If you proofread or copyedit fiction or non-fiction, or you're self-editing your own books, here's a macro that will highlight potential inconsistencies in proper-noun usage.
I've been meaning to review some of my favourite proofreading macros for a while now and ProperNounAlyse deserves its first place in the queue (only because it performed so brilliantly on a recent proofreading project!).
ProperNounAlyse is just one tool among many, of course. Those of us who use macros on a regular basis have a whole suite of them that we run during the process of a proofread or a copy-edit. ProperNounAlyse was created by my colleague Paul Beverley, and it’s just one of a huge number of macros available in his free book, Computer Tools for Editors (available on his website at Archive Publications). I've written this post for the person who doesn't use macros and is nervous about trying. I think it’s such a shame when a fear of tech leads to lost opportunities for those who want to increase productivity (which is great for the editorial pro) and improve quality (which is great for the client). Why bother? Three reasons
Go to Paul’s website and download Computer Tools for Editors. Save the zipped folder to your computer and extract three files: One is an overview of the macros – what they are, what they do, how to store them and so on – plus all the programs themselves; another contains just the actual macro programs; and the final file is a style sheet. The file you need to open in Word is “The Macros”. Use Word’s navigation menu (or Ctrl F on a PC) to open the Find function. Type “Sub ProperNounAlyse” into the search field and hit Return. That will take you to the start of the relevant script. Select and copy the script from “Sub ProperNounAlyse()” down to “End Sub”. Paul’s helped us out by highlighting the name of each new macro. Still with Word open, open the “View” tab and click on the “Macros” icon on the ribbon.
This will open up a new window.
If you don’t have any macros already loaded:
If you have macros loaded (your TEST macro or any other):
This will open up another window:
Running ProperNounAlyse
A fictive sample
Below is a simple word list of proper nouns with lots of inconsistencies – differences in accent use, apostrophe use and spelling.
I run ProperNounAlyse on the document. It analyses the text and then creates a new Word file with the following results:
I’m provided with an at-a-glance summary of potential problems that I need to check. It may be that the differences identified are not mistakes, but I know what to look for.
“I don’t need to use techie tools … my eyes are good enough” Macros don’t get tired. Macros don’t get distracted. I don’t believe any proofreader who claims they can do as good a job with their eyes alone as they can do with their eyes and some electronic assistance. It’s a case of using these kinds of tools as well as, not instead of, the eyes and brain. I could have relied on my eyes to find all of the above problems, and in a small file I would hope to have hit the mark 100%. But if I’d been working on 100,000 words of text, and there were twenty key characters, a plethora of grammatical glitches, two major plot holes, numerous layout problems, and a mixture of hundreds of other inconsistencies regarding hyphenation, capitalization, punctuation and regional spelling variation, there would have been a lot of problems to solve; I want to utilize every tool available to help me do that. Yes, my eyes and brain are two of those tools. But using macros like ProperNounAlyse and others (PerfectIt, for example, just because it’s another favourite!) speeds me up, pure and simple, and massively reduces the chance of a miss. I ran ProperNounAlyse on a recent fiction proofread for an independent author who is a phenomenally good writer – great plot, excellent pacing, engaging characters. But he was so busy crafting the 95,000 words it took to build a fantastic story that he’d introduced a lot of proper-noun inconsistencies. That’s fine – it’s not his job to deal with these; it’s mine. It took me minutes, rather than hours, to locate them and deal with them. And I know I found them – every one of them. What will the client remember? If you’re still reluctant to try out ProperNounAlyse (or any other editorial tool for that matter), consider this: What will the client remember? The three hundred mistakes that you spotted or the three howlers you missed? When it comes to proper nouns, especially in large volumes of character-based editorial work, it’s too easy to miss a discrepancy. And character names stand out to readers. Taking just a few minutes to run a simple-to-use macro might determine whether your client thinks your work was pretty good or outstanding. Which of those is likely to gain you a repeat booking or a referral to another potential client?
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
9 Comments
This article considers the importance of testing in an editorial business marketing strategy.
If you're building a marketing strategy for your editing or proofreading business, you probably have a ton of questions. Some of those questions might look like this:
They’re perfectly good questions and our colleagues usually have some excellent answers. There’s nothing wrong with asking more experienced professionals for advice on how to go about promoting one’s business; indeed, I’d recommend it as one tool for deepening one’s marketing knowledge and stimulating one’s creative juices. However, it’s important to remember that ‘advice’ is just that – guidance and recommendations for action; advice is not a rule of thumb that needs to be followed without consideration of our own individual business goals, target clients groups, and required income streams. We all, too, have our own voices – some people shine when promoting their businesses face to face or over the telephone; others make more of an impact using their written communication skills. In brief, the marketing tools that work for me might not work as well for you, and vice versa. That’s why we need to incorporate testing into our marketing strategy. Testing involves experimenting with particular marketing activities over a fixed timescale, and evaluating the results. Testing allows you to discover which promotional activities are effective for generating business leads in particular segments of the editorial market. The results may well match the experience of many of your colleagues, but don’t be surprised if they differ too. Before you start … Before you begin testing, it’s crucial to consider what you are trying to say and to whom. Spend some time reviewing your business plan so that you have the following in mind:
A fictive case study Let’s return to just one of the questions that I posed at the beginning of this article and consider how testing offers a constructive approach to acquiring market knowledge that complements the advice gleaned from colleagues. ‘Is [directory name] worth advertising in?’ Ash is a recently qualified proofreader. He’s considering advertising his services in his national professional association’s online editorial directory. The cost would be $300 per annum, which is a big chunk of his marketing budget. He asks 3,000 of his fellow association members whether the directory has proved successful for them. He receives 30 responses, which at first sight is useful, but when he reads the replies in full, the advice is mixed.
Despite the mixed responses, there is some really useful information to be gleaned. Ash considers the following:
Ash reviews his business plan (including the skills he has, his career and educational background, the editorial training he’s carried out) and concludes that, although he has little experience, publishers are a good fit for his business model. The price tag of $300 is a little on the steep side for him, but he wants to acquire experience from publisher clients. Publishers seem like a core client group for the directory, though Ash is cognizant of the fact that he only has feedback from a small percentage of the society’s membership and he’s unsure whether their views are statistically significant. He decides to test the effectiveness of the directory for 1 year. He constructs a listing that is designed specifically to appeal to the publisher client group. In 12 months’ time he will evaluate the results. If the listing has generated his required income-to-cost ratio, he can continue investing in this marketing activity, confident that his money is well spent. If the listing doesn’t generate the desired results he will have two choices: (a) test a reworked version of the advertisement or (b) abandon the directory and explore other methods of making himself discoverable to publisher clients. Whatever the outcome, Ash’s test will provide him with evidence that he can use to make informed and confident decisions about how best to market his editorial business. What should you test? What you should test will depend on what you want to know. Here two tests I've carried out. Advertising with Reedsy I wanted to know whether creating a profile on Reedsy would make me more discoverable to independent fiction authors. It costs nothing financially to generate a listing, although Reedsy takes a percentage of any income earned. Feedback within the UK and the international editorial communities has been mixed. In May 2015, I decided to carry out a test over a 12-month period so that I could evaluate the potential benefits for my own business. Early results were positive – I picked up a high-value client within only a few weeks and completed several projects for him. The process was smooth and payment was timely. I continued to advertise on the platform and monitor the results. As of 2018, I receive requests to quote on a weekly basis. The test proved to me that Reedsy is a valuable lead generator for my business. The only way to find out if it works for you is to test it too. Adding video into my marketing mix I wanted to know whether videos would offer my clients and colleague-customers a valuable alternative way of consuming my written blog content. Would there be SEO benefits? Would the project generate sufficient additional high-value work opportunities and book/course sales to make the investment in time worthwhile? I began creating video content in 2017. As of 2018, my written content still drives more traffic to my website than my video content. However, certain videos, such as the 'Hello' one on my home page, a free webinar for colleagues on emergency marketing, and some tutorials on using Word's styles palette, have been popular. The emergency-marketing video led to a spike in sales of my books, and several clients have commented on how much they like being able to see the editor behind the website. The test leads me to believe that, in the main, I'm more likely to gain traction from videos that have a teaching or welcoming element, so I've decided to focus specifically on tutorial-based video content for now, and only as a supplement to my popular written content. Don’t mix things up Take care when carrying out more than one test. Multiple tests on one marketing tool are problematic – it won’t be clear why any changes to response rates, either positive or negative, are occurring. For example, if I decided I wanted to find ways of increasing the speed at which I receive payment, I might consider tweaking my invoice as follows:
It’s crucial that I test each of these things separately; otherwise, 12 months down the line, I’ll have no idea which of these tactics is working (or not working). It could well be that the message and emoticon are just as effective as the 5% discount. Unless I identify this by carrying out the tests separately, I’m needlessly throwing money out of the window. Tests can, of course, be carried out separately but simultaneously by dividing similar clients into groups, with one tweak applied to each group. So, in the invoicing case, I might divide all my publisher clients into three groups and send out invoices with the late-penalty payment info highlighted to group A, a 5% discount for early-bird payment to group B, and a thank-you message and emoticon smiley to group C. Then I would track the results for each group. Track the results Make sure you track test results. If, for example, you’re mailing your CV to a large number of publishers, and testing different designs, or different wording in the accompanying cover letter, make a note of who was sent what. That way you’ll be able to identify whether a particular test is generating a higher response rate. Codes can be a useful way of collating data if you’re want to work out where your best leads are coming from. Many editorial freelancers receive emails and phone calls from clients who don’t identify how they discovered them. Adding a distinct code to each call to action on your website’s Contact page, leaflet, business card, or advertisement helps you to distinguish the results of your marketing efforts. Likewise, if you are testing different pricing models with, say, students (e.g., a flat fee vs. $X per 1,000 words), you might issue them with different ordering codes if they decide to commission you (FF2015 for those offered a flat fee vs. PK2015 for those offered a price per 1,000 words); this would enable you to track which test generated the best likelihood of being hired. Summing up
An earlier version of this article was first published on An American Editor. More resources
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
Have you ever thought about adding a second screen to your computer setup at home? If you’re never able to cram in everything you’d like to see on a single screen, investing in a second one might be the way to go. My guest John Espirian discusses the value of increasing our screen real estate.
Switching between multiple files
As anyone who works in the editorial field knows, it can be difficult to work onscreen when one has to juggle lots of digital files. We often have to switch between Word documents, PDFs, web browser windows and lots more besides.
A single screen often isn’t enough to cope with all this at once, meaning we have to use the keyboard or mouse to jump between windows. If this sounds familiar, you could make your working life easier by using a second screen, which is what I and many of my editorial colleagues have done.
Before we go any further, here are a few general tips that could help you work better with your current setup.
Tip 1: Use the keyboard to switch between programs
When switching between programs, you can save time by ignoring the mouse and keeping your hands on the keyboard. If you aren’t already using these keyboard shortcuts, start practising them now:
Here’s how to use these key combinations:
Tip 2: Increase your screen resolution
Increasing your screen resolution really just means making everything appear a little smaller, which allows space for more items to fit into the viewable area.
Steps for Mac users
Steps for Windows users
* If your Control Panel layout isn’t similar to that shown in the image below, click Display and then Adjust resolution instead.
Your screen will work best at its ‘native’ (default/recommended) resolution, but the performance may be perfectly adequate at different resolutions.
Tip 3: Be wary of straining your eyes
Visit your ophthalmologist or optometrist and make sure you’re using the right eyewear, if any.
The above tips should help us get the best from a single-screen setup. Let’s move on and see how we can boost productivity by adding a second screen. Adding a second screen
The best advert I can give you for the benefits of having a second screen is summed up by the extended screenshot below, taken from my own desktop.
This image shows four quite wide pages side by side with space to spare. This makes for an excellent user experience and has been the perfect way for me to get things done more quickly than ever before.
Aligning and positioning screens
It’s important that your eyes are at the same level as the top of your screen(s). There’s a lot more information about how best to sit at your desk on Apple’s Eyes and Vision page. When using two screens, try your best to keep both at very similar levels, so that your view adjusts easily between them. A pair of good quality stands with adjustable height settings will allow you to equalise the heights of the screens. This adds to the cost but is best for your long-term health – plus you should gain a little storage space underneath the stands. Screen recommendations Here are my general recommendations if you’re looking to buy a second screen:
Making the connection Your screen will work best at its ‘native’ (default/recommended) resolution, but the performance may be perfectly adequate at different resolutions. Here are the commonest options:
For completeness, I ought to mention that Apple’s new MacBook laptops now use a USB-C port. This means yet another type of adapter and cable is required to connect these new machines to a second screen (and at around £60, Apple’s official adapter isn’t cheap). The latest MacBook Pro and MacBook Air laptops still support Mini DisplayPort/Thunderbolt.
