An American Editor

February 10, 2016

EditTools & My Editing Process: Part I

I have been asked to describe how EditTools fits in the editing process. I have avoided doing so because each editor works differently and the way I edit suits me but may not suit someone else. However, I have been asked that again as part of a question about EditTools, and I have decided that perhaps the time has come to explain how I use EditTools in my editing process.

Usually the manuscripts I edit — all nonfiction, with a majority being STEM (science, technology, engineering, and medicine) — come to me in groups of a few chapters. Occasionally I will receive the entire book, but even then it is usually divided into chapter files. When the book is given to me as a single file, I divide it into chapter files.

I know some editors prefer to work with a single file that represents the whole book. I do not, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the books I usually work on are much too long to effectively edit as a single file — sometimes a single chapter runs more than 400 manuscript pages. In addition, Word is not the most stable of programs, and the larger the file (and the more that goes on in the file), the more likely it is that Word will crash — and keep on crashing. More important, however, is that by working on chapter-size files, I can add to my EditTools datasets and have those additions applied in future chapters. Without reading every word, I cannot know in advance every decision that I need to make.

Before-Editing Steps

Step 1: Delete Unused Styles

I receive basically two types of files: ones that the authors designed and ones that the clients have manipulated before sending them to me (in my work, authors are not my clients). Sometimes I need to apply a template to the file. In the case of the author-designed file or a file to which I need to apply a template, the first thing I do is run the Delete Unused Styles macro (#1) shown here:

Delete Unused Styles

Delete Unused Styles

By running this macro, I eliminate many (not all) of the author-created styles that aren’t used in the document and narrow the number of styles that I need to deal with.

Step 2: Cleanup & Style Language

After that, I run the Cleanup macro (#2). The Cleanup macro has its own Manager (shown below), which lets me set what I want cleaned up (#3). It also lets me link to a Specialty file (#4) for additional cleanup that is specific to the project (or type of project) I am working on. The Manager lets me set the order of the cleanup by moving the items around, although I don’t bother — instead I run the macro twice. The main field shows me what will be done (#5). And, as is true of all EditTools datasets, I can save my cleanup profile (#6). What that means is that I can create custom cleanups based on client or type of project or any other criterion and recall them as needed.

Cleanup macro

Cleanup macro

As part of this step, I also run the Change Style Language macro, which is found under Other on the Other menu, as shown here.

process 2 A

Change Style Language

I run the macro to make sure that the language used is uniformly U.S. English and to make sure Spell Check is on. Authors tend to use multiple languages and sometimes turn off Spell Check. The macro gives me the option to choose any Word-supported language and to turn Spell Check on or off, as shown here:

process 2 B

Choosing the Spell Check Language

After I have made my choices, I click Update and the macro will update the document’s styles.

This is also the step where I run the Superscript Me macro, which is found on the References menu, as shown here:

Superscript Me

Superscript Me

Superscript Me lets me change how reference numbers appear in the text. For example, if the author has the numbers in square brackets (e.g., [122]) when they should be superscript without the brackets, I can quickly make the change throughout the document by running this macro. The macro also lets me choose how the numbers are to appear in relation to punctuation; the choices are between the AMA and the Chicago options, as shown here:

Setting Superscript Me's Options

Setting Superscript Me’s Options

(Tip: If the numbers are correctly superscripted but incorrectly placed in relation to punctuation, select None and the correct style type, then run the macro. The numbers will remain superscript, but the style will be corrected. This will also clear out any spaces in superscripted numbers following a comma [e.g., superscripted 132, 134 will become superscripted 132,134].)

Step 3A: Coding & Styling

After the Cleanup step, I code or style the document. In the “olden” days, I applied the codes or styles as I edited, but with EditTools, it is easier and quicker to apply them before editing begins. I may change some during editing (e.g., change a numbered list to a bulleted list), but nearly all remain as originally coded/styled.

Most of the projects I work on require me to either add coding or apply client template styles to the text. If it is codes, I use the Code Inserter Manager; if it is styles, I use the Style Inserter Manager. Consequently, creating the Inserter dataset for the project is next on my to-do list. Because clients tend to use the same styles and codes, I generally open an existing dataset and just make necessary changes, such as in the way a head is to appear (e.g., title case bold, all capitals, or sentence case italic). Here is a Code Inserter Manager dataset:

Code Inserter Manager dataset

Code Inserter Manager dataset

Note that the sample is the 9th edition of a book (#7). I took the project-specific Code Inserter dataset for the 8th edition of this book and copied it for the 9th edition, and then made whatever changes were required, such as in head casing (#8) or options (#9) or code to be used (#10). Within a few minutes, I was set to begin coding.

The same is true with the Style Inserter, shown below. Often a client uses standard designs rather than creating a new design for each book. The client tells me the standard design to use for the project and I open the style dataset (#7) for that design. Again, I may need to make some adjustments (#8, #9, #10), but once I have created the basic dataset, I can reuse it repeatedly (#7). The Style Inserter Manager is very similar to the Code Inserter Manager.

Style Inserter Manager dataset

Style Inserter Manager dataset

Step 3B: Bookmarks

At the same time that I open the Inserter (Step 3A), I open the Bookmarks macro, shown below. (In cases where I do not have to code/style, this is the only portion of Step 3 that I do.) I always add two bookmarks — refs, which is required by the NSW macro, and editing paused here, which is my generic bookmark for when I pause in editing for some reason (arrows & #11) — to every manuscript. In addition, as I code/style, I insert a bookmark at each table (e.g., Table 01, Table 02, etc.) and figure (e.g., Fig 01, Fig 02, etc.), and at any other item, such as boxed text, that I may need to find again. I use the bookmarks as a way to track what tables and figures have been called out in text and edited. They also provide an easy way to get from my current location to where the table or figure is located, and back again. After I edit a figure, for example, Fig 01, I change its bookmark name to x Fig 01 edited. The x causes the bookmark to move to the end of the list and edited tells me that it has been edited. This makes it easy to catch a missed text callout as well as to get to and from a figure, table, or other bookmarked text.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Part II continues the preediting steps (Steps 4 and 5) and introduces the first editing step (Step 6), which is editing the references. Part III discusses the final step (Step 7), editing the text.

Richard Adin, An American Editor

_______________

Looking for a Deal?

You can buy EditTools in a package with PerfectIt and Editor’s Toolkit Plus 2014 at a special savings of $78 off the price if bought individually. To purchase the package at the special deal price, click Editor’s Toolkit Ultimate.

January 27, 2016

The Business of Editing: Creating Multiple Journals Datasets Simultaneously

I have written in past essays (see, e.g., The Business of Editing: Journals, References, & Dollars and The Business of Editing: Cite Work Can Be Profitable) about the Journals macro and how useful it is in my editing work. But the usefulness of the macro has always been tempered by the size of the dataset I am using. For example, the sizes of my current datasets are: American Chemical Society (ACS), 30,922; PubMed/American Medical Association (AMA), 98,669; Chicago/American Psychological Association (APA), 1981; and Harvard, 349. Clearly, my PubMed/AMA dataset is the most useful and reflects the type of projects I usually edit.

The other Journals datasets are increasingly being called on, yet at the moment, with the exception of the ACS dataset, they have too few names to be very useful.

The key to many of the macros in EditTools is the dataset; the larger the dataset, the more powerful the macro that uses the dataset. Consequently, how fast a dataset can be built is important.

Over the different versions of EditTools, changes have been introduced to the Journals Manager that were designed to increase the speed and efficiency with which Journals datasets are built. Originally, each entry variation to the dataset had to be made individually. To speed things up the Multiple Entry process was created. It allowed you to enter multiple variations at one time.

But you were still limited to dealing with a single dataset.

Journals version 7 changes that — now you can add entries to as many as five different datasets simultaneously. In addition, you no longer have to manually create each variation; many variations can be created automatically.

Switching to the Multiple Datasets Entry Screen

The first time you open the Journals Manager in EditTools v7, you will see the same Manager you have seen before (shown below) with one exception — the addition of the checkbox (circled in image):

Original Journals Manager Screen

Original Journals Manager Screen

Version 7 offers the Switch to Enhanced Journals Screen checkbox (#1 above). When you check the box, the dialog changes to the enhanced dialog shown here, which becomes the default:

New Enhanced Journals Manager Screen

New Enhanced Journals Manager Screen

If you do not need the multiple-dataset capability, you can return to the original single-dataset capability by checking the Switch to Original Journals Screen (#2), which will become the default journals entry screen again.

