My rebuttal on some of the points.

Subject: My rebuttal on some of the points.
Author: Sergio Turbo
Posted on: 2012-01-25 20:08:00 UTC

I'll use the term "mission" to indicate the text, but I think the same rebuttal works for any text.

I tend to consider a mission "released" only when posted on an "open" site. One you could access with any sufficiently specific Google search, or just by finding a random link anywhere.

GoogleDocs isn't, as the only way to access the document is to click on the link to the mission in beta status. Provided only in the beta read request.

And I want to underline that, beta read request. The ones opening the link are supposedly only Boarders who want to actually beta the mission, or maybe just have a look on how you are writing for just a couple of quick advices. Alias mostly the same people who already did beta reading the old way, and they just got the link on the Board instead of in a mail. (And they find the mission exactly in the same state either way).

True, nobody stops you from just reading it, but you are reading something not completed and you know it.

Sure, I agree with you about the fact that few beta readers actually answer to those requests. In fact, from my next mission I'll start asking Beta Reader List people directly again via e-mail.

But I'll also keep posting the beta request on the board with link to the Googledocs document.

We are the PPC. We are mature enough to not click on a link with "BETA REQUEST" over it if we don't want to be beta readers. And we are also supposed to be able to recognize when our beta-readers finished working or not.

I usually let at least a week after the last beta reader edit/comment before considering the beta closed, unless all of them gave a "whole mission opinion" and there are no major issues that require rewriting of parts of the mission. (In fact, by the time I actually posted my interlude, the beta request was already off the first page)

I am not giving an excuse to the ones who, like Vixenmage said, basically rush through beta status without letting their beta readers actually beta on it, or actually put the mission in beta status right after finishing the first draft (the horror... the horror...), as JulyFlame implied. That's absolutely wrong and unspeakably immature.

Er... To the ones who didn't understand yet what I am saying, as I might be a bit confusing: crowdsourcing can work, but only if who calls for it doesn't use it to rush through release like some Suethors do. As I do it, it's only supposed to lessen e-mail exchange and thus save up a little bit of time.
Since some of us have little free time, it gives them more time to actually work on the betaing.
Of course, crowdsourcing alone isn't enough, as I noticed after using it two times.

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

The PPC and Beta Reading by JulyFlame on 2012-01-25 19:08:00 UTC Reply

Okay, this is a general reply to the crowdsourcing of betawork that has been popping up lately, as well as a recent general lack of actual beta reading that has been going on.

The idea of 'crowdsourcing' out the beta work just does not work, for several reasons.

For one, you- the people who are doing this- are still releasing something that is not finished. This isn't getting it beta read. This is just publishing it.

A beta reader is, quite frankly, an editor. The reason they're called 'beta readers' is because they're supposed to be the second set of eyes to read it, and correct stuff that the first set did not. Your eyes are the first set.

A work that isn't beta read is, very usually, not finished at all. There are always spots that can be fixed, things that can be improved. Even the best writers need an editor.

I'm betaing on two different items right now. One of them is a PPC work, the other is not. The first was very excellent as it was, but still needed work to become better because it still had flaws. The second has promising writing, but it has a huge amount of flaws. The first, if it was released as-is, would still have been a good mission. The second, if it was released as-is, would've been utter rubbish.

The point of a beta- one who is properly doing the work- is to make sure everything is written well, and that things that can be improved are improved. Everyone's work can and should be read by a beta reader. No, there is no such thing as 'but it's good enough on its own', or 'but that just isn't how I work.'. Beta reading is to improve everything. It is not not just a casual la-di-da for SPaG. It can be, but it shouldn't.

The second issue is that, as I noted previously before, there is nothing to distinguish this as being a 'beta' release, and then there being a full and proper release some time later. People are just publishing it right now, full of errors, and asking the audience to fix those for them. That is not beta work. The role of the reader is to read- when you're reading for enjoyment you aren't keeping a sharp eye out for things to fix, and when you're reading for editing it's less enjoyable because you're nitpicking everything. The two roles cannot be easily combined. It's not the reader's role to have to find the mistakes that were made in the story and fix them for you. It is the rough comparison of having someone over for dinner- and having purchased the food, asking them to cook it into a meal.