My own choice
Conclusion
Having looked at several options, I decided to go for a DisplayPort-compatible screen with a 3840 × 2160 maximum resolution. In practice, running the screen at 2560 × 1440 has been more than adequate.
What do you think? Have you added a second screen and wished you’d done it a long time ago? Post a comment below or catch up with me on Twitter.
John Espirian is the relentlessly helpful technical copywriter and author of Content DNA.
John writes B2B web content to help his clients explain how their products and services work. He also helps people to build a better presence on LinkedIn. Find John at espirian.co.uk or on LinkedIn.
In this post I show you how to reorganize the display of your digital proofreading stamps in PDF-XChange so you can improve the efficiency with which you work.
The free digital stamps files I’ve provided here on The Editing Blog contain over 70 individual images, all based on the British Standards Institution’s “Marks for copy preparation and proof correction” (BS 5261C:2005).
The issue for many newbies is that the palette can appear cumbersome – we all work in different ways, and the symbols that we most often use may not be positioned in the most convenient place for our particular needs. Having the full palette open on the screen takes up a lot of space, even if, like me, you use multiple screens. I prefer to have my palette near the text because it’s quicker to access, thus increasing my efficiency:
Decreasing the size of the palette is one option, and allows placement on the screen that won’t interfere with the text. However, this requires using the scroll bar on the palette in order to access the stamps located further down the palette, reducing efficiency further because not all the stamps are on display.
Reorganizing the stamps for your own needs
When I created the original stamps files, I ordered them according to what my specific needs were at that time. But my preferences have changed since 2012, and it’s not unusual for my current preferences to change on a job-by-job or client-by-client basis. For example, one particular client for whom I work provides me with PDFs that frequently require the use of the Turn over character(s)/word(s)/line(s) symbol. This symbol is located near the end of the downloadable stamps files. This meant that when I first opened up the palette in XChange it appeared as follows (see highlighted area at the bottom of the image below):
The solution is to move the frequently used symbol to the top of the palette for this particular client work. This is most simply done by renaming the stamp in a way that forces it into the required position. My preference is to name most of my stamps with numbers rather than descriptive names (see image above and compare the often-used Delete symbol (named 1) with the rarely used Change to small caps mark (named 9.83).
The beauty of renaming with numbers is that you have the freedom to move any stamp anywhere at any time. You can change the positions as and when you wish. For demonstration purposes, I’ve chosen to move the right-hand margin Turn over symbol to the top of the palette and place it next to the Delete symbol. The process is quick and simple: 1) Left-click on the symbol you want to move. The area below the mark, where the symbol's name is located, will appear with an orange tint.
2) Move your mouse to the top of the palette and left-click on the “Rename” tab. A window will appear, housing the stamp’s current name.
3) Type in a new numbered name that will force the stamp into the numerically ordered position you desire. In this case, I want the Turn over symbol to appear next to the Delete symbol. Delete is named “1”; the stamp to the left is named “0.52”. Choosing any number between 0.52 and 1 for Turn over will therefore ensure preferred placement. I decide to rename Turn over as “0.99”. I type in the number and select “OK”.
4) Note that the stamp has been renamed but it still hasn’t moved into its new position.
In order to force the repositioning, I need to move out of the currently displayed palette and then reopen it. This can be done in two ways. Either close the palette completely by clicking on the X in the top-right-hand corner of the window (then reopen via the menu: Tools>Comment And Markup Tools>Show Stamps Palette) …
… or switch to a different Collection and then move back into the original Collection in which you renamed your stamp. The Collections can be found on the left-hand sidebar of the XChange palette, and you can move this sidebar in and out of view by clicking on and dragging the thick grey line, as highlighted below.
5) When you reopen the palette and click on the appropriate Collection, you’ll see your renamed stamp positioned exactly where you want it. To move the Collections sidebar out of view, simply click and drag on the grey line. This will provide more space in which to display all your proofreading symbols.
Marginal gains for increased efficiency
If renaming stamps seems like a lot of effort for little reward, remember that marginal gains count for a lot with editorial work. This is why tools such as macros, shortcuts and find/replace are useful. The same applies to creating an efficient stamps palette. Every second you spend scrolling to find the stamp you want adds up. Seconds become minutes, and minutes become hours. If you’re being paid per hour, and your client doesn’t have a top-line budget, it may not matter how long it takes you to do a job, nor that you’re working inefficiently. However, many clients do have a top line, and many editorial professionals are working for fixed fees. Efficiency matters. Furthermore, some of us need to attend to the way in which we use our hands, wrists and arms repetitively when working onscreen. Organizing a stamps palette in a way that is memorable to you, and enables the fastest possible access, speeds up the onscreen markup process and reduces physical strain. If you haven’t got round to renaming your stamps numerically, try it and see whether it makes a difference.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses. PerfectIt is one of my favourite pieces of editorial software – a set of mechanical "eyes" that enable me to increase my productivity, consistency and overall quality when proofreading. That means it's good news for me and for my clients. Version 3 of this super software was recently launched. For an overview of what's new, visit the Intelligent Editing website, where all the additional features are explained by the developer. I'd planned to review version 3 here on the Parlour, but I'm a great believer on not reinventing the wheel when someone's already done the donkey work! So when I read fellow PerfectIt user Adrienne Montgomerie's robust review of PerfectIt 3, it made more sense to push my readers in her direction. You can read the article in full here: PerfectIt 3: Quality Software for the Experienced Editor (The Editors' Weekly, the official blog of the EAC). Montgomerie provides a useful overview of the best new features, points of confusion, points of frustration, and an overall verdict. Her final words? "PerfectIt will still save your bacon, can save you time and tends to make you look eagle-eyed. If you take the time to set up style sheets for repeat clients, you can free up your eyes for content issues and lingering style issues. I will definitely be taking the time to make the most of this add-in for my largest clients, and I’ll continue running it on all documents." Louise Harnby is a professional proofreader and copyeditor. She curates The Proofreader's Parlour and is the author of several books on business planning and marketing for editors and proofreaders. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, or connect via Facebook and LinkedIn.
There many different and effective approaches to marketing an editing and proofreading business. There are several ways to make a hash of it too. Here are five mistakes that you should avoid, not just at launch stage but once your business is up and running.
Mistake 1: Not actually doing any marketing
Here are three ideas that I think we should embrace when launching an editorial business:
Let’s say I’ve completed the relevant training, acquired the kit I need, worked out who my target clients are, notified the tax authorities of my business plans, acquired some experience via my mentor, designed my stationery templates, created my accounting spreadsheet, and hired a professional designer to produce a fabulous logo. Now I need the clients. That means they need to be able to find me and I need to be able to find them. If ne’er the twain meet, I’m unemployed. Being discoverable is the first step to the success of any business, editorial or otherwise, because it bridges the gap between the services we offer and the people who need them. The second step is being interesting enough to retain the potential customer’s attention. Having found us, our potential clients need to feel they want to go further and actually hire us to solve their problems. No matter how much the thought of actively promoting your editorial business sends shivers up your spine, to not do so is a mistake. Marketing your business gives you opportunity and choice. It puts you in a position where, over time, you can develop the client base, pricing strategy, service portfolio and income stream that you require and desire.
Mistake 2: Stopping marketing when you have work
If the cupboard is full, this isn't the time to put business promotion on the back-burner. I know it might feel like the perfect time to take a breather, but trust me, it really isn't!
A healthy business is a sustainable business. Not knowing what's round the corner is about surviving not thriving, and that's stressful. Emergency marketing forces us to rush. We don't always make the best choices when we're anxious. Panic can even lead to inertia. Plus, we might find there's a lot to do and only a small window in which to do it. For example, one tactic for emergency marketing is contacting lots of publishers. However, gathering all the information required to do that effectively is time-consuming. If we build marketing time into our schedule when the cupboard is full, we can pace our plans so that we do a little on a regular basis rather than a lot all at once. That's a far more pleasant and productive way to tackle business promotion and helps us build a wait-list.
Mistake 3: Marketing via a single platform
Relying on only one particular channel to make yourself discoverable to your clients is better than not doing any marketing at all. But it’s hugely risky – if that platform fails, so do you. One of my most valuable marketing assets is my website. It’s my shop front and it’s the only space in which I have complete control over the content and design. I’ve put a lot of effort into making it visible so that I can be found and visited. I use Weebly as my host. But what if the folks at Weebly ran into some horrendous problem and the site was inaccessible for a few days, or even a few weeks? It’s unlikely to happen, but even if it did it wouldn’t be catastrophic because I don’t rely solely on my website for work leads. It’s simply one tool among several.
EXAMPLE
James used to work for a major academic publisher but now he's gone solo and launched his new editorial business. He asks a former colleague who works in the journal production department if he can proofread for her. She agrees. The publisher has a huge journal list and his colleague keeps him busy with as much proofreading as he needs. He doesn't solely work for this press (here in the UK, HM Revenue & Customs wouldn’t like that) but it does supply him with most of his work and most of his income. Then double disaster strikes – the press merges with a competitor, and his colleague is made redundant. She gets a job for another press, though her new role no longer requires her to hire editorial freelancers. James doesn't know anyone in the newly merged organization (though rumour has it the press is taking journal proofreading in-house in order to cut costs). Plus, his former colleague can’t take him with her to the new press. He's scuppered. James won't let that happen again. He does the following:
Even if you’ve been able to establish a couple of seemingly stable and lucrative work streams, and you’ve found that one particular marketing platform or tool works well for you, take the time to investigate other channels. At the very least they’ll provide you with a backup. Moreover, by experimenting with new avenues, you could find that clients whom you’d been invisible to beforehand now have you on their radar. That means more opportunities and more choice.
Mistake 4: Focusing attention in the wrong place
Some new entrants to the field can make the mistake of giving information that focuses potential clients’ attention in the wrong place. Instead, focus on stand-out statements.
EXAMPLE
A well-educated material scientist has decided, for health reasons, to move out of the professional lab and work from home, copy-editing written materials relevant to his scientific educational and career background.
His clients don’t need to know most of the above because most of those facts don’t represent him in the best light. Instead, he should focus on his stand-out qualities and present them in a way that's client-centric.
If what you say doesn’t make you compelling, don't say it. Show how you can solve clients' problems. It should be all about them and what you can do for them. If you lack experience and an extensive portfolio, focus instead on positive selling points that make the client feel confident about hiring you to fix what they can't. Sell your positives, not others’ negatives It’s also imperative that your message does indeed focus on what you can do for the client. Just in case you are one of the few people on the planet who thinks that highlighting a competitor’s or colleague’s mishaps rather than your own skills is a good marketing strategy (I’m sure you’re not!), then here's a quick reminder about why it’s disastrous in terms of PR.
Mistake 5: Ignoring traditional marketing methods
Before Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989, editorial professionals had to promote their businesses using telephone and postal services, face-to-face meetings, and onsite networking groups. These methods worked then, and they still work now – don’t make the mistake of ignoring them in the belief that they’re out-dated. Social media profiles, websites, and emails are all excellent ways to make yourself discoverable, and the twenty-first century editor should embrace them. Bear in mind, however, that from the client’s point of view they're as easy to discard as they are to access, precisely because they're digital methods of contact. Consider also the following:
Balancing immediacy and permanence is key to a well-rounded marketing strategy. By using a mixture of the two, you'll enhance your visibility and spike a client's interest. Summing up
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
Exercising the right to accept or decline work is, in my opinion, one of the best things about owning one’s own business. And yet some editorial professionals feel guilty about saying no. What's to be done?
In Part 1, I looked at the reasons for accepting or declining work, how some editorial freelancers talk about feeling guilty, and how those statements stack up against the reality of what’s going on.
Here in Part II, I consider some simple ways of saying no that make it clear that the project is being declined, why this is so, and what the client can do to find an alternative supplier. I also explore the dangers of using an over-pricing strategy to deter an unwanted client, and consider how the guilt-ridden editorial pro might place her feelings within an adapted 10/10/10 framework in order to move forward with a decision that’s in her business's best interests.