The enhanced screen allows journal entries to be added concurrently to as many as five different datasets. When you first open the enhanced screen, the available files are labeled Custom #1 through Custom #5 (#A and #B in above image). However, you can rename these to whatever you would like by double-clicking on the current name in the Always Correct Journal column to open the renaming dialog. For example, double-clicking PubMed/AMA (#3) opens the renaming dialog shown here:

Renaming Dialog

Renaming Dialog

Enter the new name in the provided field (#4), and click OK. The name will be changed immediately to the new name, both in the Always Correct Journal column (#3) and at the corresponding name in the File Data to Show fields (#5).

The enhanced screen can be used to enter a single title, just as in the original screen. In the example shown below, the journal name being entered is Physiol Meas (#6). That form is fine for PubMed/AMA (#7), but not for the other datasets. So, in the fields for the other datasets, the correct forms are entered (#8 to #10). When Add (#11) is clicked, all four datasets are updated simultaneously — a significant timesaver.

Example Journal Entry

Example Journal Entry

It is not necessary to make use of all of the dataset fields. You can use one, five, or any number between. Only those in which the Correct to field has an entry will be updated. In other words, if only the PubMed/AMA dataset is to be updated with the information in #6 and #7, then #8 through #10 are left empty. Clicking Add (#11) updates only the PubMed/AMA dataset — even though three other datasets are identified.

It is important to note that the journal names that appear in #7 through #10 are what the entry in #6 (and the multiple entries that will appear in #8 in the “Multiple Journal Name Entry Dialog” image below) will be changed to. In this example, when Add (#11) is clicked, the Chicago/APA dataset will have added to it the instruction to change Physiol Meas to Physiological Measurement in a document when the Journals macro is run and the Chicago/APA dataset is chosen. Similarly, the ACS dataset will gain the instruction to change Physiol Meas to Physiol. Meas. when the Journals macro is run and the ACS dataset is chosen.

The New Multiple Journal Name Entry Dialog

When the Multiple Entries button (#12 in the “Example Journal Entry” image above) is clicked, both the original and enhanced screens give access to the new Multiple Journal Name Entry dialog shown here:

Multiple Journal Name Entry Dialog

Multiple Journal Name Entry Dialog

This dialog is different from the dialog that appears in in earlier versions of EditTools. The new Multiple Journal Name Entry dialog offers new options, many of which can be preset as default options, that are designed to make entry of multiple items into a single or multiple datasets quick and easy.

Previously, you had to manually enter trailing punctuation; now you can either individually set the trailing punctuation each time or preselect some (or all) (#1) as the default (#2). (If you copy text and paste it in the Text to Add field [#6], and in doing so include ending punctuation, you can tell the macro to ignore that trailing punctuation by checking the Ignore punctuation at the end of entry string box [#5].) Also in earlier versions, if a journal name began with “The” and/or included either “and” or “&”, you had to manually change them. For example, if the journal name was The Journal of Rise & Shine, to enter The Journal of Rise & Shine plus Journal of Rise & Shine, The Journal of Rise and Shine, and Journal of Rise and Shine, you had to enter each variation manually. Now you just need to add checkmarks to the Variations (#3) options.

The same is true for the different capitalization options (#4), except that the Title Case option also has options that are accessed by clicking the Edit button (circled in the above image), which opens this dialog:

Journals Title Case Manager

Journals Title Case Manager

Here you tell the macro which words, when the Title Case option is checked, should always be lowercase unless they are the first word in the journal name. Consider the example shown below (#10). Note the option choices made (#11, #12, and #13). Clicking Add (#14) automatically adds the title and the variations to the main field (#15).

Journals Manager Multiple Entry Options

Journals Manager Multiple Entry Options

More than 50 variations are being added concurrently. You can see all of them at the Journals page at the wordsnSync website; we would need to add four additional images here to display them all.

Once you have generated the variations on a journal name that you want, you can add them to one or more of your journal datasets. The combination of the changes in the generation of variations and the ability to concurrently update up to five datasets makes creation of journals datasets a quick, efficient, and easy process.

The new enhanced Journals screen and the improved Multiple Journal Name Entry screen will enable you to build Journals datasets quickly. One thing to note: If a journal name (or variation) already exists in a dataset, a duplicate will not be added. Only unique names are added. Consequently, it does not matter if one of the Journals datasets already has, for example, The Rise & Shine Journal in it; that particular entry will be ignored for that dataset and the remaining variations that are not duplicates, such as The Rise and Shine Journal and Rise & Shine Journal, will be added.

Building datasets in EditTools is easy; building multiple journals datasets simultaneously in EditTools is also easy.

Richard Adin, An American Editor

___________________

Looking for a Deal?

You can buy EditTools in a package with PerfectIt and Editor’s Toolkit Plus 2014 at a special savings of $78 off the price if bought individually. To purchase the package at the special deal price, click Editor’s Toolkit Ultimate.

January 20, 2016

Business of Editing: Dealing with Reference Renumbering

Over the years I have had to deal with the unpleasant task of renumbering references. Perhaps the author updated the references by inserting “a,b,c” references, such as 57a, 62a, 62b, rather than renumbering. Perhaps the author inadvertently numbered two different references with the same number. Or, even more troublesome, made the reference list alphabetical, numbered the list, and inserted in the text the reference numbers but in a random order, depending on which reference needed to be referred to (e.g., reference callouts in the text might be in this order: 77, 23, 44, 45, 1, 5, 3, 88). In all instances, the client wants the references called out in order (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) and “a,b,c” references converted to the correct number (e.g., 57a would become 58, what was 58 would become 59, etc.).

This renumbering problem isn’t so bad when there are only a handful of references, but I have dealt with chapters requiring renumbering of 400, 500, 600 — even as many as 1100 — references. (Occasionally, the client would agree to leave the numbering as it was provided by the author when the number of references to be renumbered was more than a few hundred, but more times than not the client insisted that the references be renumbered regardless of the number involved.) The process meant that I not only had to renumber the in-text callout, but I had to renumber the reference itself and move it — plus I had to have some method of tracking the changes because of the ripple effect. For example, if the first in-text callout was 77, it had to become 1, and the reference had to be moved to the 1 position in the reference list. I had to have a method to note that what was 77 was now 1 in case 77 appeared in the text again (e.g., as part of a range, such as 74–79) and so that I knew that the number 77 could be assigned to another reference number.

Until EditTools 7.0, the method was pen and paper, a method that took time and invited errors, especially in chapters with many hundreds of references. The original version of Reference # Order check only tracked callout order (see “The Business of Editing: Keeping Reference Callouts in Number Order“); version 7 is greatly enhanced.

The References # Order Check macro (found in the References menu on the EditTools Ribbon) does not actually alter any document data. Unlike other EditTools macros, this macro is wholly self-contained and everything occurs in its dialog, shown here (click images to enlarge them):

Reference # Order Check dialog

Reference # Order Check dialog

Note that there are two “list” areas in the dialog: #1 and #9. Although each is used for a different purpose, they are complementary. The #9 list is used to track reference callouts; #1, combined with #2, is used to track renumbering.

You begin by creating a list of the reference numbers in the document. If the reference list has 50 entries, you enter 50 in the Update List field (#A) and click the Update List button. This will cause the lists at #9 and #1 to be populated with the numbers 1 to 50. If you happen to spot some a,b,c numbers, you add them by entering them one at a time using the Value to Insert (#B) field and either the Insert Before or Insert After field, and clicking the Insert button. For example, if you need to add 39a and 39b, you would enter 39a in the Value to Insert field and either 40 in the Insert Before or 39 in the Insert After field. Once 39a is inserted, you would repeat the process for 39b except that you would use 40 in the Insert Before field or 39a in the Insert after field. Clicking Insert adds the a,b,c references to both the #9 and the #1 lists.

If no renumbering is needed, you use the #1 list to track references to ensure they are called out in number order. When you come to the first callout, if it is number 1 as it is supposed to be, you click on 1 in the #9 list. That will remove the 1 from that list, but not from the renumbering list (#1). If the next called-out number is a range, such as 2–15, you can either click on each number individually in list #9 or you can delete the entire range at once by entering the 2 in first Delete Range field (#7) and 15 in the second field and clicking Delete.

The Count (#8) tracks the number of references in the document at the start and how many remain to be checked. The Next Renumber (#4) serves as a reminder of the next renumber to use. The Renumber Dataset Information file (#6) allows you to save the renumbering information.

Using this macro to track callouts is certainly better than using pen and paper, but the real value comes in the event of renumbering. List #1 is the original number; list #2 shows the new number. An example is shown here:

Preparing to Renumber

Preparing to Renumber

If the first reference called out in the chapter is 5, it needs to be renumbered as 1. To do so you enter 5 in the Original field (#11) by either typing it in or by clicking on the 5 in the list (#10). Then you enter the 1 in the Renumber field and click Modify. The result is shown here:

The First Renumbering

The First Renumbering

In the renumbering fields, 1 appears next to the 5 (#14), indicating that former reference number 5 is now reference number 1. In addition, because the Remove renumbers from main list is checked (the default) (#5 above), the number 1 has been automatically removed from the main list (#16). And, the Next Renumber (#15) shows 2 (compare to #13 where it was 0), meaning that if you have to renumber the next callout, it is to be renumbered as 2.