A third reason, beyond those main two, is that it does- I promise you this- change the reader's perception of you when you do this. We don't think well of other writers who release things unbeta'd and full of errors, so why would it be different for someone who is in the PPC? In theory we pride ourselves on good writing and its related worksmanship. We make fun of bad writing, yes, but this means we should be serious about ensuring that our own is up to snuff. By up to snuff I mean "can't randomly poke at the screen multiple times with one work and each time find an error that should have been caught before it was released".

Additionally, if you add the names of the people who partially helped with corrections as betareaders, but there are still errors in the story, the perception of those people will also be changed. We end up thinking to ourselves 'Gosh, X didn't get all those mistakes in that last story they beta read for Y. They must be a terrible beta. I don't want them near my writing! They wouldn't help me fix it!', and even more so if you credit them as betas without making the corrections they suggested. This does happen. Even more, people talk to each other. People do, regardless of what we would like to think, develop reputations as they relate to their writing and editing skills. There is a reason why Neshomeh is usually so busy. There is a reason why I get busy ~~(if only for short bursts of time, as people flock to get their things beta'd, and then run in the other direction, fleeing from nitpicking and fire.)~~.

The thing is, in the end, this is the PPC. We should be getting our things beta read before they're released. We are, after all, against bad writing and being a bad writer. Get your stuff edited. Listen to and learn from concrit. Don't foist your mistakes onto the readers. Sending it out without beta reading doesn't say much for you as to your skill or your regard for the readers. Remember, the PPC is supposed to be a community with an emphasis on good writing. Not getting it beta'd and sending it out as-is doesn't speak much for your opinion on good writing or your interest in the PPC as a community.

Yes, ma'am. by Aeidhryn on 2012-01-27 15:17:00 UTC Reply

Yes, I "crowdsourced" as you call it. Yes, I understand why I need a beta.

No, I have no real excuse that will not be shot down in a column of sulfur and fire.

*heads off to find beta*
My baffled face. by Huinesoron on 2012-01-26 12:01:00 UTC Reply

In response to your note to Phobos & SeaTurtle below:

Actually... The people in the chatroom had been doing it for some time first; I've been noticing it for awhile with a lot of permission requests and some items from other people.

Obviously I've spent no time in the Chat, but in all the debates about Permission, I seem to recall various PGs saying that it's a good thing to ask in the Chat for people to look over your Agents in advance. Is the distinction between saying "Hey, Wisepersonington, could I email this over to you?" and saying "Hey, everyone, here's stuff, tell me if it's good!"?

hS

Two different things. by Neshomeh on 2012-01-26 14:27:00 UTC Reply

"Hey, can you guys check out my agents?" is entirely different from "Hey, can you guys check out my writing sample/mission?"

One is a character profile, which is usually much shorter than a prose work and also much more informal. The other is aforementioned prose work, for which we have certain standards, last time I checked. (Irreverent and silly tone =/= informal work, in case there's any confusion there.)

What we're actually talking about—mainly about missions, but extending to other works, too—is a distinction between "Hey everyone, here's stuff, tell me if it's good" and "Hey Wispersonington, please look at my stuff and work with me to make it better." The second is beta-reading; the first is not. The argument is that beta-reading is by far preferred over not.

~Neshomeh

Not sure I agree. by Vixenmage on 2012-01-26 20:46:00 UTC Reply

Although I understand what you're saying, my e-mail (I hope), is not widely available to anyone who wanders into the PPC; this is probably true of a lot of people who are, nonetheless, quite willing to beta read writing samples, or missions, or agents, or indeed anything of the sort. So the only way to reach a beta not on the list is to ask-- on the IRC, or on the 'Board.

I'm notoriously bad at remembering to go through a piece that's slowly sinking down the page of my inbox, but pretty good, I think, at going over a piece, sentence by sentence by passage, through PM on the IRC. So sometimes, the only way I would beta for someone is if they come into the IRC and go "Hey, I think I'm about done with this. Can anyone beta it for me?"