Ways to say no
There’s nothing wrong with clearly and briefly stating your position to a client. Recall Sills, cited in Part I: Saying no isn't about negativity; it's about positivity (Sills, 2013). What's relevant is not the negative impact on the unwanted client, but rather the positive decision we take as business owners. The danger, especially with the desperate or emotionally charged client, is to get drawn into lengthy discussions, none of which are billable, about why you don’t want the work. Remember, you own your business, so it’s your choice. As several experienced colleagues have pointed out since I posted this article, honesty is often the best policy when giving your reasons for saying no, especially in the case of a client with whom you've had previous difficulties, because it enables them to learn from the experience, too. However, I do appreciate that for those who are prone to feelings of guilt, being honest about past problems can be so awkward as to cause even more stress. If it's the case that you would find being honest stressful, or you're worried about hurting your client’s feelings, you could choose an alternative stock answer to decline a project in a way that makes it clear that you’ve made your decision and the discussion is closed. Examples of stock answers for saying no might include:
Caution with the over-pricing approach
If you are contacted by a client with whom you don’t want to work because of reasons other than price, deterring them with an approach that you believe will price you out of their market can backfire horribly. This is because you don’t actually know what they are prepared to pay until they have accepted or declined your quotation. Let’s imagine the following fictional example:
I decide to price myself out of her market. I’d previously charged her £20 per hour for proofreading (which I accepted based on the bulk volume of the work). She’d negotiated me down from £23 per hour so I think I have a good sense of her top line. In order to deter her, I tell her that since we last worked together my rates have increased and I now charge £40 an hour – double the rate she paid seven months ago. To my horror, she accepts my quotation, telling me that I’m worth every penny. Now I’m stuck. It was never about the money for me; it was about the stress. The problem is that I didn't close the discussion – and having left the door open, she’s stepped through it. Now I have another decision to make: either I take on stressful work that I don’t want, or I have to go back and change my story, offering her a different reason: for example, that having checked my schedule, I can’t do the work after all but that I can point her in the direction of a good directory from where she can secure an alternative proofreader. This response implies that I didn't check my schedule properly in the first place, which is neither professional nor believable. I should have used the scheduling reason in the first place. Instead, I’ve wasted my time and my client’s time. I may not want to work with her but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t respect that her time is precious too. I've also unnecessarily extended the correspondence.
Placing guilt in a 10/10/10 framework
If you’re the kind of person who struggles to say no to clients, try looking at it through a different lens. Business writer Suzy Welch’s 10/10/10 model (cited in Heath and Heath, 2013) asks us to consider how a difficult decision will make us feel in 10 minutes, 10 months and 10 years. In the case of editorial work, I think the time frames could do with being tweaked a little but the principle stands. Imagine you were to say no to one of the clients discussed in Part I (the strapped-for-cash client, the time-poor, emotional client, the manipulative client, or the inexperienced client).
If you’ve a tendency to feel guilty about declining work, you’ll probably still feel guilty 10 minutes later. In 10 hours you’ll probably feel relief that you stuck to your guns and kept your business schedule open for the kind of work that you need/want to take. And what about in 10 weeks? It’s likely that you’ll have completely forgotten the correspondence altogether.
Summing up
If you're encumbered with feelings of guilt when declining work, here’s a summary of tips to help you say no with confidence:
Let’s end with another quotation from Sills (2013): “Wielded wisely, No is an instrument of integrity and a shield against exploitation. It often takes courage to say. It is hard to receive. But setting limits sets us free.” We are the owners of editorial businesses. We set our own limits. We accept or decline work on terms that suit us, and are free to do so without drama, fear or guilt. This is nothing but normal business practice. Further reading Broomfield, Liz (2013). When should I say no? (Libro Editing) Heath, Chip, and Heath, Dan (2013). The 10/10/10 Rule for Tough Decisions (FastCompany.com) Sills, Judith (2013). The Power of No (Psychology Today)
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
Exercising the right to accept or decline work is, in my opinion, one of the best things about owning one’s own business. And yet some editorial professionals feel guilty about saying no. What's to be done?
Some of us have experienced a situation where we have to withdraw from an ongoing project because of what one of my colleagues calls “scope creep”.
Here, the originally agreed terms of the work have been breached by the client, rendering continuation of the project non-viable unless new terms can be negotiated that are acceptable to both parties. This demonstrates why it’s important to clarify the parameters of any editorial project before an agreement is made to carry out the work. How to pull out of existing project work is beyond the scope of this article. Here I’m focusing on saying no to the offer of editorial work prior to commencement of the project, and how guilt should not be part of the editorial business-owner’s decision to so. In Part I, I look at the reasons for accepting or declining work, how some editorial freelancers talk about feeling guilty, and how those statements stack up against the reality of what’s going on. In Part II, I’ll consider some simple ways of saying no that make it clear that the project is being declined, why this decision is being made, and what the client can do to find an alternative supplier. I’ll also explore the dangers of using an over-pricing strategy to deter an unwanted client, and consider how the guilt-ridden editorial pro might place her feelings within an adapted 10/10/10 framework in order to move forward with a decision that’s in her business's best interests.
Reasons to accept and reasons to decline
I might decline a proofreading project for one, or several, of the following reasons:
I might accept a proofreading project for one, or several, of the following reasons:
See also Liz Broomfield’s (2013) discussion of what kinds of work you might say no to at various stages of your business’s development.
It’s my business and my choice
Whether I accept or decline, the choice is mine. I’m not bound to carry out proofreading work that, for whatever reason, I don’t wish to. There’s no boss telling me that our company is contractually bound to do A or B, or that I must work for X, even though I find dealing with X stressful, intimidating, infuriating, or upsetting. I choose the hours I need/wish to work. I choose the type of editorial work I carry out (in my case, proofreading). I choose the material I feel comfortable with. I decide whether a fee is acceptable based on my needs and wants. Ultimately, I can decline a project for no other reason than I simply don’t fancy doing it. End of story.
Feeling guilty
Despite having control over the choices they can make, it’s not uncommon to hear editorial freelancers say they feel guilty about not accepting a job:
In all of the above, the story is of the problems being faced by the client if the editorial pro turns down the work. However, we as business owners need to flip things around and look at the situation from our own point of view.
The reality ...
Now let's look at the above 4 scenarios from the perspective of the editorial business owner:
No isn't negative ...
Psychologist Judith Sills (2013) argues that “No – a metal grate that slams shut the window between one's self and the influence of others – is rarely celebrated. It's a hidden power because it is both easily misunderstood and difficult to engage” and “it is easily confused with negativity”. So, when we decline work, we need think of the decision not in terms of negative impact on our clients, but rather in terms of the positive impact on our editorial businesses. In Part 2, we’ll look at ways to communicate an uncomplicated “no” message, and consider an adapted version of Suzy Welch’s 10/10/10 framework that should help the guilt-ridden editorial pro to say no with greater confidence.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
Do we still need to learn how to use traditional proof-correction symbols given that most proofreading work is done onscreen these days?
My answer is an emphatic “Yes, you should learn them!”
As I'll show below, knowing how to use them will increase your efficiency, productivity, clarity, marketability, and professionalism. Traditional proofreading: Checking typeset proofs Many proofreaders work directly in Word, making actual changes to the text. In my experience, it's primarily self-publishing authors, academics, students and businesses that commission such direct intervention; almost all of my publishers want me to use the proof-correction symbols. That’s because I’m not editing the text; rather, I’m annotating pages that have been professionally designed – the pages appear as I would expect to see them if I walked into a bookshop and pulled the published book from a shelf. In this situation, I'm not just looking for spelling and grammar mistakes. I also need to annotate for problems with layout, for example:
So, if you plan to work on page proofs that have been professionally typeset prior to publication, and you hope to acquire this work from mainstream publishing houses, you will need to know how to annotate the pages correctly with these symbols, even if you are proofreading onscreen. What do the marks look like? It depends where you live. If you need guidance about proof-correction marks in your particular region, contact your national editorial society. In some countries, the UK’s BSI marks are accepted for proofreading and copy-editing practice. In the UK, there is a single set of industry-recognized symbols. These have been prepared by the British Standards Institution (BSI) and are entitled “Marks for copy preparation and proof correction”. Over time they’ve been updated. The current marks are identified as follows: BS 5261C:2005. If you’re working for Canadian or US clients, read Adrienne Montgomerie’s article, “The Secret Code of Proofreaders” (Copyediting.com, 2014). As she points out, the Canadian Translation Bureau’s Canadian Style guide marks are quite different from the marks preferred by the Chicago Manual of Style. Why are proof-correction marks useful? When we proofread typeset page proofs, there’s little room to indicate what we want to change. Recall that each page we’re working on appears almost as it would if the printed book had been published. Using industry-standard proof-correction marks is an efficient way to annotate the page with the desired corrections. The symbols are a short-cut code of instructions that tell the designer exactly what to do. Once you’ve learned all the symbols by heart, they’re much quicker to use than long-hand text and take up minimal space. Open the nearest book you have to hand and look at how much white space there isn’t between the text and the margin – it’s not uncommon for me to work on page proofs with a 2cm margin either side of the text. Notice, too, how small the space is above and below a single line of text. The book has been designed and there's little room to annotate. Now imagine that in a given line there is a missing comma, a spelling mistake, and a word that needs decapitalizing. The example below illustrates how these problems would be marked up using the BSI proof-correction symbols. The long-hand alternative might be something on the lines of <Change “fax” to “fox”> in the left-hand margin, and <Insert comma after “grass” and decapitalize “Legs”> in the right-hand margin. Given that we only have 2cm margins to play with, that each line is spaced closely to its neighbours above and below, and that in a real set of proofs there may be several corrections in multiple lines, any instructions to the typesetter are likely to become cluttered and confusing. Proof-correction symbols solve the problem.
The use of proof-correction symbols therefore offers increased efficiency, productivity, and clarity. And if you’re a proofreader-to-be who wants to ensure you’re marketable to as wide a range of clients as possible, acquiring the ability to use this mark-up process is a no-brainer.
Attending to professional standards In addition to enabling you to work efficiently, productively, and clearly, and maximizing your marketability, there is also the issue of professionalism. Membership of a professional editorial society often requires knowledge of the relevant nationally approved mark-up symbols as a standard of good practice.
Where to find the UK marks The BSI provides a laminated 8-page summary sheet of all the marks you need to know for proofreading. Also included are short notes that enable the proofreader or copy-editor to identify the correct mark for both marginal and in-text mark-up, colour of ink to be used, and positioning of the symbols. The CIEP has an arrangement with the BSI whereby members can purchase the sheet for a reduced price. How to learn to use the marks Any comprehensive proofreading course worth its salt should test your ability to use the marks according to industry standards. It's not just about using the right mark so that the instruction is unambiguous, but also about knowing when to use the mark and when to leave well enough alone. In the UK, the CIEP and The Publishing Training Centre are examples of organizations offering industry-recognized courses that attend to these issues. If you live outside the UK, ask your national editorial society for guidance. Further reading If you’re considering embarking on a professional proofreading career, you might find the following related articles of use:
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
Like so many of my proofreading and editing colleagues, I never rely on my eye alone. I’m human, and my eye sometimes sees what it wants to see rather than what’s there, even when I’m working with clients rather than reading for pleasure.
TextSTAT: Creating a frequency list
One of my favourite tools is TextSTAT. Actually, it wasn’t created with the proofreader or editor in mind. Rather, the program was designed to enable users to analyse texts for word frequency and concordance. However, I use it to generate, very quickly, simple alphabetized word lists.
Time and again, those word lists have flagged up potential problems that I need to check in a proofreading or copyediting project. If I'm proofreading a PDF, I strip the text from the PDF proof and dump it into a Word file. I remove word breaks from that Word file (using "-^p") so that TextSTAT generates a list of whole words that I can compare, rather than thousands of useless broken words). If I'm editing in Word, I can obviously bypass the above steps. Identifying potential problems in text
Here’s a small sample from a word list I generated in TextSTAT. As you can see, there are several possible problems:
(The colour coding is mine; I've provided it for clarity only. TextSTAT's word lists are in plain text.)
Upon checking the actual proofs, some of these issues turned out to be fine. For example:
Some issues had to be queried. For example:
Some issues needed further checking and amending. For example:
When proofreading hard-copy or PDF proofs, would I have spotted these problems with my eye alone? I'm not confident I'd have got everything, particularly the issues with the names of the less well-known cited authors. And if "beginings" had been in point-9 italic text, my eye might have passed over the missing letter. Where’s the context?
There is no context – that’s the point. When using TextSTAT as a word-list generation tool, we’re just looking at one word and how it compares with words above and below it in our list.
