I was wondering, after I have finished a book I want to hand it off to my copywriter. They don’t have Scrivener, but I’d like to keep my folders and sections and most things intact. Any suggestions to round-trip for proofing / copy editors if they don’t have the software?
Welcome. No one’s answered this, so I’ll have a shot.
First off, by “copywriter” do you mean “proofreader” or “editor”? If so, you don’t say what software they do have - but assuming it’s MS Word, I think you have three choices:
purchase Scrivener for them (or persuade them to buy it). By the standards of much writing software, it’s inexpensive, you could round-trip zipped-up projects via Dropbox and then you could both use Scrivener’s revising and commenting tools - who knows, they could become fans ;
or you could import their proofed version and split again. Could get complex and maybe tedious;
or you could acknowledge that, depending on on the output you ultimately require, maybe this is the point you move the project to MS Word (assuming you have it too). If you’re dealing with an old-fashioned publisher, Word will likely be the standard their editor will demand.
All good ideas thanks. I intend to self publish this ebook and want a proofreader to give it a look after I am done.
I had thought about purchasing them the software, that would make the most sense, but I have not chosen a person yet, so I just need to make sure they are good before spending money on the program. Plus they have to get ramped up on it.
I guess also I could save it for the last step and export to Word, then forward to them.
Anyway…if anyone has a good solution let me know. Those ideas were good and I may head in that direction. I just thought this would come up so often with users that a good workflow would already be in place.
As well as Hugh’s suggestions, there is potentially a fourth option, which is to supply paper copy for mark-up which you then transfer to your pristine Scrivener project. Old-fashioned, I know, but at least one technical editor of my acquaintance only works on paper, on the grounds that you catch more errors that way, so it can’t be totally outlandish. Might not be appropriate for an ebook, though.
Astr’id (I like the idea that there is a missing o in there)
Believe it or not I find that paper changes my perception of what is written. Chalk it up to “genetic deficiency” but I see the same tendency in the offspring (not the band). If I ask them to highlight errors in a e-doc they miss quite a few. On paper they get nearly all of them.
My method was
0. get yelled at by prof
yell at my proofing team for getting me yelled at
provide ice-cream to get everyone back on the proofing team
create e-doc and email it to them
print 4 copies of e-doc 2 days later and tell them there were revisions (none actually made. Yes I lied to my kids. Deal with it)
wait 3 days and have them review e-doc again (no changes)
Basically they read the same doc 4 times. The best results were on the first read of the paper version. I’m sure some cognitive psychologist will find lots of flaws with my method. I only provide it as proof of 2 things:
Paper seems to work better.
You can fool my kids very easily.
BTW the discovery of the second point cost me more ice-creame. Which isn’t too bad a price to get teenagers back to happy these days.
One other option is to compile each folder into a separate document. Fiddly, but makes the round trip back into Scriv easier. I sent my thesis to my supervisors chapter by chapter as separate files until right at the very end. My proofreaders got a paper copy.
The advantage to marrying first and going to school later! I have a house full of kids who think they are much smarter than me. One of which will be attending university herself in a few months and is already demanding that I proofread her papers. I think I am losing on that part of this bargain.
Inspired by the professor who appropriately chastised my written work. I suggested a little “cognitive psychology experiment” in lieu of 10 pages of real library research (this is 101). She claimed this was more effort, but I was going to do it anyway. Some interesting facts that I uncovered:
Gross errors in spelling were detected at a 50% better rate. The red squiggle was not visible in the e-doc software by default.
Improper word use (their, there, they’re) was improved 300% (that is not a typo). I can not explain outside of “paper is better”.
Comprehension of abstract was improved between reading 1 and reading 2. This could be repetition, but the participant claimed that ideas were simply not present in the first reading.
Very small sample set with a limited gene pool and marginally scientific methodology. It might make an interesting study for a full on research project using multiple methods of doc presentation (e-readers v laptop v paper v desktop).
One day, with your permission, I hope to use this as an undergraduate lab report (although a couple of minor little matters, like getting a job where I can set the topics for my students, need to be dealt with first). I love it!