If the next callout is 2, then it needs to be removed from the main list (#16 above). If then the next callout is 7, it is renumbered as 3 following the same process (#17 shown below) and the Next Renumber becomes 4 (#18). Note that the Counts at #20 have not changed from the original numbers; it still shows that there are 50 references in the document, none of which have been called out.

The Second Renumbering

The Second Renumbering

That is because we have not manually removed a number from the Reference Order list (#19). When we click on the 2 to remove it (#21), the Count updates automatically (#22), as shown below. The Count now tells us that 47 of the original 50 reference callouts have yet to be checked.

Checking the Count

Checking the Count

One of the problems with the pen-and-paper method was that it was difficult to save a copy of the renumbering for future reference in case a client had a question and, more importantly, to give a client comprehensive information about renumbering when there was a lot of it.

Now, when the document’s editing is complete, I export the information to a text file. To export the data, click Export (#23). The data will be saved to the file shown in the Renumber Dataset Information field (#23). The file is saved as a text file (.txt) and if you open the text file using a program like Notepad, you will see the following format:

The Exported File

The Exported File

Everything you see is automatically generated, including the first line that explains the numbers (#25). In this example, all of the references were renumbered except for 7. I rename the file to reflect the filename of the file it relates to (e.g., “Jones Disorders 011 Renumbering.txt”). I keep a copy with my copy of the edited project files and send a copy to the client along with the edited document. This way the client and the proofreader can track the renumbering, and should a question arise, I have a copy to review.

One key to being a successful freelance editor is providing clients with services they cannot easily get elsewhere. A second key is being able to do tasks efficiently and accurately. The Reference # Order Check 7.0 macro provides both keys. If used, the macro can make an otherwise problematic task easy to accomplish.

If you aren’t using EditToolsReference # Order Check 7.0 to track and renumber references, how do you do it efficiently and profitably?

Richard Adin, An American Editor

____________

Looking for a Deal?

You can buy EditTools in a package with PerfectIt and Editor’s Toolkit Plus 2014 at a special savings of $78 off the price if bought individually. To purchase the package at the special deal price, click Editor’s Toolkit Ultimate.

January 13, 2016

The Business of Editing: Using Click Lists to Increase Efficiency

One of Word’s features with which I have a love–hate relationship is the Symbol dialog. I am sure there must be a rationale for where symbols are placed in the various categories, but it escapes me.

Dealing with the Symbol dialog was one of the impetuses for the creation of the original Click List macro in EditTools. Needless to say, although the original Click List was helpful, it was problematic to remember that [*8214*] meant a double vertical line. And as my list of symbols grew, it became apparent that some other system was needed — I was neither saving time nor making money by using Click List (in its original incarnation) for symbols.

Then I had a project where the author kept reusing the same basic references (134 of them) but didn’t style them the same way twice. So, I thought, this could be a great use for Click List. And I started adding the references in their correct form to Click List.

The result was unusable if efficiency was my goal — I was trying to add to a single Click List too many disparate items, which made it hard to find specific items. This approach was contrary to the approach I was using in other EditTools macros, which was to have multiple tabs so that data could be better organized and managed; consequently, it became evident that I needed to add tabs to Click List.

Consequently, significant changes have been made to Click List in the recent EditTools 7.0 release. Version 6.2 provided a single tab and essentially no options. Version 7.0 has added tabs and expanded the options. The new Click List Manager looks like this (clicking on the images will enlarge them):

Click List Manager v7.0

Click List Manager v7.0

and Click List like this:

Click List v7.0

Click List v7.0

Instead of one tab for everything, there are now four tabs (#1 in above images) — three of which can be renamed (the Click List tab cannot be renamed) — one of which, Symbols Definition, is specifically designed to deal with Word’s Symbols. Each tab has its own dataset (#C above and below), so each list is independently maintained.

Symbols Definitions Tab in Click List Manager v7.0

Symbols Definitions Tab in Click List Manager v7.0

Symbols and Click List

The Symbols Definitions tab in Click List Manager is shown above. The Symbols tab in Click List is shown in the Click List image above.

The Manager has two information columns (#A and #B), which correspond to the Symbol Name field (#6) and the Symbol field (#5), respectively. I click the Insert Symbol button (#E) to open Word’s Symbol dialog. I locate the symbol I want to add to Click List and double-click it. That both inserts the symbol in the Symbol field (#5) and closes the Symbol dialog. Then I enter a name for the symbol in the Symbol Name field (#6). The name can be the any name you choose. (Hint: If certain symbols are rarely used and you use the alphabetize option [#2], start the name with an x and a space — for example, “x euro” [no quote marks] for € — to put the symbol at the end of the list. Similarly, if there are a few symbols that are often used, start the name with a hyphen and a space — for example, “- section” [no quote marks] for § — to put the symbol at the beginning of the list, and reduce the time to access it.)

Note that there are 30 entries in the list (#D). Under Word’s system, it would be difficult to access some of these symbols quickly. In addition, Word requires multiple clicks each time I want to access a symbol: (1) to switch to the Insert menu, (2) to open the Symbol dialog, (3) to open the More Symbols dialog if the symbol I want is not on the short “quick access” list, (4) to scroll (or to select the group, if I know which group it is in, from the dropdown) to find the symbol I want, (5) to select the symbol, and (6) to insert the symbol into my document.

In contrast, with Click List, once I use the Manager to add the symbol to Click List (the Manager can be opened from the EditTools toolbar or by clicking the button in Click List [#11]), it takes three steps: (1) a click to go to the Symbols tab if it is not already showing (assuming Click List is already open; the way I work, I open it when I start Word and keep it open until I close Word or click Cancel [#F]), (2) scroll to locate the symbol by the name I have given it, and (3) click on the name to insert the symbol in my document. Half the steps plus significant time saving in locating.

References and Click List

As I noted earlier, I had a project in which the author repeatedly cited the same sources but never the same way twice. That project was the impetus for the Reference tab. The References Click List and Manager are shown here:

References Tab in Click List and Click List Manager v7.0

References Tab in Click List and Click List Manager v7.0

The Reference tab is the same as the Click List and Miscellaneous tabs, but if you compare it to the Symbols Definition tab above, you will see some significant differences. For example, the Format Options (#G), the Text Color option (#17), and the ability to add a Return to an entry by typing ^p (#18) are not available in the Symbols Definitions tab.

In the project, the author would cite a book or a chapter in a book, but do so inconsistently. So when I initially came to a reference, I corrected it and I then copied the “fixed” portion (i.e., the portion of the reference that would remain the same in any future use of the cite) of the corrected version into the Text field (#14) of the Manager and added it to the list (#15) by clicking Add. I did not apply any of the Format Options (#G) because they apply to the whole text string, not just to select words in the text string.

Because Alphabetize (#2) is the default, clicking either Save or Save & Close added the cite to Click List (#16) in alphabetical order. When I came to a reference entry in the document, I checked for it in the Click List using the ability to go to a particular letter in the alphabet by clicking on the letter in the Alphabet (#13). If it was present, I then selected the incorrect “fixed” portion of the cite in the document and clicked on the correct “fixed” form in Click List to replace the selected text.

This was a great time-saving method for fixing citations. It took much less time once the entry was in Click List than it took to manually correct the cites. With a click, this author-supplied cite

Dunn, P. J., The chemical development of the commercial route to sildenafil citrate, (Ed. Gadamasetti, K.; Braish, T.), Proc. Chem. Pharmaceut., Ind. (2008), 267-277.

became this (as per the client’s style)

Dunn, P. J., The chemical development of the commercial route to sildenafil citrate, Process Chemistry in the Pharmaceutical Industry, Volume 2: Challenges in an Ever Changing Climate, (Ed. Gadamasetti, K.; Braish, T.), (2008), (CRC Press), 267-277.

A lot of typing (and repeat typing) was saved by using the Reference tab of Click List. And because the reference list I created could be saved to a project-specific dataset, I can recall this list when I edit the next edition of the book. If the format had been a standard style, such as AMA or Chicago, I could have saved the list as a style-specific list, for example, as “Chicago Style Drug References,” and used it (and added to it) the next time I had a project calling for that style in the same subject area.

Alphabetizing and Click Lists

I always alphabetize my Click Lists, so I leave Alphabetize (#2) checked. If it is checked, it remains the default until you uncheck it, which then becomes the default until the box is rechecked. (In the case of Symbols, the alphabetization is by the name [#A] I assign the symbol, not the Unicode [#B] number.)