We’re not reading phrases; we’re not paying attention to grammar and syntax. It’s just a long list of words in alphabetical order. Later, we can focus on the words in context – TextSTAT’s word lists are just a tiny part of a process that help the proofreader or editor to provide his or her client with a polished piece of work. Fast, free and offline
TextSTAT isn’t the only word-list generation tool available for free. However, I love it because it can handle huge chunks of text without glitching – it will quickly generate word lists for books with hundreds of thousands of words (the sample I gave above was taken from a project of over 150,000 words, but I’ve used the program for larger projects). It’s never crashed on me.
You can download the software to your own computer, so there’s no issue regarding confidentiality. My clients don’t want me to upload their content to third-party browsers without their permission, so when I use a particular proofreading tool to augment my eye, that tool needs to be able to sit offline on my PC. Furthermore, it costs nothing. Say the creators: “TextSTAT is free software. It may be used free of charge and it may be freely distributed provided the copyright and the contents of all files, including TextSTAT.zip itself, are unmodified. Commercial distribution of the programme is only allowed with permission of the author. Use TextSTAT at your own risk; the author accepts no responsibility whatsoever. The sourcecode version comes with its own license." Is it worth the effort?
Some might think that an hour or so trawling through a simple word list, and cross-checking any potential problems against hard copy or PDF, is a lot of extra time to build into a proofreading project. I think that time improves the quality of my work and increases my productivity.
When I come to the actual reading-in-context stage, I'm confident that some really serious snags have already been attended to. That gives me peace of mind and enables me later to focus on other important issues like the page layout, the sense of the text, and more. I've found that using this method for dense academic projects has been particularly worthwhile. However, I'll not forget a recent fiction project (a "big name"-authored book that's in its nth edition and was first published over two decades ago) where the main protagonist's name was spelled incorrectly in two places: an easy thing to miss again and again over many years and many proofreads. I caught it – not because my eyes are better than those who came before me, or because I'm a better proofreader than those who came before me, but because I used a simple tool that allowed me to concentrate on just the words. Want to try TextSTAT?
If you want to give it a spin, it’s available from NEON - NEDERLANDS ONLINE.
The usual caveat applies: generating word lists as part of the proofreading and editing process isn't the one and only true way. TextSTAT is an example of one tool that I and some of my colleagues utilize to improve the quality of our work. You might utilize different tools and different methods to achieve the same ends. All of which is great! How to use TextStAT
These instructions are correct as of 24 June 2021.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast.
The rate for the job can often be a sticky subject for new and more experienced editorial professionals alike. Newbies sometimes wonder whether they should charge a lower fee precisely because they are new to the field of proofreading and editing.
Some experienced colleagues have argued that newbies aren’t worth the higher fee that an established editorial professional could justify, precisely because they don’t have experience. So should the newbie offer a lower rate simply by virtue of their newbieness? There are three important considerations to mention first:
1. Relating newness to ability It may be that because you are a new editorial business owner you've not yet acquired the skill to carry out a particular editorial function. Imagine that you're asked to quote for copy-editing a medical journal article written by a client whose third language is English. You assess the sample and realize that the article needs a deep edit, and a knowledge of a particular style guide that you're only vaguely familiar with. Overall the requirements are complex. The question is not: "Should I charge a lower rate because I'm new?" This question is: "Do I have the skill to do the work?" On the other hand, it may be that you're experienced in some areas or editorial freelancing but still don't have the skill to carry out a particular job. If I were approached to work on the above-mentioned project, I'd decline. The fact that I'm an experienced editorial business owner is neither here nor there. The fact that I'm a specialist fiction proofreader and copy-editor is the key issue. I don't have the skills to do this medical copy-editing job.
2. Lower than what? There is no one fixed rate The terms "lower" and "higher" are problematic. There’s no one set rate here in the UK or anywhere else in the world for any editorial service. Different proofreaders and editors charge (and are offered) different rates of pay depending on whom they're working for and what service they're providing. It’s the same with other professions – e.g. plumbers, dentists, graphic designers and hairdressers. There are some suggested minimum rates available from national editorial societies, but these aren’t the law – they’re guidelines, and they pay no heed to your individual circumstances. So when you hear editorial colleagues talking about “low” or “lower” fees and “high” or “higher” fees, be cautious – what one person considers high may be considered low or medium to another. If you’re thinking about charging a “lower” fee because you’re a newbie, ask yourself the following: Lower than what?
Those are all quite different things! 3. We don’t always hold the balance of power When an independent author or business contacts me (say, via my website or one of the directories in which I advertise) with a request to quote, I can control the price. I hold the balance of power. The client may not like my proposed price and choose to go elsewhere, but I decide how I'll price a job. On the flip side, when I work for publishers, for example, the balance of power can shift in their favour. Negotiation is possible, but not always. Some publishers offer fixed fees for a whole job; others offer a fixed rate per hour and ask for work to be completed within a maximum budgeted number of hours. If I don’t like the hourly rate, the fixed rate, or the time frame, I'm free to decline the job, but the publisher might attempt to find someone else who’ll do the job within their preferred budget. Some agencies and businesses will expect to be charged a day rate, regardless of how long the work takes. Some clients will pay a premium for work carried out in unsociable hours. The upshot of this is a follows: the amount of money a proofreader/editor can earn is not fixed. I’m happy to throw some numbers at you based on my own experience, but don’t take these as The One and Only Way Things Are. They’re merely examples – other editors will have earned more and less, depending on job, client, complexity, etc. I’ve simply picked a few cases from my current and past years' annual schedules to show the variance. Some examples of my (extrapolated) proofreading/copy-editing rates per hour:
As I say, these are just examples. There's a mix of control here: in some cases I set the price; in others the client offered a price and I accepted. There's a mix of hourly rates, too, but I know that "high" or "low" are relative terms. In a nutshell, these numbers are not what you should be earning per hour; they are simply examples of what I have earned per hour. Some editorial folk don't even like to value their services by the hour; I chose to do so here because I wanted a straightforward way to present the information. USPs – then and now When we do hold the balance of power, and we're quoting for jobs, it’s useful to frame our quotations around the value we bring to the table. This is about how we advertise ourselves. Here’s a comparison of the USPs (unique selling points) I used at the beginning and middle of my editorial career and the ones I use currently. These are broadly the kinds of things that I use to talk to my clients in a value-on way – they tell the client why they should hire me. 2006
2014
2017
Let’s imagine for simplicity that I currently charge an hourly fee of £30 for working for independent authors, based on my 2017 USPs. But what if a new entrant to the field looks at the information about me in 2017? Should that person deliberately decide to charge only £15 per hour, even though they'd prefer to charge £30? To justify this to themselves they'd need to be able to persuade themselves and their potential client that they're not worth more. Why? Because, in this scenario, they'd have to believe that their newbieness means:
Is the above true?
Even if the newbie does believe that their miss rate will be higher, and that their less extensive time in the job and their smaller portfolio of work mean that they're not such a good bet for the client, how will the newbie frame this information? Value-off pricing – not a professional message When we quote for clients, whether we are new entrants or old hands, we're telling that person what we CAN do for them, not what we can’t. Ask yourself whether, as a newbie, you’d seriously consider supplementing your list of USPs with any of the following statements:
If you were a client and you received a quotation framed around all of the above, would you hire the editor? Your potential client doesn’t need to hear what you haven’t done or can’t do, and therefore why you think you're worth less than your colleagues. Rather, your client will appreciate the following:
In a nutshell, if it doesn’t sell you in a good light, don’t mention it. And if you’re not mentioning it to your client, why would you use it to justify a fee structure that is deliberately lower than the one you want/need to charge? What’s your message? Newbie or editorial professional? You may think of yourself as a newbie, and your colleagues may know that you’re a newbie, but your client does NOT need to know this. Your client needs to know that you are capable of solving their problems. On the inside you are a newbie, but as far as the world of potential clients is concerned you are an editorial business professional offering a specific editorial service based around a defined set of USPs. This is a value-on way of thinking, not value-off. Given that you are an editorial business professional, you're entitled to build a fee structure that reflects this. Offering yourself on the cheap because you ain’t all that is not an option. It isn’t how business professionals in any field market themselves. As my colleague Kate Haigh (personal correspondence) has reminded me more times than I care to mention: If you price yourself cheap because you think you’re worth nothing more, and you tell your client this, then you are indeed worth nothing more. Who wants to hire someone like that? Who feels confident about hiring someone like that? (See also Kate's excellent Because you're worth it! Charging what you're worth.) Recall the balance of power section above – you may still decide to work for clients who hold the balance of power and pay less than the fee structure you've defined for yourself when you're in control. But that’s not about being a new entrant to the field. That’s about making decisions about who you want to work for and what you will accept. Even established editorial folk make those decisions. I've worked for some publisher clients who offer an hourly rate way lower than the one I charge when I’m setting the price. Why? Because I wanted to and it was my choice. I liked their books. I enjoyed the work. I got tons of satisfaction from the jobs. I liked the regularity of the work on offer. And because it gave me some smashing thumbnail piccies on my site of well-known books by big-name authors. Pricing is part of the marketing mix … Pricing is part of marketing. When you set a price you're telling the market what you think your services are worth. If you can do the job, then you should do the job, and tell your clients you can do the job. If you want to reduce your fee to an amount below that which you think your services are worth, I’d recommend coming up with a better reason to do so than your newness. Charge what you want to charge, but make your decisions based on the worth you bring to the table and your ability to do the job, not the empty space you’ve yet to fill, or the youth of your business compared with some of your colleagues'. If you don't think you have the skill to do a job, don't charge less. Instead, refer the client to someone who has the skills. Furthermore, put yourself in your customer’s shoes – the client to whom you’re pitching wants to know what you can do, not what you can’t. Your pricing needs to reflect this. The minute you start knocking down your price through lack of confidence is the minute you shift the balance of power to your client – you’ve focused their attention on the money they’re forking out rather than the service you provide. It becomes all about how little they can spend rather than what they can gain from your capability. You encourage your client to become what Rich Adin calls a "shopper", "where the single dominant expectation is that price is the determining decision factor" (How Much Is That Editor in the Window?). So what should you charge? There’s no ready answer to this because it depends on so many factors. However, guidance can be found by returning to the “lower than what?” issue mentioned above:
You might also like to take a look at these articles that I published on The Proofreader's Parlour: “I want to be an editor – when will I start earning $?” and other unanswerable questions and Value-on or money-off? Putting a price on your editorial services. Don't forget that no pricing structure or quotation framework is set in stone – testing provides you with your very own market research. Even negative results are learning opportunities that you can use to tweak your pricing models and help you to identify which frameworks work best for you in particular situations. If, after visiting the resources above, you still feel yourself bending towards lowering your prices either because of a lack of confidence and/or because your business is young, take a step back and make sure you have your business hat planted firmly on your head. More resources
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast.
There's no consensus about the best order in which to complete a proofreading project, but I thought I’d share some tips about how I choose to structure the process.
My structure is based on my work with page proofs supplied by project management agencies and publishers. If you don’t know what page proofs are, take a look at Not all proofreading is the same: Part I – Working with page proofs. As I state in this article:
The above are examples of just some of the issues I look out for – in no way do they represent a comprehensive checklist.