I totally agree with you, though, about the other bit. "Hey everyone, here's stuff, tell me if it's good" is not beta-ing, nor asking for a beta. But I think you can, with some merit, argue that asking for betas in the IRC is not a bad idea, or even having a chat with a few people conversing on the subject. The list of regulars has gotten to the point, now, where there's almost always at least eight people on whenever I sign on-- so obviously, doing this in the main #PPC is about as bad an idea as doing it on the 'Board. But maybe in #PPC2, where there's maybe a standing crowd of four or five, or even a temporary room set up for the project, this could work.

I guess the main point I'm making here is that asking for betas in a crowd, or linking to a not-beta'd work in a chatroom, exists as an issue more on a spectrum of good-bad than as a single yes-or-no answer.

Possible miscommunication by Phobos on 2012-01-26 20:58:00 UTC Reply

We (Neshomeh and I) don't have a problem with going into the chatroom and saying "I need a beta, who's interested?" and then proceeding from there. That is as good a method of finding a beta, or two, as any I've seen. I've used it, myself. The problem comes, as you said, with linking the piece in the chat, or on the Board, and welcoming all comers.

I think we all agree on this, and Nesh's post never said anything about email over other methods, so I'm not sure what you disagree with.

-Phobos

Ah, alright. by Vixenmage on 2012-01-27 01:53:00 UTC Reply

I must have misunderstood; it seemed like the line there was not to link to an unfinished work, or ask for betas, in the IRC or on the 'Board. Which wouldn't make much sense-- but I see what you're saying now.

An idea by Alleydodger on 2012-01-26 11:57:00 UTC Reply

Perhaps a basic list of betaing tips and such should be posted on the wiki? Since after reading these posts, I have come to realise that I have done these things. I did not know this before and feel bad for the people that read over my story, if I did manage tarnish their image.

The problem is, this isn't always commonly known information. I didn't know and I can bet a number of other new people didn't either.

It's covered. by JulyFlame on 2012-01-26 17:00:00 UTC Reply

The page on betas tells you what a beta is there for and what you're supposed to do after a beta reads it.

The Beta Reader Directory has a list of people willing to beta.

These things aren't covered in fuller detail than that because the general assumption has been that people already know what a beta is and why they should use one. Having a beta reader is one of the first things any person interested in pursuing writing should sort out.

Like anonymous said. by Alleydodger on 2012-01-27 01:48:00 UTC Reply

That assumption is obviously misinformed because as you said, there is a problem with it at the moment. And while the general idea of what a beta is might be know, some of the finer details aren't readily available.

Some assumptions are reasonable to make. by Araeph on 2012-01-27 05:04:00 UTC Reply

You're in a community dedicated to improving your own personal writing while making fun of bad writing. There are certain assumptions that should be true of people who are actively engaged in badfic mockery. One of them is that these people know the proper steps for critiquing a written work — because that is the heart of what the PPC does.

Being a beta is, in some ways, the first step on the way to doing what PPCers do. Before you can make a satirical critique of a badfic, you must first be able to do a serious, in-depth critique of the strengths and weaknesses of a given story. In essence, you must know how to beta before you can know how to PPC.

The definition of the beta is simple and straightforward. Any attempt to go into finer details risks leaving parts of the critique out, or having the beta focus too much on the minutiae and not enough on the story as a whole.

Also, the fact that there are problems with the way people are betaing now doesn’t mean that the current definition is inadequate. It could mean that some of the people (especially the newer ones) have not read the full definition, or some of the oldbies have drifted away from it as time goes on.

At any rate, hopefully the beta workshop will sort things out.

~Araeph

Re: Some assumptions are reasonable to make. by Miah on 2012-01-27 07:30:00 UTC Reply

I’m glad that this beta workshop is in the works. That would be very useful to all of us who came into the PPC from a different background than one that includes betas, but just not being familiar with what is expected here doesn’t mean that we’ve never critiqued a piece, or closely examined writing before.

I know I didn't come from the typical background for a PPCer, especially compared to the oldbies. I came from a writing group dedicated to helping people get published. I read a lot of fanfiction, and I mostly still spend a lot of time reading fanfiction, but I have never written a fanfiction piece.

When I joined I asked questions about how the beta process worked. I was told that I should have read the wiki if I had questions (I had already read it). Since then I have stumbled through learning as I go, and I know that I have made mistakes along the way.

In the group I came from there was no beta system. There was a system of critiquing, and I know that you've used the two terms interchangeably here, but the system that they used (and every other original fiction writer’s group I’ve ever visited) was vastly different from the system described on the wiki and that has been outlined in this thread.