I found that as my Click List datasets grew, it became difficult to quickly find a specific entry. This was especially true with the Symbols and the References tabs. The result was the Alphabetize option (#2) on Manager and the Alphabet go-to function (#13) on Click List. Clicking on a letter of the alphabet takes you to the first entry that begins with the selected letter, eliminating a lot scrolling in long lists.

Click List and Toggle Word

The EditTools 7 Click List is an excellent way to save time and increase profits. I use it to insert specific text that a client requires (e.g., copyright lines or permission lines) and anything else that can be standardized.

Remember that Click List and Toggle Word are complementary. Click List inserts new text; Toggle Word changes existing text. Using both significantly increases efficiency and, thus, profitability.

Richard Adin, An American Editor

_________________
Looking for a Deal?

You can buy EditTools in a package with PerfectIt and Editor’s Toolkit Plus 2014 at a special savings of $78 off the price if bought individually. To purchase the package at the special deal price, click Editor’s Toolkit Ultimate.

 

November 30, 2015

Thinking Fiction: Editing Tools in Action

by Carolyn Haley

We’ve talked a lot about tools on this blog — my own “Fiction Editors’ Resource Kit,” Jack Lyon’s many essays about wildcards and macros in Word, Amy Schneider’s quartet on style sheets, and Rich Adin’s articles on productivity macros (see, e.g., “The Business of Editing: Keeping Reference Callouts in Number Order”) — all to make editing a more efficient process and profitable business.

This essay discusses how different software tools can be applied at specific points in copyediting or line editing fiction. The example used is my own process, with the caveat that it is one of many approaches, no better or worse than someone else’s; and it is dynamic, constantly being refined as I learn more. (For another view, see the three-part series “The 3 Stages of Copyediting: I — The Processing Stage,” “II — The Copyediting Stage,” and “III — The Proofing Stage”). The point is to share ideas with editors unfamiliar with the tools, and invite editors who do use them to share their own ways. Noneditors, meanwhile, can gain a better understanding of what goes on behind the scenes.

The tasks for which I use software tools divide into pre- and postediting, which I call preflight and cleanup. The preflight pass removes minor errors and inconsistencies that cause distraction during content editing, while the cleanup pass lets me catch anything left over or introduced. In both, the tasks are global sweeps using applications selected from packages designed for editors: Editor’s ToolKit, EditTools, Computer Tools for Editors, and PerfectIt (described below), plus some of my own. During the editing pass, however, I stick with Microsoft Word’s internal features: Track Changes to show content revisions and queries, and find/replace to make any global changes that result from editorial decisions as I go. Simultaneously I use an Internet browser for reference checks and lookups.

Preflight tasks

When a manuscript arrives, I immediately make a new copy for editing, leaving the original file intact. Occasionally a client will submit the book as separate chapters, in which case I consolidate them into one file, because I find it easier and faster to work with the book as a unit. Then I employ the following tools:

  1. Editorium’s FileCleaner — This does exactly what its name suggests: cleans up extraneous elements in the text, such as extra spaces, tabs, and carriage returns; errors such as mistyped numbers (e.g., lowercase L for numeral 1); and incorrect characters, such as straight quotation marks instead of “smart” or typographer-style quotes. I don’t allow the automatic fixes for dash style, small cap usage, and italics, because I deal with those separately on a manuscript-by-manuscript basis.
  2. EditTools’ Never Spell WordI’ve customized this tool to flag terms I frequently misread: lets/let’s, its/it’s, woman/women, vice/vise, form/from, awhile/a while, lead/led, and the like. Never Spell highlights these terms so you can’t miss them. Either I review them in a dedicated pass, making corrections then clearing out the highlights, or I review them individually while editing, and unhighlight one at a time.
  3. Paul Beverly’s ProperNounAlyse This macro from Beverly’s Computer Tools for Editors collection generates a list of words starting with a capital letter. I like this tool because it identifies different kinds of terms I use to build my style sheet (along with misspellings thereof). It gathers not only character and place names, but also unusual proper nouns that might appear in genre fiction, such as titles and honorifics, peoples, magical systems, planets, ships, autos, and firearms. As well, ProperNounAlyse grabs words that may be capped in one context, lowercased in another (e.g., Hell, Christ, God — are they exclamations or religious places/figures?) and OK (which I change to okay). If the author has provided a list of names and special terms, I combine it with the list generated as a second way to uncover spelling variants or term omissions. Unfortunately, ProperNounAlyse includes every word that starts a sentence, plus other information, so manual pruning must be done before the desired words can be transferred to the style sheet. The labor is tedious but relatively swift and saves me from oversights. As I come across the words while editing, I color-code them on the style sheet. That makes the leftovers stand out so I can investigate them. Without fail, this cross-check identifies something I missed or forgot to address.

The big variable: Formatting

Because I get manuscripts from many different publishers and authors, I’ve opted to format them myself rather than try to get everybody to conform to a standard. By formatting I mean making the presentation uniform and professional-looking, using Word’s Styles feature. All formatting is done with Track Changes turned off to avoid overloading the document with markups.

How much formatting I do influences my rate and turnaround time. With publisher jobs, formatting is a nonissue, because their manuscripts come in with Styles already applied, customized to house preference. All I have to do is adhere to their preferences while editing.

Indie author jobs, in contrast, often arrive in a messy state. A minority of authors understand how to use Styles or even do basic word processing, and many are as creative in their presentation as they are with their stories. For those manuscripts I turn on the hidden characters view to see whether paragraph indents are tabs or spaces, chapters are separated by page breaks or extra carriage returns, and so forth. I tidy things up using find/replace, then start at the top and set Styles for chapter heads, body text, epigraphs, and anything else relevant to the novel.

When I know in advance whether the author will be traditionally or self-publishing, I tailor ellipses and dashes as part of formatting. Print books commonly use ellipses with spaces between points and before/after ( . . . ); plus em dashes without spaces on either end ( — ). Ebooks, conversely, often use the ellipses character with no spaces between points (…), and maybe spaces before/after; plus en dashes with spaces on either end ( – ). Adjusting these via find/replace takes little time, though it expands if I add hard spaces to link the symbols to adjacent words to prevent bad line breaks. At present I’m testing different combinations in EditTools’ F&R Master to gain a quicker way to achieve the same end.

Recently I’ve added a separate styling pass for italics. Italic use, like dialogue, can be heavy in novels, and it’s a nightmare for everyone when italics vanish from a document during its passage between hands. Assigning a character style to italics preserves them from draft to publication. At the same time I can check that any punctuation following italics is properly italicized or roman.

Yes, formatting is extra work. But it makes life easier for both me and the people who follow. For me, Styles allows a one-step adjustment of the typeface for optimum onscreen reading, which I can then return to the client’s preference before delivery. For authors, a formatted file lets them just plug in their revisions and move on. For production folks, a consistently styled manuscript uploads into a page layout or ebook conversion program with fewer headaches.

Cleanup tasks

Being human, I err; therefore I use electronic tools to check my work before delivering the manuscript. But not before creating a fresh copy of the edited file. Then I run:

  1. Paul Beverly’s TestQuotes to catch unpaired quotation marks. His macro collection in Computer Tools for Editors also includes CheckParens to find unpaired parentheses, which I’ll run if the story contains parenthetical material.
  2. Manual searches for inverted quotes and apostrophes, leftover or introduced straight ones, incorrect or missing punctuation inside the quotes, extra spaces before and after all punctuation, missing periods at ends of lines, et cetera. I do these searches manually instead of rerunning FileCleaner, because there are just enough exceptions that I don’t dare do a background or global process. For the same reason, I haven’t bundled these individual searches into a custom macro.
  3. Intelligent Editing’s PerfectIt to catch mismatches in hyphenation, spelling, capitalization, and number usage. I turn off the tests unrelated to fiction; for instance, checking table and figure heads, abbreviations, and bullet lists. I also skip the test for contractions, having already checked for troublesome ones like it’s and let’s, you’re and we’re.
  4. Word’s spellchecker. This is the final task for every job. It always catches something I missed or change my mind about.

A final proofread always catches something, too, but not every job allows that, owing to constraints in scope of work, schedule, or budget. Electronic tools are doubly important in such cases. When I do proofread my edit, I change the manuscript’s appearance through type size, font, and line spacing (made easy when Styles have been applied) and turn off Track Changes. I also alter my physical setup, moving the file from desktop to laptop and myself from chair to couch. The combination makes the material seem new and lingering errors more visible.

One size does not fit all

As mentioned above, this system isn’t the be-all, end-all for manuscript editing. (“Your mileage may vary,” colleagues regularly say.) I offer my system to illustrate how and where in the process different tools can be used. And there are so many more to investigate! Just adopting my current set has been an investment that keeps paying back with increased speed and accuracy. Other combinations work better for other editors; we’d love to hear about yours.