Riveting vs routine I tend think of the tasks involved in proofreading as falling roughly into two categories – riveting and routine. The riveting element is the reading bit – I get paid to read the text word by word, line by line, page by page. I’m engaged with the text and that’s the exciting part of my job. Whether I’m proofreading a short science-fiction novel, a gritty non-fiction piece about martial arts, or a dense tome about pharmaceutical patent law, there’s always something new to learn. For me, this is the best part of the job. The routine element comprises the kind of checks listed above – the word breaks, the running heads, chapter and part title consistency, positioning of page numbers and chapter drops, and so on. For me, this is the dullest part of the job. Hardest vs easiest The riveting element is the hardest part of the job for me – that’s because context is king and because every change I make in the main body of the text could have knock-on effects elsewhere. Furthermore, I need to take a different kind of care not to proofread too fast when I’m working on fiction. I’ve been lucky enough to proofread some absolute corkers – Jonathan Pinnock’s Dot Dash, James Herbert’s The Rats, Jennifer Egan’s A Visit from the Goon Squad, and Donn Pearce’s Cool Hand Luke, to name but a few – and it requires discipline not to get so engrossed in the story that one becomes a reader rather than a proofreader. The routine element is the easiest part of the job for me – that’s because the problems are usually obvious and easy to make decisions about. I might headscratch over whether to leave well enough alone, query, or mark up in the main body of the text, but if a page number is wrong in the contents list, it’s a no-brainer. A mislabelled table needs attending to. Same thing with inconsistent half titles and book titles, missing tables, incorrect running heads, and odd page numbers placed on versos (left-hand pages). Tricky first, easy last? I’m not sure why but when I began my proofreading career I’d carry out many of the routine elements of the project at the end. I imagine that my thinking was something on the lines of “I’ll get the tricky bit out of the way first – then I’ll do the routine stuff and close the project”. That worked just fine for a while and I carried on that way until one of my PMs contacted me with some feedback that said I’d done a great job with the main text but could I take care in future to double check that the book title and half title matched? I’d missed something so ridiculously obvious – something that stuck out like a sore thumb. How could that have happened? It's on my checklist. I was sure I'd done it; I'd just not seen the error. I apologized profusely (she forgave me!). Then I grabbed a coffee, sat back, and considered my method. The routine bit is supposed to be the easiest bit – it’s supposed to be the bit I can’t get wrong, but it’s also the dullest. Was that the problem? The mindset of project closure … I came to the conclusion that when I’ve finished the riveting part of my job, my brain goes into project-closure mode. The problem is that the routine element can take me an hour, even several hours if the project is large. So if I’ve finished reading the text, my brain’s saying, “You’re nearly done”, when in fact that’s far from the truth – there’s still some really important and routine tasks to complete that my publishers expect as standard. I was doing what for me was the dullest and easiest bit of the job when my brain was at its least attentive. The risk of a miss was higher given this mindset. I therefore decided to revise my method – I’d do the bulk of the routine work at the beginning of the project and commence the fun bit afterwards. The decision reminded me of when I was a kid and my mum would tell me that I needed to eat my green veggies before I stuffed my face with a third helping of her rather excellent roast potatoes! Scouting out the lie of the land … My decision had some unforeseen benefits. Few of my clients pay me for more than one pass. And yet by doing the routine work first I give myself the opportunity to get an overall of sense of the book – its layout, its various different elements, its themes, its overall structure – by working through my checklist one step at a time before I start the actual read itself. As I first check every single page number I’m moving through the book, one page at a time. Then I go back to the beginning and do the same with my running heads. Then back to the beginning again to check my lists of tables, figures and contents. Then back again to check the chapter drops … and so on and so forth, all the time building up a picture of how the book works. And each time I go to the beginning and start a new check I'm doing a tiny pass, over and over again. I like this method because it allows me to scout out the lie of the land. It often means I pick up on little oddities that I can make a note of to watch out for once the actual reading process begins. But, more importantly, my mindset is in start-up mode and that’s exactly where I want it to be when I'm attending to the more mundane aspects of the project. I don’t have to worry that my miss rate will be higher by the end of the riveting bit as a result of boredom, precisely because it’s the riveting bit, not the boring bit. Something to test? I still go back and do some double checks when I've finished the riveting stage. And I like to take a look at each page one final time and review any notes that I was given by the copy-editor or PM – just to reassure myself that I've done what I was asked to do. But, broadly speaking, I've reversed my method. My method may not be your method because you may be wired differently to me. But if you are the sort of person who does most of your routine tasks at the end, and you find yourself in project-closure mode a few hours ahead of schedule, don't be afraid to consider testing a revision of the order in which you do things. You might just find your new process works better for you.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
If you’re thinking about becoming a proofreader, it’s important to understand that this term can mean different things in different contexts and with different client groups. This article focuses on working with raw text.
What type of proofreading you want to do and which group of clients you want to be work-ready for will determine the choices you make with regard to training.
Some proofreaders work directly with the creators of the written materials – independent authors, students and business professionals, for example.
These clients send Word files and the proofreader amends the files directly (often with Track Changes switched on so that the client can see what’s been changed). Others work for intermediaries such as publishers and project-management agencies. Here the author supplies the text files; then the in-house project manager (PM) organizes the various elements of the production process – including copyediting, proofreading, typesetting and printing. After copyediting and typesetting, the PM supplies page proofs to the proofreader, who makes annotations that identify where there are problems to be attended to. The proofreader does not amend the text directly. In Part I, I gave the new entrant to the field an overview of what it’s like to be a proofreader working with page proofs. Here in Part II, I consider proofreading that involves working directly with the raw-text Word files.
Which types of client want to work in Word?
Most of the proofreading done in Word stems from having been commissioned directly by the content creator – a business executive, a self-publishing author or a student. Academic writers, particularly those submitting articles to journals and for whom your first language is their second, are also likely to send Word files. Only one of my publisher clients asks me to proofread in Word. What is the proofreader looking for? It depends on the client's expectations (see below: Disadvantages) and your terms and conditions. Certainly, when it comes to proofreading for non-publisher clients, the definition of proofreading starts to look unclear and the boundaries between this and copyediting become blurred. Unlike with page proofs, we can't check the final designed layout of the file but we still need to read every word. Some of the issues dealt with in the list below would be acceptable to the proofreader working for an academic author but not when working with a Master's student. (Some clients might even want/expect a level of restructuring, rewriting and checking that a proofreader wouldn't consider to be within their remit.)
What are the advantages?
What are the disadvantages?
There are still legal issues to consider … Even if you are working directly with the primary authors of the content, you still need to get their permission to upload their text to third-party sites if you want to utilize software that's not on your computer. The files you've been sent from Indie authors, students and businesses are their property and they send them to you in good faith, so you must get permission for their content to leave your computer.
What does this mean for training?
Knowing the software ... If you want to proofread in Word, you'll need to be proficient in using it. Word is one of the most powerful pieces of word-processing software available, and there's a huge amount you can do with it if you want to proofread (or edit) efficiently. You might therefore need to supplement your proofreading training with learning that focuses on using macros, making the best of Find/Replace and wildcards, using Track Changes, and Microsoft Word usage in general. There's still the issue of how much to interfere ... If you do end up proofreading for a publisher client who wants you to work in Word, it will be necessary to consider the issue of when to leave well enough alone, as discussed in Part I. However, independent authors looking for a proofreader may actually be expecting a deeper edit and will be disappointed if you're not prepared to rewrite sentences for them. If you've not had experience of, or training in, editing, you may find that a 'proofreading' project ends up being a bigger bite than you can chew. One of my colleagues feels that specific training in editing isn't always critical when working with business clients, whereas for self-publishing novelists it would be very important. I'm inclined to agree. One person might be relatively comfortable suggesting improved sentence construction to a business client but very wary of doing so with an author of fiction. What this shows is how blurry the edges can become and how important it is to have a detailed conversation before you begin a project. I often encourage independent fiction authors looking for a proofreader to consider commissioning editing first. Editors with both editing and proofreading skills are better placed to take on jobs for non-publisher clients that fall in the editing camp, or somewhere between editing and proofing (proofediting). If you think you'll end up straying beyond the realm of proofreading, you might consider adding copyediting courses into your training mix. Think about what type of client you're going to be working for to help you decide what's appropriate. Summing up … Proofreading isn't some catch-all phrase that means the same thing to every client group. What you actually do, on which medium, how much you interfere, the extent to which you can use complementary tools, and the expectations of the client will differ greatly. This means a range of competencies will need to be acquired depending on whom you’re working for. Your training will need to match the requirements of various client groups – a publisher’s expectations in terms of industry-recognized standards will be different from a business executive’s or student’s, so take care to research any proofreading training syllabus carefully to make sure it’s providing you with the skill set relevant to your target client group. Your training should suit your needs, your business plan, your objectives – and what will be right for one person may not be right for another. Read this article's sister post: Not all proofreading is the same: Part I – Working with page proofs.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
A note from Louise: Receiving payment for editorial freelancing can leave us editors and proofreaders feeling a little down in the mouth when we see chunks of our hard-earned cash being swallowed up by transaction and currency-conversion fees.
Only recently I had to add £15 to an invoice for a Canadian publisher in order to cover my PayPal fees – not something I felt good about, considering this client is a vibrant start-up with a fair-trade policy for its authors. Lloyds TSB also charged me over £13.60 for the privilege of receiving a payment from a Spanish client. For an invoice of approximately £200 this felt like a kick in the teeth.
I'm therefore delighted to welcome my editorial colleague Averill Buchanan to the Parlour with her excellent guest article about CurrencyFair. From their website: "Our unique, new peer-to-peer marketplace ensures big savings on exchange rates and fees ... an efficient and safe alternative to ridiculous bank and broker charges." Interested? Read on ...
I've just completed my first set of transactions using CurrencyFair, a peer-to-peer marketplace that allows you to exchange and send funds in a wide variety of currencies, and thought that others might be interested (especially after hearing some horror stories about PayPal freezing people’s accounts).
I needed to pay a membership fee to an organization in Dublin who don't offer PayPal as a payment option (because it costs them too much). So I set up a business account with CurrencyFair (CF), transferred money from my sterling bank account, exchanged it through CF (they make the process very easy), after which it went into my CF euro account. I was then able to pay the organization their membership using IBAN from my CF euro account. The entire cost to me was €3. I finished an editing job for a client in Ireland and invoiced him in euros. I gave him the details of the CF account in Dublin along with my CF reference number. He paid online using his regular bank interface on Thursday (presumably at no cost to him) and I received the money in my CF euro account the following Tuesday. I then exchanged it to sterling (for a fee of £3) and transferred it to my own bank account on the same day. Had I invoiced and been paid by my client through PayPal it would have cost me at least £20 more, and PayPal doesn't allow you to shop around for the best exchange rate. They process payments in and out of the US, just like any other currency. They charge a flat fee for each transaction – 3 units of whatever currency you are exchanging to/from. As a freelancer, you are required to set up a business account with CurrencyFair (something to do with money laundering), but a business account doesn't cost you anything – it’s just the same as a personal account in every other respect. They will want to see scans of passport and other documents proving your address – just as if you were setting up a regular bank account – and it takes a day or so to set up a new account. But what I’m most impressed with about CurrencyFair is the personal attention. Tim Porter, an Associate Director, took the trouble to phone me at a time that suited me, to answer all my questions, and he’s been on the end of emails all through the process. Should anyone else like to try CurrencyFair as a replacement for PayPal (and I highly recommend it), Tim is quite happy to speak to you about it. His email is timporter@currencyfair.com. If you want to read more about the benefits, the website gives some live examples of what you can save by using CurrencyFair instead of a regular bank or broker. No doubt there are other providers offering similar services, so if you know of any that you'd like to recommend or share your experiences about, please leave a comment. Copyright 2013 Averill Buchanan
Bio: Averill Buchanan is a freelance editor, proofreader and book indexer.
Accidentally deleted a file or folder? If it's in Dropbox, you can recover it up to 30 days after hitting the delete button.
Think Dropbox is great for cloud-based file-sharing and back-up? It's a business life-saver too.
You can restore any deleted file or folder you'd saved to your Dropbox account. Here's how to do it: Recovering and restoring deleted files or folders on Dropbox. It's a doddle. I put it to the test after a tech-meltdown led to hundreds of precious family photos disappearing from my PC. The're safe and sound and the recovery process took under a minute.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
If you're looking for an easy and free way to schedule your editing and proofreading projects – clients, income, payment-due dates – this free Excel template is for you.
Keeping track of editing and proofreading projects is essential for every professional editor.
Download this free Excel template to get you started. The figures are completely made up but show the basic structure. If you're a newbie, you can use this as an interim way of managing your accounts and your schedule; one less thing to worry about for now! This template includes a number of columns with formulae that I find useful.