It's in things like how does one approach a beta? What is the best way to turn someone down if you don't think you can handle a piece? What do you do if someone has agreed to beta for you and then not answered the questions you needed answered? How long should you wait with not having heard from your beta before you ask them about it?

There is so much interaction involved in the beta process. With the critique process from the other group I was in, there was a forum for posting a crit request, someone answered, the piece was sent over, read over, and an extensive report* was sent back. There might be some back and forth messaging, but it was pretty hands off in the interpersonal interaction and extended conversation departments.

*Recommended critique report format from my former group
1. My first impressions of your story:
2. The plot:
3. The characters:
4. The action:
5. The dialogue:
6. The background:
7. The overall story:
8. The theme:
9. The technical details (spelling, grammar, scientific or historical details), etc.:
10. What I loved about this work, and why:
11. What caused me problems, and why:
12. Final comments:
13. A link to the story of mine I would like comments on: (if applicable)

Not so different. {= ) by Neshomeh on 2012-01-27 18:44:00 UTC Reply

Less personal than most of us like to be, I think, but I believe the points in the recommended format there correspond pretty well to what's in the wiki's description of what a beta looks at. It's more specific than what we've got, but still. The only difference I can think of is that a critique as such happens after a piece is considered finished, and a beta happens before, with the express intent that changes will happen between beta-reading and publishing.

... Actually, that format looks incredibly useful for keeping on track during any sort of critique, pre- or post-publication. Mind if I snurch that?

Regarding background, yours is a lot closer to those of us of the fanfic-writing bent than other folks, some of whom have turned up with no previous writing or fanfic experience at all, as I recall. I think that's what baffles some of us oldbies so much. We've never expressly had a prerequisite of writing/fanfic experience to be a PPCer, but that's because pretty much everyone had it anyway, so it didn't need to be said. Granted, we need to get our heads around the idea that things are different, and the "typical background" isn't so typical anymore, but at the same time, I think it's fair for us to expect that people joining a new community get familiar with the territory without having to be instructed.

Regarding the questions you posed, I think they're good ones, but I don't think they're specific to beta-reading. You'd have to deal with those in any kind of collaboration with another person. In general, I would simply answer "be respectful and honest," but the finer details do need to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis; what counts as respect for one person may not work for someone else, etc.

~Neshomeh

Reading over my previous posts... by Alleydodger on 2012-01-27 07:29:00 UTC Reply

I could have probably worded what I meant better :/ I wasn't saying that assuming such was wrong, but that it was obviously a current problem to a degree, which I'm taking from my previous mistakes in this matter.

This has been solved with the workshop though, so what I've been saying is pointless now. I just thought I'd clarify that, what I typed before sounded arrogant which I didn't intend.

Don't worry. by Araeph on 2012-01-27 14:15:00 UTC Reply

I wasn't offended, merely puzzled. :)

Reading over my previous posts... by Alleydodger on 2012-01-27 07:28:00 UTC Reply

I could have probably worded what I meant better :/ I wasn't saying that assuming such was wrong, but that it was obviously a problem currently.

This has been solved with the workshop, so what I've been saying is pointless now. I just thought I'd clarify that, what I typed before sounded arrogant which I didn't intend.

Re: It's covered. by Anonymous on 2012-01-26 21:04:00 UTC Reply

I would say that if there is a problem in the community right now with proper beta usage and performance, that the assumption needs to be examined.

Actually... by Neshomeh on 2012-01-26 14:32:00 UTC Reply

We're not really ready to announce this yet, but if it would help to know, July and I and a couple other people are working on putting together a series of workshops for beta-readers, or anyone who wants to learn more about beta-reading. It's far, far from anywhere near ready yet, but we're working on it. {= )

~Neshomeh

I'm also interested. by Tomash on 2012-01-27 23:48:00 UTC Reply

Have you decided how the workshop will be conducted? Unlimited time I don't have, but this seems like a good idea, especially since I don't know much about betaing.

We're still working on that. by JulyFlame on 2012-01-28 20:23:00 UTC Reply

When I approached Neshomeh with the idea I had initially suggested doing it through a variety of methods- a talk on skype, posts, and via chatroom, depending on what part of the workshop we're at- but we're still working everything out, so nothing is in stone yet.