Carolyn Haley lives and breathes novels. Although specializing in fiction, she edits across the publishing spectrum — fiction and nonfiction, corporate and indie — and is the author of two novels and a nonfiction book. She has been editing professionally since 1977, and has had her own editorial services company, DocuMania, since 2005. She can be reached at dcma@vermontel.com or through her websites, DocuMania and New Ways to See the World. Carolyn also blogs at Adventures in Zone 3 and reviews at New York Journal of Books.

November 18, 2015

Lyonizing Word: Why Computers?

by Jack Lyon

Dan A. Wilson, of The Editor’s Desktop, once advised editors that a computer is “far and away your most valuable tool, your ultimate enabler, your brain’s second-in-command. A brain with a pencil in its hand cannot compete — indeed, cannot even credibly challenge — a brain with a computer and computer-sophistication at its disposal.”

Why would that be so? After all, even under the guidance of the most brilliant programmer, a computer can’t ensure that a manuscript has accuracy, clarity, or elegance of expression. But a computer can fix hundreds of mechanical problems that editors shouldn’t have to worry about, and it can do it quickly and consistently.

If something can be automated, then automate it! Let the computer do the heavy lifting. Why is that important? Because it enables you to do more work in less time, and it frees your mind to concentrate on the things that a computer can’t handle (like accuracy, clarity, and elegance of expression). If you’re working for a corporation, that makes you more valuable as an employee (making raises more likely and layoffs less likely). If you’re working for yourself, it enables you to earn more money for the time you put in (as long as you’re charging by the job, the word, or the page, which you should be [see, e.g., On the Basics: Dealing with the Perennial Question of Setting Rates for Our Work]).

Editors working on a computer almost always use Microsoft Word. Love it or hate it (I do both), it is unquestionably the de facto word processor in the publishing world. So how can you use Word to automate whatever can be automated? Here are some suggestions:

  1. Learn to use the full power of Word’s find and replace feature, including wildcards. My Wildcard Cookbook for Microsoft Word will teach you everything you need to know. (No brag, just fact, as we used to say in grade school.)
  2. Learn to record and run macros to automate repetitive editing tasks. My Macro Cookbook for Microsoft Word is a good starting place.
  3. Use Microsoft Word add-ins (like the ones I create at The Editorium) that expand Word’s features to automate various editorial tasks. Let’s look at what some of those add-ins can do to ease your workload.

FileCleaner

We’ll start with one of my most popular add-ins, FileCleaner, which cleans up some of the most common problems in electronic manuscripts, including:

  • Multiple spaces in a row
  • Multiple returns in a row
  • Spaces around returns
  • Double hyphens that should be em dashes
  • Hyphens between numbers that should be en dashes

And much, much more. Here’s a screen shot of the options available:

FileCleaner Options

FileCleaner Options

Want to try it? All of those options are included as part of my Editor’s ToolKit Plus 2014 add-in, which I highly recommend that you download and try. The program offers a 45-day trial period so you can make sure it does what you need before deciding to buy. And if you need help using it, I’m always available by email.

I’d like to point out one special feature of FileCleaner that is frequently overlooked. See that option (under “Formatting”) to “standardize font formats (remove overrides)”? It removes all those odd, inconsistent uses of different fonts that authors like to use, but at the same time it leaves italic, bold, superscript, and styles intact. You won’t believe what a difference this can make in cleaning up a manuscript!

FileCleaner also offers to clean up the active document, all open documents, or all documents in a folder, which means you can run the program on a whole batch of files at once while you go back to reviewing manuscripts (or spending time with family and friends).

Document options

Document Options

Remember all of my talk about automating what can be automated? This is what I’m talking about. Instead of manually doing dozens of find-and-replace routines on dozens of documents, let FileCleaner do the work.

MegaReplacer

FileCleaner is great for cleaning up common problems, but what if you have uncommon problems that you need to clean up? What if you need to go through three dozen documents and change millenium to millennium in all of them, along with dozens of other misspellings (manger to manager, rarify to rarefy, and on and on and on)? That’s what MegaReplacer is for. Again, it works on the active document, all open documents, or all documents in a folder. But unlike FileCleaner, it allows you to define your own find-and-replace items and then run them en masse. You start by creating a list of the items you want to find and replace, with the find item on the left and the replace item on the right, separated by a pipe symbol (|), which you’ll probably find under your backspace key. Your list will look something like this:

millenium|millennium
manger|manager
pubic|public

Save the list as a Word document, and you can use it over and over again.

So far, so good. But you’re not limited to finding and replacing individual words; you can find and replace whole phrases that you’d ordinarily have to fix manually while editing:

at this point in time|now
alright|all right
an historical|a historical
a large number of|many
a small number of|some

To give you even more flexibility, MegaReplacer allows you to specify Match Case, Whole Words Only, both Match Case and Whole Words Only, or Use Wildcards by appending a code to the items on your list:

“+c” for Match Case
“+w” for Find Whole Words Only
“+&” for Match Case and Find Whole Words Only
“+m” for Use Wildcards

Here’s an example of each:

Department|department+c
per|according to+w
Chief|chief+&
p ([0-9]@.\))|p. \1+m

To get you started, MegaReplacer comes with a long list of useful corrections that you can modify to meet your needs.

Editor’s ToolKit

The most basic functions of Editor’s ToolKit Plus reside in the section called “Editor’s ToolKit”:

Editors ToolKit Menu

Editors ToolKit Menu

In particular, they automate some of the most common editorial tasks:

Text Features

Text Features

Furthermore, Editor’s ToolKit assigns these tasks to the function keys on your keyboard. Need to italicize (or romanize) a word? Press F8. Want to transpose two words? Press F11. To lowercase a word, press F10.

Please note that these keyboard assignments are the default setting for Editor’s ToolKit, which Rich Adin has correctly pointed out should not be the case (and will not be the case in the next version of the program). You can easily go back to Word’s original settings, however, by clicking the Editor’s ToolKit Plus icon and then clicking “Clear Keyboard Shortcuts.”

Keyboard Shortcuts

Keyboard Shortcuts

But if you find that you like the Editor’s ToolKit keyboard assignments, you can activate them by clicking “Set Keyboard Shortcuts.” The program download includes a keyboard template that lists the default shortcuts; print it out and place it above your function keys, and you’ll have a handy guide to which key does what (remember WordPerfect 5.1?).

The keyboard shortcuts for Editor’s ToolKit are not arbitrary, by the way. I’ve tried to arrange them so that the most common editorial tasks are right at your fingertips. For example, F7 toggles italic on and off. Yes, CTRL + I does the same thing, but after you’ve used F7 a few times, CTRL + I will seem clunky and annoying. Something that small does make a difference in how easily and smoothly you’re able to work in Word (see Lyonizing Word: The Right Tool for the Job and Lyonizing Word: Assigning Macro Shortcut Keys).

Many other features are available from the keyboard, but my favorite is Cap Title Case. To use it, select the text you want to put in title case and press F9. But doesn’t Microsoft Word already have that feature? Yes, it does. But take this example:

The call of the wild

Microsoft Word will turn it into this:

The Call Of The Wild

Editor’s ToolKit will turn it into this:

The Call of the Wild

In other words, Editor’s ToolKit properly handles common articles and prepositions. (The next version of the program will allow you to specify those you want to use.)

All of these are small things, but in the pressure-cooker of day-to-day editing, small things make a big difference in the ease and even the pleasure with which these tiny tasks can be accomplished. I’ve been a working editor since 1978, so I’ve been doing such tasks a long time. I created these tools (and the many others included with Editor’s ToolKit Plus) so that my computer can handle the boring, repetitive, mechanical tasks, allowing me to do the more enjoyable and important work that a computer, no matter how sophisticated, simply cannot do. That, right there, is the reason for computers.

How do you use your computer to make your work easier and faster? I’d love to hear your ideas.

Jack Lyon (editor@editorium.com) owns and operates the Editorium, which provides macros and information to help editors and publishers do mundane tasks quickly and efficiently. He is the author of Microsoft Word for Publishing Professionals, Wildcard Cookbook for Microsoft Word, and of Macro Cookbook for Microsoft Word. Both books will help you learn more about macros and how to use them.

Looking for a Deal?

You can buy Editor’s Toolkit Plus 2014 in a package with EditTools and PerfectIt and at a special savings of $78 off the price if bought individually. To purchase the package at the special deal price, click Editor’s Toolkit Ultimate.

