Beta'ing vs Editing
Recently I've been involved in a number of online discussions of what the difference is between the terms beta'ing and editing, with lots of different, often conflicting opinions. I thought Notes from the Edge might be a good forum to share my thoughts on those terms.
My personal definitions come from my background in the high-tech industry, where alpha testing is performed (usually by the programmer or programming team) while an application is getting created, and not only is very preliminary, but only covers certain aspects of the incomplete application; beta testing is performed by a select group of testers on the first version(s) of a product as part of the process of finalizing it and working the bugs out; acceptance testing is done by the client on the supposedly finalized product in order to assure that no bugs have been missed and that the application actually does what it's supposed to do before it's paid for.
I tend to liken my own editing process to the above stages. I throw bits and pieces of my writing out to my close friends while I'm doing the writing and ask for their help to get over whatever problem I'm having or to confirm whether or not I'm on the right track. That's what I personally consider my "alpha'ing" (for lack of an existing term). When the story is finished to the best of my ability (spell-checked, reread and personally edited), I send it to my betas, who are knowledgeable in either writing and/or the fandom in question (and preferably both). I ask them to try and catch anything and everything my alphas and I missed so that I can fix those problems before I send the story on to the public. Finally, when I submit the story to a publisher, if it is accepted, the publisher does the acceptance testing, i.e., the editing, telling me what I need to do to make that story acceptable for publication. I'm expecting my editor to be knowledgeable enough to make the story better and/or more marketable.
And when I'm the one who's doing the alpha'ing, I expect to get a rough draft that needs more work. If asked, I won't do any spell-checking, grammar-checking, etc. at this point, since it will probably have to be done all over again once the story has been rewritten/fixed, risking the possibility of more errors creeping in (although I do prefer to give that kind of feedback even at the beginning, because it helps to keep errors from accumulating). When I'm doing editing on a story that's been submitted to Blackfly Presses, for example, I expect most of the problems and errors to have already been addressed before the story ever got to me. I'm there to catch what may have been missed, add my so-called "expert" advice if the submitter felt their own betas weren't all that efficient, and advise on market-value ("Sorry, BFP's fanfic niche market does not go for wimpy Blair. Could you please give him some spine?")
But as always, these are my own personal definitions and expectations. :-) I know well that many -- possibly most -- writers and publishers have different definitions for the process.
My personal definitions come from my background in the high-tech industry, where alpha testing is performed (usually by the programmer or programming team) while an application is getting created, and not only is very preliminary, but only covers certain aspects of the incomplete application; beta testing is performed by a select group of testers on the first version(s) of a product as part of the process of finalizing it and working the bugs out; acceptance testing is done by the client on the supposedly finalized product in order to assure that no bugs have been missed and that the application actually does what it's supposed to do before it's paid for.
I tend to liken my own editing process to the above stages. I throw bits and pieces of my writing out to my close friends while I'm doing the writing and ask for their help to get over whatever problem I'm having or to confirm whether or not I'm on the right track. That's what I personally consider my "alpha'ing" (for lack of an existing term). When the story is finished to the best of my ability (spell-checked, reread and personally edited), I send it to my betas, who are knowledgeable in either writing and/or the fandom in question (and preferably both). I ask them to try and catch anything and everything my alphas and I missed so that I can fix those problems before I send the story on to the public. Finally, when I submit the story to a publisher, if it is accepted, the publisher does the acceptance testing, i.e., the editing, telling me what I need to do to make that story acceptable for publication. I'm expecting my editor to be knowledgeable enough to make the story better and/or more marketable.
And when I'm the one who's doing the alpha'ing, I expect to get a rough draft that needs more work. If asked, I won't do any spell-checking, grammar-checking, etc. at this point, since it will probably have to be done all over again once the story has been rewritten/fixed, risking the possibility of more errors creeping in (although I do prefer to give that kind of feedback even at the beginning, because it helps to keep errors from accumulating). When I'm doing editing on a story that's been submitted to Blackfly Presses, for example, I expect most of the problems and errors to have already been addressed before the story ever got to me. I'm there to catch what may have been missed, add my so-called "expert" advice if the submitter felt their own betas weren't all that efficient, and advise on market-value ("Sorry, BFP's fanfic niche market does not go for wimpy Blair. Could you please give him some spine?")
But as always, these are my own personal definitions and expectations. :-) I know well that many -- possibly most -- writers and publishers have different definitions for the process.
posted by Jenny_Saypaw | 11:48 PM
|
23 comments
