward compatibility in the old files work on the new software, which isn't the case with non-standard code.

That's not strictly true in terms of HTML/CSS, depending on a host of factors.

All of the HTML 5 browsers I've used or seen used accurately display html files written for HTML 1, HTML 2, HTML 3, and HTML 4 - except the blink code which was never part of the HTML standard.

Mind you, I'm talking of the HTML code, not the stuff people have written in other languages like JavaScript etc - I'm not familiar with them.

standards for documents

If there was a true standard, there'd be one file format like txt. But each word processor has their own.

If there was a true standard, there'd be one file format like txt. But each word processor has their own.

There is a standard and it has been around for decades, check the ISO lists. However, while some programmers follow the standard other have ignored it - Microsoft is one that ignored it. Check ISO 8613.

Zom,

MS word was first released for DOS in 1983, and the first Word for Windows version was developed in 1989 and released in 1990. The Word for Windows was very different to Word for DOS that preceded it, and MS Word has had many changes in the format code since then.

The Open Document Architecture was first raised in 1985 with many people from within the IT industry giants involved with the committees putting the concept together. The intent was a universal storable and interchangeable document structure for any word processor and desktop publisher. The initial version of ISO 8613 was released in Nov 1987 while work continued on some parts as the ISO was to cover all basic document types you now see in an Office Document package. In Feb 1989 the final version of ISO 8613 covering all document types was released with the intent or replacing all proprietary document file formats so the riles would be cross platform compatible and current files would work in future software versions.

The committee working on ISO 8613 kept all of the major industry leaders informed of what they were doing. When the ISO 8613 was released some of the companies like Sun Microsystems embraced it, while others like Microsoft ignored it as part of their way to keep people locked in to their software.

As you can tell from the dates it was possible for Microsoft to write their Word for Windows in line with ISO 8613 due to them being told of the developments as they went and the official release of the majority of the ISO in Nov 1987 and the final release in Feb 1989.

Thus while Word for DOS was prior to ISO 8613 being released the much changed version of MS Word for Windows was after MS new about ISO 8613. Yet, MS chose to ignore the industry standard.

Um - .txt doesn't have a format. It's just text.

To be pedantic (as is my wont), 'no format' IS a format. :-)

(And that's not even getting into line endings Unix, DOS, Mac) :-)

Hmmm ... and when is a format not a method, I wonder. Would you argue that zero is a counting number? :-)

That all depends! Is your first array element A[0] or A[1] :-)

Am I coding in C or Pascal? :-) Whole numbers vs integers again (sigh) ...

Call by value or call by reference? :-)

I am reminded of the old joke that Niklaus Wirth (inventor of Pascal) is called by name by Europeans, but by value by Americans.

That was exactly the joke I was going for, told by Doctor Charles Bauer at IIT when I attended there in the 80's! :-)

That only goes one way. Try to open a document created using the default settings in a newer version of Word with and older version and it won't work nearly so well.

Like DS, I've never had an issue opening an older version of a WORD file in a newer version (though I've stopped with 2013). I suspect you're having other issues than any that are the result of WORD's coding.

My main issue with WORD is that it really needs to be completely rewritten from the ground up, with largely the same functionality, to make it efficient enough to compare with the newer alternatives, but M$ is never going to do that. Their last 'revision' just make an already complex and cumbersome and complex system even worse.

It's like Operating Systems, it's been so long since anyone has had any experience writing a NEW OS (or Word Processor) that the expertise just isn't available anymore. Heck, you can still code WORD commands using the old text commands (the .command lines you embed in the text to perform basic formatting like index entries), even though no one uses such functionality any more.

What we're getting now are easy to code versions with little (advanced) functionality, and new writers simply don't grasp most of what they're missing.

I've yet to use one

Libre Office 3 and Open Office 3 worked the same as the pre-ribbon MS Word with the only differences being the margins / gutter settings and the compatibility is better in OO and LO.

I do also find the claims about supposed incapatibity suspect.

I've files saved in every version from MS Word for DOS 1 through to MS Word 2007 and if you have a file that was saved in the version immediately prior it will open OK, but go back two or three versions and the format commands are different so they will either be scrambled or not open. Interestingly they all open OK in OO and LO, but to open them in a readable manner in MS Word you need to get extra plug-in software, they won't work natively. I found this out the hard way when tried to open some files from MS Word for Windows 2a in MS Word 98 scrambled the files - luckily I had back-up copies because they were legal records.

I don't know what the latest version of MS Word says about saving as earlier versions, but they used to have a list for MS Word 97 to 2003, MS Word 2003, MS Word 2007, and I know MS Word 2010 to 2013 are different again. When I asked MS about trying to save as a version prior to Word 97 they said they didn't support that and didn't support anything other than the latest 2 versions of Word.

Why would you ever do this?

Because you have files saved in an older version you wish to read several years later. Can't do it with MS Word, but you can with OO and LO.

Add in MS Word is going the cloud rental route

I didn't buy the rental version of Word on my Mac. I bought it outright — one time charge. They said I wouldn't get updates, but I do.

not to mention a cloud is just another computer storing your stuff, they have failures just like everyone else does.

True, the hardware can have issues, but the biggest problem to date has been the company owning the hardware going out of business or changing their business model at short notice meaning many people don't have enough time to get all their data back off the cloud. My biggest issue is non-access when Internet access is out or not good.

Since I only need the HTML and have got that, why would I bother with another step to do that? The Markdown does nothing for me!