October 12, 2015

The Proofreader’s Corner: Creating Your Own Proofreading Stamps for PDF Mark-up

by Louise Harnby

In September 2015, I wrote about the benefit of being able to mark up PDF proof pages with stamps – digital versions of the symbols you would draw by hand on a traditional paper proof, usually for a publisher client (after all, not every client understands the standard proof-correction language employed in the publishing industry). I also promised to show readers how they can create their own stamps for onscreen work. This is the focus of this month’s essay.

A caveat

I’m a UK-based proofreader so I’ll be referring to the British Standards Institution’s (BSI) BS 5261C:2005 “Marks for Copy Preparation and Proof Correction” throughout this essay (readers can buy a hard-copy list of these marks from the Society for Editors and Proofreaders). You may be used to seeing different symbols to indicate the same instructions. That’s because, depending on where you live, different standards may apply.

Compare, e.g., the Canadian Translation Bureau and BSI marks for a selection of instructions:

Comparison of Proofreader's Marks

Comparison of Proofreader’s Marks

What matters is not which proof-correction language you use, but what your client requires.

Recap of existing digital resources

If you want to use the BS 5261C:2005 proof-correction marks to annotate a PDF, visit “Roundup: PDF Proofreading Stamps (quick-access links)”. This provides the access links to a full set of downloadable PDF proofreading stamps in black, blue, and red, as well as the installation instructions.

US stamps files are available via the Copyediting-L site, under the Resources tab. Scroll down to “Diana Stirling’s (2008) editing marks for PDF documents (Zip documents)”.

Finally, search the Editing Tools section of Katharine O’Moore-Klopf’s Copyeditors’ Knowledge Base using the key words “PDF Editing Stamps”. This will bring up a number of other useful resources.

Why might I need to make my own stamps?

You might wish to create your own stamps for three reasons:

  1. The standard symbols required by your client might not be available for use on PDF. Use the resources in the above recap section in order to identify whether the mark-up language you want to work with is available digitally.
  2. The existing digital resources might include only the standard symbols developed by the original issuer (BSI, CMOS, CTB, etc.). However, I’ve sometimes found that I’m repeatedly making a particular amendment that isn’t covered by these standards. For instance, a nonnative-English-speaking author may use the word “is” when the author means “are” repeatedly in a file. Rather than annotating the PDF using the typewriter tool for the text, and using the “replace” symbol (slash mark) for each correction, it could be more efficient to create a new stamp that incorporates the text and slash mark. In the stamps files I provide, I’ve created several nonstandard symbols that I thought would be of benefit to users, including:
Author created nonstandard symbols

Author created nonstandard symbols

  1. For the sake of efficiency, you might wish to modify two existing standard digital marks. For example, I often need to change a hyphen to an en rule, and I have to stamp two symbols in the margin — the “en-rule” mark followed by the “replace” mark. I decided to create a single symbol that incorporates both of these marks (this symbol is now included in the digital stamps files that I make freely available on my blog).
Combining of two symbols into one

Combining of two symbols into one

When we modify standard stamps in this way, we save time — every second we save stamping only one symbol rather than two adds up to significant increases in productivity.

Creating your own stamps

There are two ways to go about creating your own customized stamps.

First method

You can using a snipping tool to copy a mark that you’ve drawn, typed, or found online. If I want to create a new stamp — for example, the “change is to are” instruction mentioned above — I can use my PDF editor’s comment-and-markup tools to type the word “are” and stamp a “replace” symbol after it. Then I simply click on my snipping tool, select “New,” and drag the cursor over the marks I’ve made. I then save this as a PNG, GIF, or JPEG file. The image is now available for upload into my PDF Editor’s stamps palette.

In Windows, the snipping tool looks like this:

Windows Snipping Tool

Windows Snipping Tool

Where your snipping tool is located will depend on which version of Windows you’re using. For Windows 8, click here; for Windows 7, click here.

The advantage of using a snipping tool is that it’s very efficient. I’ve pinned my onboard Windows snipping tool to the task bar at the bottom of my screen, so it’s always accessible. If you are using an operating system that doesn’t include a snipping tool, there are of alternatives available online.

There are disadvantages to using this method.

  • The definition of a snipped stamp is poor in comparison with a symbol drawn in a desktop publishing (DTP) or professional graphics program. The images usually look fuzzy, especially when enlarged.
  • It’s not possible to control the size of the snipped image, so the symbol may have to be resized every time it’s stamped in the margin, which wastes time.
  • Snipped stamps don’t have transparent backgrounds. This can be aesthetically unpleasing when you are stamping onto tinted pages. If you’ve created a stamp that needs to be placed in-text on a PDF, the lack of transparency will cause problems because you’ll be masking content that your client won’t want to be hidden.

Using the snipping tool to create stamps is recommended if you need a quick solution and you don’t think you’ll need to use the new symbol in future jobs. If you do think you’ll use your new symbol time and time again, it might be worth considering the second method.

Second method

You can use a DTP program such as Microsoft Publisher, Adobe InDesign, and QuarkXPress, or a graphics program like CorelDraw and Adobe Illustrator. I use MS Publisher because it’s included in my MS Office bundle. I’ve also found it quite easy to use — this is partly because it’s entry-level DTP software and partly because it’s an MS product so the functionality is quite similar to that of MS Word.

Once you’ve drawn your new symbol in your DTP program, you need to save the document as a PDF. This can usually be done very simply, using the “Save as” function. The image will then be ready for upload into your PDF editor’s stamps palette.

The disadvantage of using this method is that it requires greater investment in time in the short run. I’d only recommend it if you are creating a stamp that you think will be useful for many jobs to come.

The advantages of going down the DTP route are:

  • The finish of the stamp is more professional — the images are much sharper than the snipped versions.
  • You can draw multiple stamps in a single DTP document — just make sure that each image is drawn on a new page. Then you have to save one document as a PDF from which you’ll upload your new stamps.
  • You can control the size of the stamp. This may take some experimentation, but once you’ve drawn one proof-correction mark that you know produces a stamp that you can universally use on PDFs without having to resize, you can use this as a template for any future stamps you create.
  • You can control the transparency of the stamp. Users of my stamps files will know that some of my symbols don’t have fully transparent backgrounds. This is something I plan to rectify when I have time!

Using a DTP/graphics program is more time consuming but gives a more professional finish and is worth it if you think you’ll use the new symbol in multiple jobs.

Saving and installing your new stamps

If you have used the snipping tool to create a new GIF, JPEG, or PNG stamp, you can save it wherever you wish. I usually choose the Downloads folder. Then open your PDF editor and upload the stamp.

Installing snipped images to PDF-XChange

  • Open the PDF you wish to mark up
  • From Menu: Tools > Comment and Markup Tools > Show Stamps Palette
  • From Stamps Palette: Click on an existing Collection or create a new one (using the New button with a small green cross); select “From Image”
  • From a browser window: Locate your image from the folder in which you saved it, e.g., Downloads, and choose “Open”

Installing snipped images to Adobe Acrobat (v. 9)

  • Open the PDF you wish to mark up
  • Click on the stamp tool on the top ribbon
  • Select “Create Custom Stamp”
  • From browser window: Locate your image from the folder in which you saved it, e.g., Downloads. Note that in Acrobat you will need to choose the relevant file type in order for your symbol to show up. So if you saved your snipped image as a PNG, you’ll need to select this from the drop-down menu under file type; “Select”; “OK”
  • You can now name your stamp and assign it to a Category (you can use an existing Category or create a new one, e.g., Proofreading)

Installing snipped images to Adobe Reader (v. XI)

I haven’t found a way to import snipped stamps into Reader; the only option is to upload stamps that have been saved as a PDF, which isn’t possible with the Windows snipping tool at least. Given that PDF-XChange is still a very affordable editor, with outstanding functionality, I’d recommend trying it as an alternative to the free Adobe Reader and the rather more expensive Acrobat Professional.

Saving and installing DTP-created images

If you have used DTP software and saved your stamps in PDF format, you may need to save into a specific folder. The installation process is a little more complicated and will depend on the PDF editor you are using. If you are using PDF-XChange, Adobe Acrobat Professional, or Adobe Reader, carefully read the installation instructions I’ve provided on The Proofreader’s Parlour.

Related reading…

If you are new to PDF proofreading, you might find the following links of interest:

Louise Harnby is a professional proofreader and the curator of The Proofreader’s Parlour. Visit her business website at Louise Harnby | Proofreader, follow her on Twitter at @LouiseHarnby, or find her on LinkedIn. She is the author of Business Planning for Editorial Freelancers and Marketing Your Editing & Proofreading Business.