Interested by Alleydodger on 2012-01-27 01:45:00 UTC Reply

That certainly sounds like something I'd be interested in, I'm looking forward to it.
Interest registered! by Cassie on 2012-01-26 20:17:00 UTC Reply

I'd love to get your insights on this topic. Consider me willing to attend the workshops if I possibly can. :D
Just thought I'd say... by Fish Custard on 2012-01-26 16:58:00 UTC Reply

...that I'd be interested in this project when it comes to fruition.

There aren't any listed betas for several fandoms that I'm interested in, and while I'd love to help out, I feel that I wouldn't be much use as a beta without some more info. I mean I get the basic idea, but I wouldn't want to try my hand without being sure of what I'm doing!

Also agreeing. by Neshomeh on 2012-01-25 21:58:00 UTC Reply

I ... well, to put it simply, I beta-read July's post ~~and just noticed I missed a "number vs. amount" mistake, drat~~.

Anyway. To add my own two cents as a beta (albeit one with the worst habit of procrastination, if not getting sick/hit with real life/married on the job), if you agree to beta-read something, you agree to share equally in the responsibility for the finished product. If people are still pointing out errors and things that don't work after you're done with it, you did not do your job well enough, and neither did the author. This is a bad thing. You should both learn from it and do better in the future.

If there are multiple betas and this still happens, I don't even know what to say.

~Neshomeh

With multiple betas... by Guvnor of Space on 2012-01-25 23:08:00 UTC Reply

...I usually blame myself since I'm incredibly typo prone, and still, after a year of doing this, dreadful at catching my own typos. Other issues, I dunno.

I also have encountered an issue were my betas disagreed. Specifically, with this mission.

There are three betas credited on this one. As it turned out, I had four people read over this particular one. One of them did not think the 'Thomas forgetting stuff' thing was funny in the least. In fact, he found it annoying. The other three betas disagreed. That fourth beta is therefore not credited; not because I was angry he disagreed, but because I did not want to stick his name on something he thought should be done differently. That's just rude, folks, and I fully and heartily agree with July on that point. That's also one of the only times I have gone against something a beta has said (and off the top of my head, that's the only time I can think of.)

So yeah. Multiple betas can be interesting. I personally do it because I have yet to find a single beta who has caught all of my typos...

Betas disagreeing... by Neshomeh on 2012-01-26 14:51:00 UTC Reply

... is okay. When it comes to choices of style (what's funny and what isn't is a good example), then ultimately the decision does rest with the author. It isn't the beta's job to dictate matters of personal taste.

What worries us is when, between four different betas, no one notices things like "bleeprin" being uncapitalized, or a missing apostrophe in "the principals office" twice in the same paragraph. One beta missing a couple of things here and there, sure, nobody's perfect. Four betas and two missing apostrophes in a row? This does not compute.

~Neshomeh

Huh. by Guvnor of Space on 2012-01-27 00:55:00 UTC Reply

Okay, so I just checked: Google Docs, the non published part, has the correct Principal's in it. Will update as I know more, but it looks like I did correct these back in June and I'm having technical issues.

...and already figured out what it was by Guvnor of Space on 2012-01-27 00:57:00 UTC Reply

For some reason, the "automatically publish changes" box was not checked. No idea why. The fixes should be up soon.

Oh, okay. by Neshomeh on 2012-01-27 01:48:00 UTC Reply

... GDocs. *shakes head* Every time I start to think it's better than worth the trouble, it finds a new way to be difficult.

~Neshomeh

Indeed, it does not compute by Guvnor of Space on 2012-01-27 00:49:00 UTC Reply

That's because one beta, as stated below, did not go over this all the way with me like a real beta for reasons I stated already.

As for the principals/principal's thing... Well, they actually missed more than that (there's a third one in the next paragraph, and I think there were even more, but I corrected them after you pointed it out. And no, I have no idea how that happens, since Miah especially is excellent at catching typos.

Grammar by Miah on 2012-01-27 02:29:00 UTC Reply

I am much better with typos and spelling than I am with grammar. Still, I should have caught the missing apostrophes, sorry about that, Guv.