Markdown is, and always has been, entirely about 'freeing writers' from the constraints of formatting. But for those of us who publish independently (i.e. we don't have a publishing house handling formatting for us), we need to format our work so it can be published. A markdown leaves you with a text document, with a couple of flags for italics and bold text, which no publishing outlet would ever accept. Most require either a word processor file or a completely formatted epub.

I can't type or read fast enough to worry about a couple of seconds vs sub-seconds. Now if any of the word processors made a save as Markdown option...

They have one, it's known as "Save as text file".

Creating the html file from a good LO file takes a few seconds

Creating HTML from Markdown is a sub-second operation, last I checked.

I can't type or read fast enough to worry about a couple of seconds vs sub-seconds. Now if any of the word processors made a save as Markdown option...

Every plaintext editor already does, by default, because Markdown is a plain text format. That's its strength. You can write it in vim or emacs or whatever (or even notepad if you hate good editors).

Maybe I misunderstand Markdown. I was under the impression that it is not a WYSIWYG since the writer has to put the code into the plain text where it can be seen, which is then converted to the proper display later.

What I meant was it would be nice to use a WYSIWYG editor that saves using the Markdown coding.

Threads like this make me glad I just use Markdown in text files.

Unfortunately, Markdown is better if you're not responsible for your own formatting (ex: you're submitting your work to a mainline publisher with a complete staff of online designers).

For those of us who handle those tasks ourselves, Markdown is essentially worthless, as all it offers is plain, bold, italic and sometimes underlining. Many of us deal with paragraph styles, which Markdown languages don't support. :(

Frankly, I am dismayed and baffled that it's not used on here. It would be far easier to type than the HTML we have

Because all of the browser s easily display HTML and it's easy to convert anything else into HTML. Most of the Internet is in HTML as well. For the needs here HTML works well and does the best job.

If that were actually the case, then you wouldn't see the absolute proliferation of BBCode and Markdown on forums etc.

Forums are a totally different type of usage to a normal HTML page or a book page. You use the type of code for the intended usage, which is a major point I've been making all along because Markdown does NOT fit my usage, neither does SQL or Fortran or Cobol or dBase IV or BASIC - all of which I've used in the past for the appropriate situation.

I haven't clicked a mouse in years. I'm on a phone most of the time, and when I'm not, I use the keyboard almost always, or reluctantly a trackpad.

Ahh, that explains why you want to type everything is, you wish to move everyone over to a lower quality technology designed only for display with limited input instead of high input capabilities of regular computer systems.

My use of a phone for things such as this is borne out of the fact that it's always with me,

Due to my mobility restrictions I spend most of my life at my desk with my keyboard and 28 inch 4K monitors in front of me. To me a phone is a device for voice communications.

BTW There are way more embedded micro computers in use each day than there are phones. They're in every electronic device in use now.

In command mode, hjkl are the keys to navigate like arrow keys.

Those are the same keys some old (pre-PC) computer games used to control direction if you didn't have a joystick/control pad.

I have a preset story format layout in Libre office with the Heading and paragraph styles I use. Thus when i write a story I simply type in the words, click on the style to use if it is not the default paragraph style or text.

The same with me. For each new book, I simply copy the old files, add the new text a chapter at a time, but while typing the story, I can simply specify which paragraph types i want (select from a pulldown or a tab).

But really, HTF (How the Fuck) does any of this help a new author locate and work with editors? If we want to argue about this crap, it really needs to be in a separate thread, as no one will know to look this deep in a completely different thread topic.

But really, HTF (How the Fuck) does any of this help a new author locate and work with editors? If we want to argue about this crap, it really needs to be in a separate thread, as no one will know to look this deep in a completely different thread topic.

I agree, but it's the usual thread drift we get, especially after the question has been dealt; but it does keep it at the top of the list.

sit in my Markdown world these days (for fiction-writing, at least)

Go ahead, we aren't stopping you, just don't tell us that plain text systems for on-line only is good for making print ready documents for printing, the way you have been.

Three, Markdown is also good for making print-ready documents. I have been doing it for several years now. Stop claiming it's not capable when you don't actually know.

By "Print ready", do you mean you actually publish using those files, or you can simply 'print them out'? Publishing only gets difficult when you use advanced features (i.e. don't publish print documents via Amazon with page numbers, headers and footers, etc.).

Shame about the lack of recursion.

I find FINDSTR much more useful:

FINDSTR [/B] [/E] [/L] [/R] [/S] [/I] [/X] [/V] [/N] [/M] [/O] [/P] [/F:file][/C:string] [/G:file] [/D:dir list] [/A:color attributes] [/OFF[LINE]] strings [[drive:][path]filename[ ...]]

grep -ri string on my Mac works a treat! :-)

Well done. I'm looking forward to reading it.

AJ

Hammer. Big Fucking Hammer.

Big Fucking Hammer

There's one of those in the 'Lady in Red' stories ;)

AJ

Runny cat vomit?

It is a USB style membrane. 12 whole USD I paid for it.

It was almost a toss up for cleaning or replacing. almost. And the cat sat there just pleased as punch with an innocent look.

Between the vomit and sink water it's definitely dead now.

huh!

So double spacing between the paragraphs is the new indentation....

I've been out of school too long or something.

I opened the link and saw the usage so I believe you, just commenting, that's not the way it was done back when I ran from dinosaurs on the way to school.