I like to differentiate between different stages of the process:
It helps me to see, at a glance, what's going on in my schedule, especially when a client asks about availability. I also track how the job will be returned to a client: via email, the post office or courier (at the client's expense). The UK's HMRC allows the freelancer to offset a percentage of mileage costs against their tax liabilities. There's a summary box at the bottom of the spreadsheet. This shows me my average earnings, my average hourly rate and my average rate per 1,000 words. These figures are really only for curiosity, since each job varies quite considerably in size, type, budget, difficulty and speed. If I was doing any serious analysis I'd look more deeply into the data to assess whether there are patterns in terms of, say, client type, service offered and subject matter. Still, it's useful for grabbing quick-and-dirty data for annual comparisons. Feel free to copy, amend or ignore as you see fit. You can add your own formulae to particular columns if the way in which you charge for your work differs.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses. A note from Louise: Do you issue a contract before you start an editorial project? If not, take a gander at the advice from my editorial colleague Cassie Armstrong. Working without a net Most of you wouldn't think of beginning an editing project, or making a major purchase, without a contract in place. I was like that, too. I never began a new project without either a signed contract on file or an email where both parties made it clear what they would and would not do. But I didn't do that with a recent project. That mistake cost me time and money. Take a minute and learn from my mistake. I answered a job post for a proofreader a few weeks ago. The project was interesting, so I sent an email to the person who posted it. We talked about what the work involved, why a proofreader was needed, and about my hourly fees. I was thrilled to be accepted because the project piqued my interest. I could relate. But in my haste to begin, I didn't take the time to discuss a contract with my client. I should have stopped right there and corrected this mistake. Ask if there’s a budget In the early talking stages, when you and your potential client are discussing the project, take the time to ask if there is a budget for the work. I usually always ask. If I like the project and want to be involved, I will often times accept it even if the potential client’s budget is lower than my hourly fee. That decision is up to you, but it’s one that you need to consider in the beginning talking stages for any project. Money isn’t the only reason to be involved. In the recent project I suggested an hourly fee but didn't ask about a budget. For the next piece of work, I plan to avoid this mistake and ask the question. It would be in your best interest to ask the question, too. Remember to ask it during the project’s conversational phase, before you accept job. Don’t do anything without a contract I didn’t suggest or push for a contract because my client wanted the project completed in a week. I thought requesting a contract would slow down the process. This was my third mistake. Always take the time to draw up a contract. If you don’t want to be that formal, you can write the potential client a letter that explains what you will do and how you will do it. The letter and contract don’t have to be complicated and KOK Edit has some good examples that you can review and modify to suit your needs in her Copyeditors’ Knowledge Base (Contract between editor and book publisher; Contract between editor and client). An email will also serve as a contract If you don’t want to draw up a formal contract and take the time needed for both parties to sign it and return it, an email where you specify what you will do, how long the project will take, and the overall or hourly fee will also suffice as long as you have a statement of agreement from your client in a return email. This acceptance email will serve as the contract for the job. Ask for a deposit Just as a contract is important in any project, so is a deposit. Depending on the length of the project, you may want up to 50 per cent in advance and payment on billable hours every two weeks. The amount of deposit as well as the project’s billing cycle is as individual as the project and editor. These items should also be spelled out in the contract. For some small projects, I have edited without a deposit. For me, it’s a gut reaction. Just as each contract is different, so is requiring a deposit. For short projects with rapid turnarounds, deposits may not work. Do what works for you and is best for your circumstances at the time. In all cases, make sure you have complete contact information and consider using PayPal. Add a kill fee No matter what kind of contract you write, either traditional, a letter or email, make sure the contract contains a kill fee. The kill fee will save you a lot of grief and will provide an out for both you and your client if things don’t progress the way you'd planned. Just as a deposit helps protect you from doing a lot of work and then not getting paid for it, a kill fee, cancellation fee, or rejection fee serves a similar purpose. The kill fee ensures that you’re paid for all the work you’ve done up to the time the client notifies you that they are not going to work with you any longer, or when you decide to walk away from the project for one reason or another. Both you and the client may decide to cancel the project for any number of reasons, including timing, money, or change of focus. You both may decide to cancel the job because you aren't happy with the initial work, may think that you aren't working well together, or may not want to continue for some other reason. Whatever the grounds, the kill fee helps cover your billable time and any tangible expenses (delivery fees, for example) incurred so far in the project. Make sure you understand what the project entails Through conversations and drafts, make sure that the project requirements are crystal clear for all parties involved.
Offer to fix any errors If you make a mistake in a project because of a lack of communication or because the client is not happy with one aspect of your work, offer to fix the problem. Taking a few hours to make a client happy will be your best reward in the long run. It will make you feel good and there’s also the possibility of receiving future work from a satisfied customer. Keep the lines of communication open Communication in a project is key. You can communicate via email or via the telephone. Establish the best way to keep in touch before the project begins and discuss how many times a week you will be in contact. If the client prefers telephone conversations, exchange numbers. Ask when the best time to talk is and keep in mind any different time zones between you both. Keep all conversations brief and on point. Be courteous but businesslike. Don’t allow yourself to be bullied If you find yourself in the position where you’re doing more than the contract specified, take a minute and regroup. Go over the contract specifics. Make sure to review the specifics and discuss the new project requirements with your client. Explain that the new requirements will take more time and will cost more than the original fee. Offer to fulfil the new requirements for an additional fee and specify how this will be paid. Keep all conversations light but remain in control. Don’t allow yourself to be pushed into doing something that you’re not comfortable with or making changes that weren’t discussed previously. If you have to make changes or correct an error, don’t allow the client to deduct the cost of these changes from the original project fee. Explain your position to your client and stand your ground. Standing your ground is something that many of us aren't comfortable with. However, in business, and real life, it’s necessary if you don’t want to be bullied. If a situation like this occurs early on in the project, the kill fee you included in the contract, letter, or email will come in handy. Use it and walk away. Never put yourself in a situation where you are not in control or where you have second thoughts about a client or project. It isn't worth it. Bottom line Bottom line: a well-designed contract should avoid any potential problems in a project. Before I begin another project, either with an individual or with a publisher, I plan to make sure that the job specifics are spelled out and crystal clear. I will also add a kill fee to the contract and if there’s an inkling that the project is not going well, I will walk away. Copyright 2012 Cassie Armstrong Cassie Armstrong is a professional editor and the founder of MorningStar Editing. She's a recovering college English teacher and member of the Editorial Freelancers Association with over six years' editing experience. Her clients are primarily individual authors and trade publishers who specialize in fiction and non-fiction subjects, from biographies to YA novels. Cassie enjoys working with yarn and thread in her spare time and is developing a complementary speciality in editing books about crafting. Contact Cassie via her website MorningStar Editing, Twitter @MorningStarEdit, and LinkedIn.
Experimenting with new markets is not just about bringing in the money; it’s also about opening yourself up to new opportunities and experiences.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’m a creature of habit. I’m also a firm believer in not putting my eggs in one basket. Most of the prospective clients who contact me are similar to my existing clients: academic publishers. I know this market well – I understand its language; I’m familiar with its processes; and the expectations of what the work will involve are understood by me and the presses for whom I work. Taking on work in areas that are unfamiliar can be somewhat daunting. How much should you charge? What’s the going rate? How long will the work take? Does your new client’s understanding of terms such as “proofreading” or “editing” match your own? Will you be comfortable doing the work? There’s nothing wrong with sticking to your comfort zone, especially if you enjoy the work. But every now and then it doesn’t hurt to take a punt. After all, the best-case scenario is that you find a new niche – another string to your editorial bow – while the worst-case scenario is simply that it doesn’t work out. And, really, what's wrong with that?
A. What if the work doesn’t suit you?
The great thing about being a freelance business owner is that you can always close the relationship if things don’t work out as planned. And even if your hoped-for long-term business relationship ends up being rather shorter than expected, you can still notch up the completed work to experience and use the knowledge you’ve gained to inform your future choices.
B. You like the work but the financial return is much lower than expected
I find it quite easy to estimate how much time work from academic publishers will take because it’s a market with which I’m familiar. Quoting for work outside the field is far harder for many editorial freelancers – and it may be that you make a mistake and seriously under-quote. One way to avoid this is to offer a trial rate that you’ll honour for the first few projects, but suggest the possibility of reviewing the fee structure a little further down the road once you’ve completed one or two pieces of work. If you haven’t gone for the trial option, and find that the work is taking much longer than expected (causing your hourly rate to plummet), don’t beat yourself up about it. Contact the client and explain the situation, stating that, of course, you’ll honour the original quote for the initial pieces of work supplied but that if the relationship is to continue you’ll need to review the price with them. In this situation it may be that the client decides they can’t afford your proposed new rate. That’s fair enough – at least the discussion is open and honest. And if you’ve taken the time to give a careful breakdown of the work you’ve done, how long it’s taken, the reasons why you believe you initially underestimated, and why, in order to do the best job for them, you want to review matters, then your client will appreciate your professionalism and see that you’re not trying to rip them off. In this case you'll be able to close the door to each other on good terms. Of course, there's always the negotiated compromise. You can ask them to make you their best offer and decide whether you can live with it. The experience you’re acquiring and your enjoyment of the projects might mean that you’re prepared to take a bit of a hit (though not one that makes you feel as if you are being exploited). Compromise isn’t for everyone, but it is an option.
C. What if the work’s not what you expected?
So you thought you were proofreading but actually you’re editing. Or you thought you were editing but actually you’re writing. Or perhaps you were expecting monthly projects of a couple of thousand words and you’ve ended up with a tome on your desk (or in your inbox). Ask yourself the following:
If the answer to (1) is “no”, then inform your client as soon as possible that the job’s not for you. That way they can find a replacement. If you’re okay with the work but the answer to (2) is negative, then you need to take the same action – tell the client that you’re sincerely sorry but you don’t feel the job is within your skill set; or, if it is but the deadlines are unmanageable, give them the heads-up immediately. In the latter case you may be able to set up new arrangements whereby the time frames are workable. If you still want the work and you’re fit for purpose, but you’re unhappy with the rate (3), it’s time to have the open and honest conversation outlined in section B, above. Many an editorial freelancer has been surprised at how receptive clients can be to procedural or rate reviews as long as the conversation is timely, polite and expressed in a way that acknowledges their needs. If your work is of high quality, your client may just bend over backwards to make the relationship work. Taking a punt brings up all sorts of unexpected pleasures, but sometimes a little pain, too. Good communication framed by honesty and immediacy will make the journey less bumpy. Whatever happens, as my editor friend Janet MacMillan recently advised, “There’s no point in getting one’s knickers in a knot over it. You win some and you lose some in this gig!”
With the release of version 2 of PerfectIt, it seemed the ideal time to put some questions to Daniel Heuman, managing director of Intelligent Editing. I've been a PerfectIt user for some years and I'm looking forward to upgrading to the new version.
Visit the Intelligent Editing website for more information about PerfectIt. You might also like the PerfectIt User Forum, where you can ask questions, suggest improvements and download style sheets. In the meantime, if you're open to complementing your editorial eye with useful ancillary tools, and want to learn a little more from the developer, read on ...
Louise Harnby: For the benefit of those who’ve never used PerfectIt, Daniel, tell us a bit about what it does.