Beyond that... by JulyFlame on 2012-01-26 17:15:00 UTC Reply

Always, always credit your betas unless they ask you otherwise.

Just because that fourth person didn't agree with the humor doesn't mean they didn't put as much work as the others into the work, and not acknowledging them as a beta because of one item they disagreed with could be seen as you snubbing them, because it is rude to not credit someone for work they did do.

When people don't credit their betas, or they treat them poorly, it tends to make others more reluctant to offer to beta for them in the future.

I should clarify by Guvnor of Space on 2012-01-26 22:54:00 UTC Reply

They told me about the humor thing before they had fully beta'd it, and pretty much told me they did not like it and I should change it. When I conferred with the others and determined that this person was in the minority, he shrugged and pretty much said 'do what you want, but you're wrong and I don't like this story.' And that was it as far as his 'beta read' went. So we never went over any of the other stuff he talked about, and he never checked it over after I corrected the typos he pointed out.

If you really think I should credit him anyway, I will.

Agreeing with this, and a suggestion or two. by Cassie on 2012-01-25 20:55:00 UTC Reply

The idea of "crowdsourcing" betawork really, really puts me off. I wouldn't want to risk my writing even being seen by the general public, not until a beta-reader had told me that they had no more issues with what I wrote. It's a personal ethic I've picked up (read: had hammered into me by several tough but very kind betas) since I joined the PPC, and as July said, we should be doing the best we can for our own writing if we're going to comment on other people's.

I've also experienced bad things on the other end of the beta-reading relationship. I had one person ask me to beta a piece - which I did, as thoroughly as I possibly could, making all my comments and adjustments in bright red - and then they posted the original, unbetaed piece and credited me as the beta-reader. I was horrified and never offered to beta for them again. Not paying attention to a beta-reader is a massive, massive disrespect when they've put so much effort into trying to help you.

There are people in the PPC who love to be the second pair of eyes, and will happily take on the job if asked - or even volunteer for it.*

Please, don't continue this trend of asking the people who want to read your story if they'll please check it for errors while they're at it. That's not why they want to read it. Not to mention, you're likely to get contrasting ideas of what an error is, based on things even as simple as alternate spellings. (America vs. England, Round Fiftybajillon! DING! XD )

Finally, I can't resist putting a basic guide to getting betaed here, in the hope it helps and/or entertains. :P

Step 1: Get a beta-reader. There are plenty of them around the PPC, as has been said. They don't bite. :D
Step 2: Ask them to give your work a proper look-through. If you can, make time to sit down and chat with them as they work, so you can answer any queries they have as they go. It can sometimes give you new ideas, too!
Step 2b: If you can't sit down and chat for any length of time, ask them to mark every change and query they find, so you know exactly where the problems are, and then get them to send it back to you.
Step 3: Look over the betaed piece thoroughly and alter things as your beta-reader suggests; fix your SPaG, respond to queries, polish things up a little more.
Step 4: DO NOT ASSUME YOU ARE NOW GOOD TO GO. Take the redone piece back to the beta-reader and ask them to check it again. You may have made other mistakes in the fixing of the originals, or there could be something your beta-reader missed first time round.
Step 5: If your beta-reader is not satisfied with your work, return to step 2a or 2b as appropriate and repeat. if your beta-reader is satisfied with your work, go to step 6.
Step 6: Publish!

Hope this helps.

*I am one of those people. Willing to cover for assorted fandoms including (but not limited to) Tolkienverse, Harry Potter, Discworld, Narnia (books only), Redwall, things written by David Eddings, and Pokemon. Drop me an email at cassie.dramateacherATgooglemailDOTcom if you have something you'd like me to take a look at!
My rebuttal on some of the points. by Sergio Turbo on 2012-01-25 20:08:00 UTC Reply

I'll use the term "mission" to indicate the text, but I think the same rebuttal works for any text.

I tend to consider a mission "released" only when posted on an "open" site. One you could access with any sufficiently specific Google search, or just by finding a random link anywhere.

GoogleDocs isn't, as the only way to access the document is to click on the link to the mission in beta status. Provided only in the beta read request.

