don't mess

[magid]

with my files. if you're commenting on my edit, write the comments on the hard copy, or type in new paragraphs if you want, but don't take a copy of my file and type in the new stuff over it - then i have to look at each & every word to see if it's changed... at least she didn't put it on the server in the revised version, but it's still damn annoying. why can't she see this?

Comments

[queue.livejournal.com]

Wow, that's nuts.

Here's an email I got when I said people shouldn't all be touching one particular file on the server:

I have placed a Mixed Review Cheklist on the server. Please fill in the information for your lessons. When you are ready to fill in the checklist, take it off the server. Send an email to the other people in the group that you are using the checklist. Fill in your information and retrun it to the server as quickly as possible. This will avoid the problem of one peron taking the document off the server and then saving over someone else's information that may have been entered while the document was sitting on the first person's desktop.

Yes, that's much simpler than having one person in charge of making the changes, like I suggested. I wish I could have thought of that.

Are all offices this bad? I'm sure there have to be some places where everyone that works there has a clue.

actually...

[cthulhia]

my experiences in many worksites is that file overwriting is a Giant Bear of an Issue.

Some companies program the system to oblige a new file to be created everytime there are edits, creating elaborate bandwidth sucking server usage to do so, that crashes a lot.

Some companies only allow the editors to see pdf's, so that all changes get sent to the one production artist assigned to the file, who is doing save as's between edits as part of their file management checklist, and making sure the server has a fresh back-up made every day, that does not save-over (but saves-as) active documents.

Some companies only allow editors to see print-outs, and send all changes to the assigned artist.

Not that anything has ever stopped editors from ruining an artist's, or another editor's, day.

Re: actually...

[magid.livejournal.com]

here, when files are poured from word to quark, they are also put in a system that checks the file out to whichever person is working on it then, and anyone else can only take a (dead) copy.

but before that, during the beginning rounds of editing in word, the convention is that one editor owns the file, and comments are given on hard copy or typed, but not typed in the original document. it's hard to find small changes that way. of course, sometimes there are more people touching a file than that (schedules always do seem to get behind), but it's far from usual.
at least she didn't put the revised file on the server (i'd made intermediate changes to it).

[stgpcm.livejournal.com]

Have you tried the revision tracking tools in word? I find them useful when others are proofing my work, I can whizz through the changes, accepting/rejecting as I go. The comment tools also work reasonably.

[magid.livejournal.com]

i haven't used those tools yet. i don't think i'd have a problem using them; it's just that the convention in this office is that the editor is given comments (not necessarily from a single source, either) on a hard copy (or email, or something), but the file is left for the editor to revise as per sees fit.

(i guess in the end this was yet another "grrr" about my still-new boss who doesn't pay attention to the office norms here, about a bunch of things, and somehow it just drives me nuts. or it's that her management style is not at all what i'm used to & prefer....)