Daniel Heuman: PerfectIt is a consistency checker. Just as you have a spell checker for spelling, and a grammar checker for grammar, PerfectIt checks documents for consistency mistakes. For example, if you hyphenate "copy-editor" in one location in a document, it’s important to make sure that’s consistent throughout. So PerfectIt checks consistency of hyphenation, capitalization, abbreviations, numerals in sentences, list punctuation and many other things. PerfectIt also helps check points of style. PerfectIt can be customized with house style preferences and used to check those. For example, one editor programmed PerfectIt to check WHO (World Health Organization) style and made that available to all users. Anyone wanting to check WHO style can just load up that stylesheet and PerfectIt will check for over 1600 preferences. From "hyponatraemia" (not "hyponatremia") to "corrigenda" (not "corrigendums"), that’s an invaluable resource to anyone working with the style. Finally, PerfectIt helps tidy up documents. It checks that abbreviations are defined, that users haven’t left notes to themselves in text (e.g. "NB: insert figure here") and it can create a table of abbreviations (automatically locating all abbreviations and their definitions) in seconds. LH: I was discussing all things business to a friend of mine who’s a marketing manager. He writes a lot of quite lengthy reports for internal and external use. I suggested PerfectIt to him and his response was: "I don’t see the need for something like that – there’s a spell check on my PC and I’ve got a good eye.” What would you say to him? DH: I’d probably scream “oh-my-god-you-are-wasting-your-life!” Actually, that’s not true … I’m English, so I’d probably roll my eyes and walk away! The truth is that there are two reasons why he should be using PerfectIt. The first is speed. How long does it take him to find one inconsistency? He needs to read through his entire text, locate each word that is capitalized and check/remember to capitalize that word throughout. Then he needs to do the same for hyphenation, abbreviations, heading case, and so much more. PerfectIt finds all of that in seconds. He really is wasting his life by doing it the long way. The second reason for him to switch to PerfectIt is quality. PerfectIt helps users to really take pride in their work. It isn’t possible for the human brain to keep track of consistency once documents pass several thousand words. Some 80% of documents over 1000 words that are published online contain a capitalization inconsistency, and over 60% contain a hyphenation inconsistency (see The Top 10 Consistency Mistakes). Even if we restrict it to spelling, over 20% of documents over 1000 words that are published online contain a spelling inconsistency. There’s nothing a spell checker can do about that last category. The word "adviser" and "advisor" are both correct spellings. But if they appear in the same document, that’s an inconsistency. Some people won’t ever be convinced. But the stats are real. And as soon as they try PerfectIt, they get it. LH: So PerfectIt’s not just for editors or proofreaders. It feels like you developed it with a much broader audience in mind … DH: My background is in economics, and I started out as an economic consultant. Most of the tests that PerfectIt carries out are based on real world experience at that time. For example, we’d deliver reports for businesses and government, but at the end of each report we’d have to go through carefully and make sure that bullets were consistently capitalized and punctuated. We’d check that abbreviations were defined in their first instance, and that they were only defined once. So PerfectIt was designed very much for that market, with a focus on consultants, engineers, lawyers, and medical professionals. It was only when PerfectIt was released that it was adopted by the editing community, translators and technical writers. In terms of overall revenue, the big companies are probably more significant. But in terms of volume, it’s the individual editors who have been most important. I stopped counting sales to members of the Society for Editors and Proofreaders after it reached 100. And the success is similar with other editing societies around the world. But it’s not just about volume. Editors are wonderful customers because they send feedback. Is there any group in the world better at spotting flaws in editing software? You better believe I get a lot emails with examples that PerfectIt has missed. The result is that we’re always improving the product based on the mails we get. LH: I’ve been pleased to see that you email me and your other customers with updates every now and then. Can you tell us about the driving factors behind these updates? And if f I say to you, “I’d really like it if PerfectIt did X or Y”, might I expect to see my suggestion in future versions? DH: Yes, we can’t include all suggestions, but we have a place on our user forum where customers can bounce around feedback for future versions. For the first three years, those updates have all been free. And the ones suggested by users include support for multiple style guides, and the system for dealing with tracked changes in documents. After three years, PerfectIt 2.0 will be the first major version upgrade that users will have to pay for. PerfectIt has a permanent licence (no subscription fee or anything like that), so in order to justify people spending more money on it, we’ve had to load PerfectIt 2 with user requests and lots of other new features. In particular, we’ve added a "Back" button (possibly the most requested feature) and a system for generating reports on errors and on changes made, which is probably the second most requested feature. LH: And what are the biggest challenges you’ve faced during development? DH: The constant challenge is to choose between complexity and usability. The more features and tests we add to the product, the more complex it becomes. But what people love about PerfectIt is the ease of use. So we’re constantly trying to balance those two. With any new feature, the first question is: "Can we get the software to do that?" But the second question is: "Will it be easy for the user to understand?" LH: Does PerfectIt work for customers outside the UK? Some of the North American or Pacific Rim readers may be wondering if they can use it. DH: PerfectIt is international. It doesn't duplicate the functions of a spelling checker, but it will spot inconsistencies in language. So, for example, it won't correct "realise" or "realize". However, if "realise" and "realize" appear in the same document, that’s a consistency mistake. Whether you’re in Europe, North America or the Pacific Rim, a consistency mistake is still a consistency mistake. LH: People are often concerned about buying software and then finding out that it doesn’t do what they hoped. Can you try it before you buy it? DH: There is a free download on the website. Users can try it without giving any credit card details or other personal information. Just download it and run it on a document. When they try it, most people get what the product is about in seconds. The only suggestion we make is that PerfectIt is intended for longer documents. There’s no point in trying it out on a paragraph of text because that won’t contain many inconsistencies. Try PerfectIt on a document that’s over 1,000 words. Or better yet, try it on a document that’s over 10,000 words. That’ll show you what it can do. LH: What does the future look like at Intelligent Editing? Do you have any plans for additional software tools or plug-ins? PerfectIt 2 took an enormous amount of development time and effort, so it might be a while before we start anything new. However, there are a few projects under consideration, so we’ll let you know when we’ve decided. LH: I often post on this blog about my favourite editorial tools. Aside, of course, from PerfectIt, what are your favourite tools and resources? Anything you like … software, books, online resources and social media. DH: My favourite free tool for writing and editing is ClipX. It modifies the clipboard so that it shows the last 25 items that were copied, no matter what program they were copied in. After using it, I can’t understand why anyone would choose to work without it. It’s more for writing than for editing, but I think that Word’s "AutoCorrect" feature is underrated. Why write out the word ‘"necessary" when you can program AutoCorrect to spell the word in full when you type ‘"nry"? You can quickly build yourself up an entire vocabulary and save lots of time typing. I’m also a really big fan of Jack Lyon’s Editorium macros. Jack has put a lot of thought into the documentation, and the result is a system that helps you to work a lot faster. People don’t believe that faster keystrokes and saving a second or two each time can make a difference. But they really do. LH: And finally, tell us something that might surprise us! DH: In my other life, I’m a swing dancer. That’s partner dancing to big band jazz and old-time blues … and nothing at all to do with editing!
An open letter to new proofreaders (in fact, editors of all descriptions) ...
Dear newbie proofreader,
I’ve told you a lie – I don’t hate the term “freelance proofreader”. “I’m freelance”, “I went freelance in …”, and “since I’ve been freelancing” are phrases I trot out all the time to explain the way I organize my work life. I'll be frank with you, though – I do sometimes worry that the term “freelance” doesn’t quite cut the mustard. If I’d spent 15 years working as an electrician for an electrical installations company and then decided to go it alone, I’d never have described myself as a "freelance electrician". I’d have told people that I was now running my own electrical business. Does “freelancer” really reflect the level of business acumen required to do my job? And it’s not just my ability to make sound judgements and take the right decisions. It’s bigger than that – it’s that whole sense of business-cultural embeddedness that’s at stake. If I don’t think of myself as a business owner, then am I in danger of not acting like one? And if I don’t act like one, why would anyone else think to treat me as one? Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs does not consider me a “freelancer”. Rather, I’m a sole trader. I’m the owner of a business that employs exactly one person. I carry out tax self-assessment on an annual basis just as if I was that business-owning electrician I mentioned above. Just like the electrician, I’m hired by a number of different clients to carry out professional services. Just like the electrician, I set my own rates (though perhaps unlike our electrician I may agree to – or decline – an offered fee). Just like the electrician, it’s up to me to decide whether I want to accept a client’s offer of work or decline it. Just like the electrician, I work the hours I choose to work and take holiday leave when I decide to. And just like the electrician, the only person who can fire me is, well, me. Does a freelancer work in a different way to that of a business owner? This one doesn’t. So what’s the problem with referring to myself as “freelance”? I don’t think there is one as long as I’m clear in my mind about what needs to be done – and being a business owner is more than just a being a proofreader (or an electrician).
I could say more but I have a work deadline to meet and a child who's complaining of a sore throat, so there isn’t time right now. I hope this gets you thinking, anyway. So, dear newbie, if in your own head the term “freelance” doesn’t conjure up an image of these many hats, then I’d advise you instead to start thinking of yourself as a business owner first and foremost. To do otherwise may leave you ill-prepared for the myriad functions that you’ll need to perform (and that you may have little experience of) when you start out. You'll be the luckiest editorial freelancer in the world if the work just lands in your lap. It's far more likely that you'll have to work very hard to get yourself established. Become “freelance” by all means, but do your business planning just like any other new business owner. With best wishes,
Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader
Contact information: To enable me to deal with your query as quickly and efficiently as possible, please contact the relevant department. Owner: Louise Harnby President: Louise Harnby Chief Executive Officer: Louise Harnby Marketing Director: Louise Harnby Web Developer: Louise Harnby Sales Manager: Louise Harnby Professional Development Director: Louise Harnby Training Coordinator: Louise Harnby Financial Controller: Louise Harnby Distribution Manager: Louise Harnby Human Resources Officer: Louise Harnby IT Executive: Louise Harnby Office Manager: Louise Harnby Proofreader: Louise Harnby Copyeditor: Louise Harnby
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
An important element of successful freelance proofreading is that of knowing your market – in order to build up a solid client base you need to focus on your strengths and understand what your clients need from you.
The sector you know … Here’s an example of a sector I know: When I work for publishers I’m strictly a proofreader. I worked in social science academic publishing for years. When I started down the freelance route I did the appropriate training; then I targeted the market I knew best and in which I had experience. Academic publishing companies have very clear-cut editorial processes and the roles of development editor, copy-editor and proofreader are clearly defined. In this sector the briefs and levels of intervention vary from press to press, but the editorial process is the same, broadly speaking.
Rather, my job is to check that the typesetter’s interpretation of the copy-editor’s work is correct, that the page layout is acceptable, and that any remaining typographical oddities, spelling, punctuation or grammar errors haven’t slipped through. There may be specific instructions from the client to leave alone or pay attention to specific issues around house style, so the brief for each project will be something I have to pay careful attention to. However, It is extremely rare that I am faced with page proofs that require heavy intervention. That would indicate that something has gone seriously wrong earlier in the chain.
Sectors you don’t know …
If you are used to working for a particular type of client (businesses, students, self-publishing authors, publishers), or in a specific subject field (STM, social sciences, fiction, company reports, theses), don’t assume that your clients’ processes, needs or expectations will be the same. The term 'proofreading' means different things to different people. The chance to diversify is exciting, but proofreaders need to take care that they understand what the client expects. We owe it to our clients and we owe it to ourselves. Failure to do so can lead to a lot of head-scratching at best, and a dissatisfied client at worst.
What to watch out for …
PhD student: 'Dear Ms Harnby, I need someone to copy-edit/proofread my media studies thesis … English is not my first language … my supervisor says I need some things to be checked, too …' This client doesn’t understand the difference between copy-editing and proofreading; they think 'it’s all the same kind of thing'. While they might benefit from the latter further down the line, they’re definitely asking for the skills of the former in this case. Trade publisher: '... we're on a short deadline and haven't had time to compile the index. Would you be able to fit this in?' Indexing is an art all of its own. The client is asking for a skillset completely separate from either copy-editing or proofreading. Self-publishing author: 'Dear Louise, I landed on your Twitter page and wondered if you would be free to proofread my book. I also need some advice on how the book reads and any feedback on the plot and characters … this is my first novel so I’d appreciate any help you can offer me.' This client is unfamiliar with the various stages of the editorial process. They need a development editor, not a proofreader, before they start worrying about whether the words are spelled correctly or the apostrophes are in the correct place. Trade publisher: 'Dear Ms Harnby … are you free to take on a commercial non-fiction proofread? … We like our proofreaders to be very interventionist … feel free to recast anything that seems clunky or in your opinion doesn’t work …' It’s not that this client has a fabulous deal with their typesetter, meaning heavy revision at this stage in the process won’t hurt the bottom line. It probably means that copy-editing has fallen victim to cost-reduction measures. I suspect I am being commissioned as a proofreader and paid proofreading rates, but the client wants me to do something more akin to a copy-edit of the page proofs. Local business: '… we found your details in the Yellow Pages and see from your website that you have extensive experience of proofreading management and business titles … we need a 70-page internal report to be checked for grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes. The report was compiled by eight individuals so we’re also keen to ensure consistency of the writing style …' This client needs a proofreader for the first element of the job and an editor for the second. The above are all examples I’ve encountered in requests for my 'proofreading' services.
What should you do?
It will be tempting to take the work, and maybe you should. After all, you’ve secured this fabulous opportunity to diversify your client portfolio, perhaps in a sector that you’ve wanted to exploit but didn’t know how to access. Proofreading, indexing, copy-editing and development editing are not the same thing. The input is different, the output is different, the skills are different, the training is different, and the rates of pay are different. Some potential clients may understand this but be looking to get a different level of intervention at a bargain price. Others will simply be unaware of the distinct roles within editorial freelancing. The rate of pay is not in my opinion the most pressing factor here. The most important issues are:
Are you also a trained copy-editor or indexer? Can you put on these other hats and do they fit comfortably? If so, you’re in a position to take on the work if you want to. If you do not have the relevant skills, you could find yourself coming unstuck. You may not fulfil the client’s expectations. That they aren’t fulfilling yours is irrelevant because you’re no longer in control. You might do a good job, but you might not. You won’t know because you’re not a copy-editor/development editor/indexer. If you anticipate a problem before you receive the work, you can nip the issue in the bud. Explain your understanding of the various editorial roles clearly to the client and make it explicit what services you are prepared/able to offer. This will ensure there are no surprises at either end of the process. If the problem isn’t obvious until after you’ve received the proofs or early on in the job, and you don’t feel comfortable, say, copy-editing material you’ve been hired to proofread, spell this out to the client as a matter of urgency. Why? Because it puts you back in control. If you lose the work or the professional relationship comes to a close, it’s because you’ve decided to not work with the client, not the other way around.