And I want to underline that, beta read request. The ones opening the link are supposedly only Boarders who want to actually beta the mission, or maybe just have a look on how you are writing for just a couple of quick advices. Alias mostly the same people who already did beta reading the old way, and they just got the link on the Board instead of in a mail. (And they find the mission exactly in the same state either way).

True, nobody stops you from just reading it, but you are reading something not completed and you know it.

Sure, I agree with you about the fact that few beta readers actually answer to those requests. In fact, from my next mission I'll start asking Beta Reader List people directly again via e-mail.

But I'll also keep posting the beta request on the board with link to the Googledocs document.

We are the PPC. We are mature enough to not click on a link with "BETA REQUEST" over it if we don't want to be beta readers. And we are also supposed to be able to recognize when our beta-readers finished working or not.

I usually let at least a week after the last beta reader edit/comment before considering the beta closed, unless all of them gave a "whole mission opinion" and there are no major issues that require rewriting of parts of the mission. (In fact, by the time I actually posted my interlude, the beta request was already off the first page)

I am not giving an excuse to the ones who, like Vixenmage said, basically rush through beta status without letting their beta readers actually beta on it, or actually put the mission in beta status right after finishing the first draft (the horror... the horror...), as JulyFlame implied. That's absolutely wrong and unspeakably immature.

Er... To the ones who didn't understand yet what I am saying, as I might be a bit confusing: crowdsourcing can work, but only if who calls for it doesn't use it to rush through release like some Suethors do. As I do it, it's only supposed to lessen e-mail exchange and thus save up a little bit of time.
Since some of us have little free time, it gives them more time to actually work on the betaing.
Of course, crowdsourcing alone isn't enough, as I noticed after using it two times.

Re: My rebuttal on some of the points. by Phobos on 2012-01-25 21:19:00 UTC Reply

I would point out that your definition of "released" doesn't account for all the missions that are only published as GoogleDocs. There is a growing collection of them, due to people lacking the resources, time, or skills needed to create their own archives.

I am also going to point out that, while we should be willing to put the work into betareading someone's work if we open the link, the overwhelming majority of comments that I see on most of these threads amount to "It's good. Good job." We have a serious problem, right now, in this community with people not taking the time to give any sort of constructive criticism when they read a mission, as a beta or as a normal reader.

Your rebuttal is idealistic, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. We should be mature enough. We should let our beta readers do their job. We absolutely should put real effort into the editing process. But there comes a time when you can't ignore how something is just because you see how it should be.

Some of us aren't mature enough. Some of us don't let our betas do their jobs. Some of us don't put any real effort into the editing process.

I don't mean any of this to sound harsh. But If we want things to be the way they should be we have to fix the problems that are here.

-Phobos

I see your point. by Sergio Turbo on 2012-01-26 21:00:00 UTC Reply

In fact, I am betaing firemagic's first mission and, aside from me and Pieguy, I didn't see other beta-readers on it. Back when I did my first one I managed to get the help of various people, and in fact my interlude (for which I asked for betas in the same way only a few days earlier) was betaed by several people.

The focus point of crowdsourcing, as I forgot to say in the previous rant, is that you aren't focusing the beta request on somebody specific, and studies say that it has less chanche of actually obtaining help that way when asking people to do things.
One very minor quibble. by Huinesoron on 2012-01-26 11:18:00 UTC Reply

We have a serious problem, right now, in this community...

No, we don't. It's fundamentally impossible for us to have a 'serious problem', because we're a humour community. The only serious problems are people taking it all too seriously.

hS

Disagreed by Phobos on 2012-01-26 15:00:00 UTC Reply

Serious does not necessarily mean the opposite of humor. Great comedians will tell you that they take their craft very seriously. In this case, serious means "requiring thought, concentration, or application," which is the fourth definition on dictionary.com. I would also accept definition three "being in earnest, sincere, not trifling." A serious problem is one that is no little thing, and/or that requires thought.

I take my writing, humorous or not, very seriously. I expect that, in a community based on good writing, people would take their reviews and beta work seriously, as well. I want to see more thought put into a review than "...Owch, talk about your bad fics. At least your agents took care of this one. (Seriously, how do all those different series go together?!)" That is the entirety of an actual review and it has nothing to do with the content of the mission. You don't even need to read a mission to post a review like this. The sad part? That kind of review is the norm. This is the kind of thing we expect from badfic reviewers.