September 30, 2015

Lyonizing Word: But Wait—There’s More!

by Jack Lyon

Replacing Basic Text

Searching with wildcards in Microsoft Word can accomplish miracles in editing, but some people find wildcards a little too arcane to deal with. If you’re one of those people, you might benefit from some of Word’s lesser-known but easier-to-use search options. But first, let’s do a basic find and replace. Open Word’s “Find and Replace” dialog by pressing CTRL + H (or click Home > Editing > Replace on Word’s ribbon interface). Then:

  1. In the “Find what” box, enter a word you want to search for. (We’ll use the misspelled “millenium” as an example.)
  2. In the “Replace with” box, enter a word you want to replace the incorrectly spelled “millenium” with. (We’ll use the correctly spelled “millennium” as an example.)
  3. Click the “Replace All” button.
Find & Replace

Find & Replace

That’s it. Every occurrence of “millenium” will be replaced with “millennium.” Simple and quick.

Refining Your Search

But wait—there’s more! Microsoft Word provides many ways to refine your search. See the “More” button at the bottom of the “Replace” dialog?

More Button

More Button

Click it. Here’s what you’ll see:

The "More" Options

The “More” Options

Under “Search Options,” you can specify whether to search up, down, or through all your text:

Search Options

Search Options

You can also match case and find whole words only:

Additional Options

Additional Options

There are actually lots of options, all worth exploring:

Match case

Obviously, this option finds only text that matches the case (capitalized or lowercased) of the text in the “Find what” box. If you enter “Hello” in the “Find what” box with “Match case” checked, Word finds “Hello” but not “hello.” If you enter “hello,” Word finds “hello” but not “Hello.”

Find whole words only

This option finds whole words only. For example, if you search for “sing,” Word finds “sing” but not “singing.” If this option is not checked, Word finds both “sing” and “singing,” as well as “using” and “kissing.”

Use wildcards

This option tells Word that you want to search using wildcards:

Use Wildcards

Use Wildcards

Wildcards are important, but in this article we’re trying to avoid these. For explanations and examples, see my past articles (e.g., Lyonizing Word: From Easy to Impossible — Three Variations on a Theme, Lyonizing Word: The Easy Way, Not So Easy, Lyonizing Word: The Easy Way, Not So Easy, and Lyonizing Word: We Can Do This the Easy Way, or . . . ; if you use EditTools, see The Business of Editing: Wildcarding for Dollars). Please note, however, that if this option is checked, you can no longer select “Match case” or “Find whole words only.” Even so, during a wildcard search, “Match case” is automatically enabled, even though it’s not shown as enabled (an oversight on Microsoft’s part). “Find whole words only,” on the other hand, is inactive.

Sounds like (English)

This option finds words that sound like the word in the “Find what” box. For example, if you search for “cot,” Word also finds “caught.” If you search for “horse,” Word also finds “hoarse.” This could be useful if you’re working on a document in which certain words have been confused or mistyped. Basically, this feature works on words that are homophones; it doesn’t seem to work on words that sound almost alike, such as “horse” and “whores.” On the other hand, while searching for “horse,” it also finds “horsey” but not “horses,” so who knows?

Find all word forms (English)

This option finds what Microsoft calls “all” forms of the word in the “Find what” box. For example, if you search for “sit,” Word also finds “sat” and “sitting.” The word “all” is a little misleading, however. The feature relies on an underlying database of word forms that is pretty good but has some omissions. For example, if you search for “eat,” Word finds “eat, “ate,” “eaten,” and “eating” but not “eater.” Similarly, if you search for “horse,” Word finds “horse,” “horses,” and “horsing” but not “horseless.” It’s a useful feature, mostly for finding verb forms; just don’t expect it to actually find all forms of a word.

Match prefix

This option matches words beginning with the search string. For example, if you put “pre” in the “Find what” box, Word finds “prepare,” “present,” and so on. This isn’t a “smart” feature; it searches for characters only, not word roots. For example, searching for “pre” also finds “prestidigitation” and “pressure,” even though “pre” isn’t really a prefix in those words.

Match suffix

This option matches words ending with the search string. For example, if you put “ing” in the “Find what” box, Word finds “singing,” “typing,” and so on. This isn’t a “smart” feature; it searches for characters only, not word roots. For example, searching for “ing” also finds “boing,” “spring,” and “thing,” even though “ing” isn’t really a suffix in those words.

Ignore punctuation characters

Ignores punctuation characters between words. For example, “trees plants and flowers” finds “trees, plants, and flowers” as well as “trees plants and flowers.” This might be useful for fixing problems with serial commas.

Ignore white-space characters

Ignores all white space (spaces, tabs, and so on) between words. For example, “webpage” finds “web page” as well as “webpage.” This is the inverse of “Find whole words only” and could be useful for fixing words that are sometimes spelled open and sometimes closed.

Other options

If you’re working in a language other than English, other options may be available, including Match Kashida, Match Diacritics, Match Alef Hamza, and Match Control. I know almost nothing about these options, so I can’t comment on them with any degree of expertise.

Format

One of the most important tools in Microsoft Word’s find and replace toolbox is the ability to search for formatting — all kinds of formatting. To do so, click the “Format” button:

Format Button

Format Button

Here’s what you’ll get:

The "Format" Options

The “Format” Options

Each option (such as “Font”) opens the usual dialog for that feature:

Font Format Options

Font Format Options

I won’t go into all of the options in these dialogs as they’re basically the same ones you’d get while formatting any text in Word. “Font” displays font options, “Styles” displays styles, and so on. You can select any of those options and use them as something to find or replace. For example, if your cursor is in the “Find what” box and you select “Italic” in the “Find Font” dialog, here’s what you’ll get:

Displaying the Font Option Choice

Displaying the Font Option Choice

Now Word will find text in italics but not in roman. If you also enter a word, you’ll find that word in italic but not in roman. If you don’t enter a word, you’ll find anything formatted as italic.

But what about the “Replace with” box? What happens if you use formatting there?

If the “Replace with” box includes some text, whatever is found will be replaced by that text in the format you specified. If the “Replace with” box doesn’t include text, whatever is found will be replaced with itself in the format you specified. For example, if you search for the word “apples” to be replaced by “pears” in bold, that’s exactly what you’ll get — “pears” in bold. If you search for the word “apples” to be replaced by bold alone (with no text), you’ll get “apples” in bold.

If, on the other hand, you search for “apples” but don’t specify text or formatting in the “Replace with” box, “apples” will be replaced with nothing; in other words, it will be deleted.

Many variations are possible. Here’s a basic summary:

Find Replace Result
apples pears pears
apples pears [bold] pears [bold]
apples [bold] apples [bold]
apples [nothing] [apples deleted]
[bold] [nothing] [bold text deleted]
[bold] pears [bold text becomes “pears” in bold]
[bold] pears [italic] [bold text becomes “pears” in bold italic]
[bold] [italic] [bold text becomes bold italic]

Note that you can also specify not a certain kind of formatting, such as “not bold” or “not italic” in either find or replace. You can also use combinations of formatting (and “not” formatting). For example, you can search for bold but replace with italic and not bold, which will turn any bold text into italic (but not bold italic) text.

Built-In Codes

In addition to all of those options, Microsoft Word includes lots of built-in find-and-replace codes that are not wildcards (although lots of people call them that). You can use these built-in codes to search for things like paragraph breaks, tabs, section breaks, column breaks, dashes, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and many other things that aren’t actual text, and codes are a whole lot easier to use than wildcards. In fact, codes should be your default tool; you should use wildcards only when built-in codes won’t do what you need (which is actually fairly often, unfortunately).

Some of Word’s built-in codes can be used only in the “Find what” box; others can be used only in the “Replace with” box. Some of the codes can be used in both boxes.

“Find What” Codes

To see the codes that can be used in the “Find what” box, put your cursor in the box. Now click the “Special” button at the bottom of the “Find and Replace” dialog.

The "Special" Button

The “Special” Button

You’ll get a list like this:

The "Special" Options

The “Special” Options

Identify the item you want to find and click it, for example, “Paragraph Mark.” You’ll get the following code in the “Find what” box (since that’s where your cursor was located):

^p

That tells Word to find a paragraph break — that is, the end of a paragraph.

Each item on the list will insert a different code. For example, here’s the code for an em dash:

^+

And here’s the code for an en dash:

^=

“Replace With” Codes

Now put your cursor in the “Replace with” box and click the “Special” button again. This time, you’ll get a different list:

The Codes

The “Replace with” List

Again, clicking one of the list items will insert a code into the “Replace with” box. For example, if you click “Clipboard Contents” you’ll get this:

^c

That’s an extremely useful code, because ordinarily the “Replace with” box can hold no more than 255 characters. But using the ^c code, you can replace with anything that is currently copied to the Clipboard, which can hold many pages of text, graphics, or anything else.

After you’ve worked with built-in codes for a while, you’ll find it easy to just type them in by hand. In the meantime, you can use the “Special” lists to insert them.