Wrapping up …
Diversifying your client portfolio and the types of work you are doing can be a very attractive proposition, particularly if
Ensure you have the relevant skills and a solid understanding of what is required for the sector you’re entering. Finding yourself out of your depth will hurt you as much as your client. For an overview of the different levels of editing, see my free webinar. For information on indexing, read the guidance from the Society of Indexers. For advice on editorial training, contact your national or regional editing society – a list of the primary worldwide societies is available here.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast.
If you’re proofreading onscreen, either with my proofreading stamps or your software’s comment and mark-up tools, it’s worth spending a few minutes to set up the various onscreen elements in an ergonomic fashion as well as familiarizing yourself with basic keyboard shortcuts.
Some aspects of onscreen work are speedier – searching for and implementing global changes, for example – while moving between the various mark-up tools is not as quick as using a hand and pen. There are, however, things you can do to compensate and make your onscreen experience more effective.
1. Make the toolbar work for you Shift the most-used elements on your toolbar so that they are near to each other and on the side of the screen with which you operate your mouse. These elements might include the typewriter, mark-up tools, text tools, and stamp and save buttons. Use your mouse to click, hold and drag the elements across the toolbar ribbon.
2. Use the stamps palette
Use stamps of proofreading symbols to complement the comment box and mark-up tools in your PDF editor. You can create your own or use the sets I’ve already developed. They’re available free of charge here. If you’re unfamiliar with these, see PDF Editing: Making the Most of the Stamps Tool. Remember to keep your stamps palette open; it will save you time when selecting each stamp you want to use. In XChange you can minimize the size of the symbols as they appear in the palette (see the highlight in the screenshot to the left). This enables you to see a greater number of stamps while you are working without having to scroll up and down the palette. In Acrobat, the palette is not as user-friendly, so use a second screen to get the best of the display. In XChange, number similar stamps sequentially so that they appear in a logical order. This will make it easier to find the stamp you need, particularly if each palette contains a lot of symbols (If you’ve downloaded my XChange stamps simply change the number-name in order to re-sequence them). It's useful to keep your palettes of different-coloured stamps separate so that the palettes don't become overly cluttered. Again, this will enable you to locate the stamp you need more efficiently.
3. Hook up a second screen
I generally use a laptop, but I hook up my old desktop screen to enable me to use two screens at once when I’m doing onscreen work. This works well on three counts:
4. Utilize basic keyboard shortcuts These are my preferred keyboard shortcuts when working with PDFs. There are many, many more but I like these because all but one can be managed easily with one hand. Alt Tab: this is one of my most-used keyboard short cuts and is especially useful if you only have one screen to work on and need to flit between different programs or files. Ctrl S: save Ctrl C: copy Ctrl X: cut Ctrl V: paste Ctrl Z: undo Ctrl A: select all Ctrl Shift F: opens search window 5. Bookmark key pages If you refer back to the same key pages time and again and your client hasn’t already bookmarked these (contents, part titles, chapter first page, bibliography, index etc.), it’s easy to do it yourself and will save you time. Use Ctrl B to open the bookmark function in Acrobat, PDF-XChange or PDF-XChange Viewer and name your page. 6. Use a snipping tool to make your own quickie stamps If you are constantly using a particular combination of mark-up symbols in a piece of work (e.g. you have to change A to Å many times), you can make your own quickie stamp using a snipping tool. Windows supplies this, but if your operating system doesn’t there are plenty of free alternatives online. Pin it to the task bar at the bottom of your screen to access it quickly. In the case given above, you would use the typewriter to print Å on your PDF, followed by the replace-slash stamp. Use your snipping tool to draw round both marks and save. Then import your new stamp into your palette. Now you only have to make one click, not two, in order to make the margin mark.
Related articles
To access the stamps files, see the article Free Downloadable Proofreading Stamps. For a more detailed look at using stamps for onscreen work, go to PDF Editing: Making the Most of the Stamps Tool. For installation instructions, click here. Anything to share? Do you have any tips to share for more efficient onscreen work, such as favourite keyboard shortcuts or using function keys? Please share them with us in the Comments section below so that we can all improve our onscreen working experience.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. FIND OUT MORE > Get in touch: Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader > Connect: Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, Facebook and LinkedIn > Learn: Books and courses > Discover: Resources for authors and editors
Solitude vivifies; isolation kills.
Joseph Roux (nineteenth-century priest and poet) I worked in an office for nearly fifteen years before I went freelance. I’d stop and chat with friends and colleagues by the water cooler or coffee machine. There was always someone to talk to; sometimes it was difficult to knuckle down to the job, so social was the environment. Now that I’m freelance, I work from home. I don’t have colleagues in the traditional sense. I’m on my own from 9 a.m. until 3 p.m. Non-freelancers have frequently asked me how I deal with the isolation and are often surprised when I reply, “I don’t feel isolated.”
The experience is certainly different from that of my prior office life and it requires a different mindset, but need it be isolating? Or was Roux onto something when he reminds us of the different ways of being alone? I asked some of my freelance editorial colleagues about how they manage a life of working from home.
The following is a summary of our collective wisdom on how to generate your very own freelance water cooler when you need it, and bathe in the quietness when you don’t. The challenges Many of us become freelance because it suits our needs – moving house, moving country, redundancy, parenting, disability, and caring for dependents are just some of the reasons why people move their work base from the office to the home. These changes can bring rewards but also challenges, forcing us to withdraw from the traditional and easily accessible friendship and professional groups that we’d previously relied on. Some of the contributors to this article highlighted how having young children has provided them with much-needed human contact at the school gates. But many of us still miss the “office banter”, the “colleague” element – Jo Allen summed it up well, referring to “those people who do the same or similar jobs so you can swap and share ideas: the manager who always supports your ideas; the people who are there to confirm your decisions; the security of responsibilities understood; and the confidence of knowing how to do the job”. Online networking Our discussions highlighted one thing above all else: Facebook. Yes, editorial association-based discussion lists, LinkedIn boards, Twitter and Google+ all came up as recommended spaces for connecting with like-minded colleagues in similar working environments, but Facebook stood out as the place to go to meet, chat, share ideas, and let off steam. Facebook is the ultimate freelance water cooler. Several people actually wondered how they ever coped without it, and one person commented that he’s not sure he’d still be freelance were it not for Facebook. I particularly like the fact that it’s so easy to differentiate one’s public image from the more personal posts that might be limited to friends, down to the private messaging options for the one-on-one chat. Using online networking forums means you don't ever have to feel like you’re working on our own even if there's no one else in the room. Face-to-face networking The other favoured resource for combating feelings of loneliness was the good old-fashioned face-to-face meet. It requires a lot more effort than dipping into your Twitter account, but the rewards are huge. Several contributors commented on the benefits reaped from regular attendance at their local society chapter, and Eva Blaskovic lamented the fact that she didn’t have as much time as she’d like to take advantage of more workshops and functions. If there isn't a local group near to you, you could always follow the lead of Helen Stevens and set one up! Joining your national editorial freelancing society may be a critical first step in accessing colleagues who face the same professional and personal challenges as you, as well as providing excellent social and learning opportunities. To find your local, regional or national freelance editorial group, visit the Editing & Proofreading Societies page. See also the Networking section of the Copyeditors’ Knowledge Base, curated by Katharine O’Moore-Klopf – a hugely comprehensive resource for freelancers. Of course, you needn’t limit yourself to editorial groups. “I’m also looking into various local small business networking groups – there seem to be quite a few nearby that are specifically for women or mothers,” commented Abi Saffrey. And another colleague is pursuing an MA, which gives her valuable face-to-face time with adults. Sara Peacock emphasized the value of joining hobby-based groups, such as a choir or knitting group, and Wendy Toole explained how, prior to the internet era, she took a series of minor part-time jobs, which gave her both additional income and social contact with other people. Cafe culture “Scope out a decent coffee shop – having the odd couple of hours working in a different environment with people around makes you feel a lot less isolated and a lot more like you're just your own boss,” was a sound piece of advice from Gaz Haman. That got the thumbs-up from many of the discussants. It’s all about a change of scenery. Even if you’re not directly interacting with other people in a particular place, time spent outside your usual work space is an effective refresher. You can even incorporate your java time with your work – the cafe may not be the best place in which to do editorial tasks that require deep concentration, but it may be a space where you can catch up on emails, invoicing or any of your more general house-keeping tasks. Co-working One of the most innovative solutions was highlighted by both Sally Fildes-Moss and Kristine Hunt. Co-working is “where freelancers meet up to work alongside each other in places such as cafes” , enabling them “to feel less isolated, pick each other's brains, bounce ideas off one another and so on – or just to work in a less solitary environment”. Sally emphasized the fact that there is less pressure to market oneself in these situations, providing instead “a bit more of an office atmosphere than a networking atmosphere”. For an interesting case study of co-working, she recommends the following article: Co-working Could Bring Inspiration. Kristine points us towards Meetup, an online resource that helps you to join or create relevant local community groups – absolutely worth a gander if you’re feeling that isolation is getting on top of you and you’re stuck for ideas of how to move forward. Pet paradise I’m not joking – having a dog can be a sure-fire way to combat feelings of isolation. No, they won’t be able to bounce business ideas around with you and they won’t be able to advise you on how to deal with the frustrated author of the book you’re editing, but pets still make wonderful companions. My trusty Lab is always ready with a tail wag whenever I’m stressed by a deadline or tackling a particularly demanding proofreading job. And as Wendy Toole reminded us, dog walkers are usually sociable and you get work on your health – keeping you work fit and body fit. They keep your feet warm in winter, too. Other options If you don’t fancy any of the above, consider the following:
Is it isolation or solitude? The first question my colleague Kristine Hunt asked during our discussion is: “Why assume isolation is bad? I don't miss the office politics, formal clothing, jockeying for time off, etc. I'm not so much antisocial as one who enjoys quiet time alone, so freelancing at home is ideal in that regard.” Many of us felt the same way. Freelancing from home does require a different mindset, but once you’re in it, it can be quite hard to revert to old ways of working. Others commented that the solitude that homeworking brings allows you to work at your own pace. “I can get so much work done just focusing at home and taking breaks only when I need – or don't need – them,” noted Eva Blaskovic. And Hester Higton remarked, “I love being able to shut myself away from the world and have my own space where I can beaver away at my own pace.” To round off, Sarah Wright points to an illuminating article from Susan Cain in the New York Times Sunday Review, The Rise of the New Groupthink, in which she reminds us that being alone, and enjoying the attendant privacy and freedom from interruption, can be an intensely creative and rewarding experience. Many of us do need our water coolers, online or off, but we can also enjoy the solitude that our freelance homeworking status brings us.
Do you work on your own? Do you have a set of tips or tricks to combat feelings of isolation? Or do you revel in the solitude you derive from home-based freelancing? Please feel free to share your experiences in the Comments section.
Contributors: Many thanks to my generous editorial colleagues who took the time share their thoughts and experiences: Abi Saffrey, Corbett Brown, Eva Blaskovic, Gaz Haman, Helen Stevens, Hester Higton, Jo Allen, Kristine Hunt, Sally Fildes-Moss, Sara Peacock, Sarah Wright, and Wendy Toole.
Louise Harnby is a line editor, copyeditor and proofreader who specializes in working with crime, mystery, suspense and thriller writers.
She is an Advanced Professional Member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading (CIEP), a member of ACES, a Partner Member of The Alliance of Independent Authors (ALLi), and co-hosts The Editing Podcast. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Fiction Editor & Proofreader, say hello on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, connect via Facebook and LinkedIn, and check out her books and courses.
Want to annotate a PDF with digital proofreading marks? Below are my free proofreading stamps files in red, blue and black. They conform to British Standard BS 5261-2 (2005).
You will not have to resize these stamps – I've designed them to work with the font size that most book files use. Simply upload them into your PDF editor and you’re ready to go!
|
BLOG ALERTSIf you'd like me to email you when a new blog post is available, sign up for blog alerts!
PDF MARKUPAUTHOR RESOURCESEDITOR RESOURCESTESTIMONIALSDare Rogers'Louise uses her expertise to hone a story until it's razor sharp, while still allowing the author’s voice to remain dominant.'Jeff Carson'I wholeheartedly recommend her services ... Just don’t hire her when I need her.'J B Turner'Sincere thanks for a beautiful and elegant piece of work. First class.'Ayshe Gemedzhy'What makes her stand out and shine is her ability to immerse herself in your story.'Salt Publishing'A million thanks – your mark-up is perfect, as always.'CATEGORIES
All
ARCHIVES
April 2024
|
|
|