If that is the standard we are slipping to, and the evidence is piling up that it is, then I would say we have a serious problem.

-Phobos

I have to disagree. by Cassie on 2012-01-25 21:11:00 UTC Reply

"We are mature enough to not click on a link with "BETA REQUEST" over it if we don't want to be beta readers."

Yes, this is the case for a lot of the old-timers, and the more sensible new people. But we do have people who arrive here, flushed with enthusiasm, and get it into their heads that simply being here magically imparts the knowledge they need. (I should know, I was one of those newbies.) They go rushing in to help without knowing exactly what it is they need to do, or how to do it properly, and make mistakes. Meanwhile, other people see the first people jumping in to help, think "oh, that's covered then," and don't bother to check.

Opening up a piece of work that needs polishing to people with more enthusiasm than knowledge is not a smart idea.

"I am not giving an excuse to the ones who, like Vixenmage said, basically rush through beta status without letting their beta readers actually beta on it, or actually put the mission in beta status right after finishing the first draft (the horror... the horror...), as JulyFlame implied. That's absolutely wrong and unspeakably immature."

While I have to agree that the actions you mentioned are not good, I do take issue with your using that as a sign of "immaturity". Mature and immature are not objectively linked to good writing. I know a woman in her forties who is still a terrible writer and refuses to pay attention to even the most polite suggestions for improvement, and I know a girl in her teens who is one of the most thought-provoking and intelligent people I've ever met. This may seem inconsequential, but it's rather a bugbear of mine that people seem to link "maturity" and writing finesse.
Agreed for the most part by Fish Custard on 2012-01-25 20:52:00 UTC Reply

There is a big difference between putting something up on the Board to ask for some outside opinions, and putting it on the wiki/publishing it on an open site. As Sergio said, if you choose to read something that's been clearly identified as a work-in-progress, that is your choice.

I'm not saying that crowd-sourced betawork is a replacement for a one-to-one working relationship with an editor, but it's not a bad thing.

Seconded by Phobos on 2012-01-25 19:28:00 UTC Reply

While there is nothing wrong with saying "I am looking for a betareader for a mission in X fandom" and then working with the interested party to edit the work, there is a problem with saying "here is my mission, feel free to beta it."

Part of what the beta process does is it helps you to learn how to work with an editor. The process fosters dialogue between the writer and beta, and allows them both to become better at what they do.

There is no dialogue with crowdsourcing, and no one really gets any better.
A [Partial] Response by Vixenmage on 2012-01-25 19:26:00 UTC Reply

I don't have time to respond to all of this and nitpick and whine and all that, but I do have one thing to agree with, heartily.

Additionally, if you add the names of the people who partially helped with corrections as betareaders, but there are still errors in the story, the perception of those people will also be changed.

THIS. So, so much this. If you ask me to beta or glance over your work, for SpaG or canon or whatever, and we get through one page or two, and decide to call it a night, I did not beta your story. I cannot ~~politely~~ express how much that irks me. Because here's the thing-- if I went over your story for four hours, or full days, and we discussed the issues, the characterization, the style, the formatting, over the entire thing... that is not equivalent to going over the comma errors on the first two pages, and deciding to call it a night and go back to the work later.

And people, on just about every writing forum I've been a part of, have done this to me multiple times-- we talk on GTalk, or the IRC, or AIM, or whatever, and after a cursory reading, I say "Okay, that's all I can do for tonight, let's go over this more later," and then the next morning I see my name credited on the 'Board as beta, and it drives me crazy, because I know there were issues with the story we didn't get around to fixing.

The rest of what July is saying, I'll have to look over more when I've got more time. I just wanted to say that the issue she has, there, is a very, very valid one. Please don't credit someone as a beta if they haven't told you, specifically, "Yes, this is a finished work, no more issues I can see."

Yeeaah. by JulyFlame on 2012-01-26 17:10:00 UTC Reply

I've been baffled on several occasions the past few months due to this, where I've seen more than one permission request that says it's been beta'd by you and then I get to the prose and my immediate reaction's been 'Did VM really let this go like this? I thought she knew how all this works.'

I brought up the perception thing because it's going on with more than a few people and I don't even know who among them are actually good betas and who aren't now.