You can also use combinations of codes. For example, you could search for tabs followed by paragraph breaks (^t^p) and replace them with paragraph breaks alone (^p).

Here’s a summary of Word’s built-in codes and where they can be used:

Character or object Find what Replace with
Annotation Mark (comment) ^a
Any character ^?
Any digit ^#
Any letter ^$
Caret character ^^ ^^
Clipboard contents ^c
Column break ^n ^n
“Find what text” (whatever was found during your search) ^&
Em dash ^+ ^+
En dash ^= ^=
Endnote mark ^e
Field ^d
Footnote mark ^f
Graphic ^g
Line break ^l ^l
Manual page break ^m ^m
Nonbreaking hyphen ^~ ^~
Nonbreaking space ^s ^s
Optional hyphen ^- ^-
Paragraph mark ^p ^p
Section break ^b
Tab character ^t ^t
White space ^w

Even without wildcards, Microsoft Word’s find and replace features can do an awful lot — much more than you might think. You probably already knew how to use “Match case” and “Find whole words only,” but did you know about those other options? “Ignore punctuation characters” and “Ignore white-space characters,” for example, can be very useful in editing. Being able to find and replace formatting is essential, especially when using styles. And using Word’s built-in codes lets you search for all kinds of things (graphics, page breaks, dashes, and so on) that would otherwise require more advanced techniques (like wildcards and numeric codes). In other words, Microsoft Word’s basic find and replace features aren’t so basic — at least not in what they can do!

Wildcard Cookbook

This article is a slightly modified excerpt from my new book, Wildcard Cookbook for Microsoft Word, now available at Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and other fine bookstores:

"Wildcard Cookbook" by Jack Lyon

“Wildcard Cookbook” by Jack Lyon

Jack Lyon (editor@editorium.com) owns and operates the Editorium, which provides macros and information to help editors and publishers do mundane tasks quickly and efficiently. He is the author of Microsoft Word for Publishing Professionals and of Macro Cookbook for Microsoft Word. Both books will help you learn more about macros and how to use them.

 

August 31, 2015

Lyonizing Word: Assigning Macro Shortcut Keys

by Jack Lyon

I recently had the pleasure of doing an interview for the Chicago Manual of Style “Shop Talk” column. In the interview, I explained how to record a simple macro for transposing characters while editing.

After reading the interview, editor Kristi Hein commented:

Terrific. Next, please discuss the process of choosing a keystroke combination for your macro: not using one of the many you’ve already assigned, making it a combo that’s not too convoluted for the hands (defeating the purpose somewhat), and that you will remember among all the other keystroke combinations you’ve assigned. Therein lies the true art of automating Word effectively and efficiently.

Kristi is right, but wow, that’s a tall order. Let’s look at each requirement separately.

Not using one of the many we’ve already assigned

To not use one of the many keyboard combinations already assigned, we need to know the keystroke combinations we’ve already assigned. Here’s how to do that:

  1. Click CTRL + P to open Word’s “Print” dialog.
  2. Under “Settings,” click the dropdown list that begins with “Print All Pages.”
  3. Under “Document Properties,” click “Key Assignments.” (Also, notice the other things you might want to print, such as styles and AutoText entries.)
  4. Click the “Print” button.

You’ll get a nicely formatted document that shows all of your existing key combinations. The entries will look something like this, with the key combinations on the left and the macro names on the right:

Alt+Ctrl+Shift+S — Normal.NewMacros.ChangeStyleBasedOn
Alt+Ctrl+Shift+I — Normal.NewMacros.CheckIndexCodes
Alt+Ctrl+Shift+C — Normal.NewMacros.FixCodes
Alt+Ctrl+Shift+M — Normal.NewMacros.ParseMetadata

“And how do I assign key combinations to begin with?” you’re wondering. There are (at least) a couple of ways:

When you go to record a new macro (under View > Macro), one of your options is to assign a key combination by pressing the “Keyboard” button:

Using the keyboard option

Using the keyboard option

When you do that, you’ll see the following dialog:

The dialog for entering the key combination

The dialog for entering the key combination

If you were working with an existing macro (editing rather than recording), you’d see any existing key combinations under “Current keys.” To assign a new combination, put your cursor in the box labeled “Press new shortcut key” and, well, press a new shortcut key.

If the new key is already assigned to a macro, you’ll get a “Currently assigned to” message like this:

Currently assigned message

Currently assigned message

That’s handy because it helps you avoid accidentally overwriting a combination that you’ve already assigned (although you can overwrite one on purpose). If you don’t get that message, you’re good to go, and you can click the “Assign” button (on the lower left) and then the “Close” button (on the lower right) and then record the keystrokes that will make up your macro. (When you’re finished recording, click View > Macro > Stop Recording.)

If you want to assign a key combination to an existing macro, things get a little more complicated:

  1. Click “File > Options.”
  2. Click the “Customize Ribbon” button (on the left).
  3. Under “Choose commands from,” select “Macros” (unless you want to use one of Word’s built-in commands, which you can also do).
  4. At the bottom of the dialog, you’ll see “Keyboard shortcuts: Customize.” Click the “Customize” button and proceed as explained above.
Customizing

Customizing

But to continue…

Making it a combo that’s not too convoluted for the hands

This, of course, depends on how many fingers you have (I have ten so far) and how large or small they are, along with your native dexterity. As you can see in the picture above, I’m partial to ALT + CTRL + SHIFT, which I actually find easy to press with my left hand while pressing a letter key with my right. If that’s too convoluted for you, you might try CTRL + SHIFT or CTRL + ALT, both of which are easy to do. ALT + SHIFT is a little more difficult. You can even use plain old CTRL or ALT with another character, but that starts to encroach on Word’s built-in key combinations (like CTRL + S to save a document).

There’s another system, however, that you may not know about:

  1. Press your desired key combination.
  2. Press another key.

The result will be something like this:

Two-step key

Two-step key

See that ,”1” after the “Alt+Ctrl+Shift+M”? That means I’ve just created a two-step key combination. To run the macro, I press ALT+CTRL+SHIFT+M. Then I press 1 (the one key, all by itself). At that point (and not before), the macro will run. Pretty slick!

What that means is that you can assign all kinds of two-step combinations (letters will work as well as numbers), which gives you two characters for the mnemonic you use to remember what a combination does. That’s twice as good as one! (Unfortunately, Word won’t let you use more than two.) It also means you can create shortcuts like these:

ALT+CTRL+SHIFT+H,1 (to apply the Heading 1 style)ALT+CTRL+SHIFT+H,2 (to apply the Heading 2 style)

Or these:

CTRL + SHIFT + T,C (to transpose characters)
CTRL + SHIFT + T,W (to transpose words)
CTRL + SHIFT + T,S (to transpose sentences)
CTRL + SHIFT + T,P (to transpose paragraphs)

And so on. The mind reels at the possibilities!

Making it a combo that you will remember among all the other keystroke combinations you’ve assigned

Using two-step combinations should help with that requirement as well, but for serious keyboard junkies there’s another solution — XKeys. The company manufactures various models, from 24 keys on up to 128 keys! You can assign the keys to your macros, label the keys, color code them, and so on. The 60-key model looks like this:

The 60-key XKeys

The 60-key XKeys

Rich Adin swears by this gadget, and he’s one of the most productive copyeditors I know. Maybe you’d find it useful too.

We’ve met the requirements

In summary, we’ve figured out some ways to meet all of Kristi Hein’s requirements for key combinations:

  • Not using one of the many you’ve already assigned.
  • Making it a combo that’s not too convoluted for the hands.
  • Making it a combo that you will remember among all the other keystroke combinations you’ve assigned.

These may seem like small things, but small things add up to greater editing efficiency, and that means more money in your pocket and less time at work, both of which are big things. I hope this essay will help you achieve them.

Jack Lyon (editor@editorium.com) owns and operates the Editorium, which provides macros and information to help editors and publishers do mundane tasks quickly and efficiently. He is the author of Microsoft Word for Publishing Professionals and of Macro Cookbook for Microsoft Word. Both books will help you learn more about macros and how to use them.

August 21, 2015

Worth Reading: Is Wikipedia Reliable?

Need to know whether a “fact” is really a “fact”? A lot of editors turn to Wikipedia. Is that what an editor should do?

A recent study, written by Adam Wilson and Gene Likens, regarding Wikipedia’s reliability was published August 14, 2015 in the journal PLoS ONE and is well worth reading:

Content Volatility of Scientific Topics in Wikipedia: A Cautionary Tale

I admit I rarely look at Wikipedia and have never been comfortable with crowd-sourced “research”, but I attribute that to a generational hangup. Yet perhaps there is some reason to be cautious.

What do you think?

Richard Adin, An American Editor

Next Page »

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,699 other followers

%d bloggers like this: