[Critias]

They clearly need more eyes as they continue to make simple to spot editing errors.

I mean does Catalyst even think they have a problem or do they think everything is peachy and they can just carry on as is?

Sometimes, the problem isn't the number of eyes on product, it's the speed and clarity with which proofreaders report stuff, it's whether or not the editor agrees with the issues they report, it's whether he gets conflicting complaints from different proofers (and has to decide which way to go with an edit), it's lots of things.  It's even some things I can't get into, due to NDAs limiting my capacity to share backstage discussions and issues that've cropped up in the past.

The thing to understand is that more eyes isn't always the answer, and you also need to understand that "Catalyst" isn't one person with one opinion, and that proofreading isn't the end-all, be-all, of putting out quality product.  Plenty of folks are concerned with quality control, but there's lots of other stuff going on, too, that we freelancers -- as the schmucks working in the gas station, manning the register and interacting with the public -- just can't, won't, or shouldn't, address. 

That said?  It's feeling like no answer anyone here is capable of providing you will satisfy you, though you keep on not letting that stop you from demanding answers from us.  You've shifted the conversational goalposts several times, backpedaled frantically from some stuff you've said, doubled down on some other stuff you've said, ignored some of the answers you've received, made wild demands and dared Catalyst to do something bold and innovative, hemmed and hawed when it turns out your wild demands were already being met and your bold innovation was something that's been happening for years, and just doubled down and shifted the goalposts again. 

So I think I'm circling back around, pretty soundly, into "why bother responding" territory, again.  Sorry.

[adzling]

Yeah at this point I'd settle for text that matches the table contents and rules that are not contradictory.
Which shows just how far my expectations have fallen.

I totally get that the freelancers shouldn't/ can't respond to this type of stuff.

These are clearly management issues that catalyst seems unable/ unwilling to address.

I keep going back to battletech and how much better catalyst manages that franchise.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the owner loves battletech so he wants to get it right and makes sure, with community support, it's is fixed if it's not right.

Instead the shadowrun franchise is stuck with management that appears (who knows what's in their head) to care little about getting things right and doesn't care to fix them when they go wrong.

[Critias]

I totally get that the freelancers shouldn't/ can't respond to this type of stuff.

And yet, here we are.

[tytalan]

quick question I have heard Cot many times lately on this form but I can not find a product that would be CoT so my question is what is Cot standing for

[Reaver]

quick question I have heard Cot many times lately on this form but I can not find a product that would be CoT so my question is what is Cot standing for

I am assuming it means Table of Contents.

[Duellist_D]

Get on the list, if we need extra eyes he'll hook you up.

But thats not an if.
CGL's proofreading Quality is subpar, especially in many cases that are rather easy to spot. I don't think there are many customers that debate that.
If it was as easy as you put it, the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.

Plenty of stuff in the complaining-threads that doesn't fall into this (" it's whether or not the editor agrees with the issues they report, it's whether he gets conflicting complaints from different proofers (and has to decide which way to go with an edit), it's lots of things") catgory.

There is really no point in debating whether "blank entries" or "missaligned lines in a sheet" are intentional or an error yet you'll find numerous of errors like this, in several of the recent books. And this type is both the most easy to spot and most irritating error for a customer, because it has a huge influx on playability of the provided Information.

If the guys "you" (abstract, not you critias in Person, except if you would happen to be the HR-Guy of CGL) work with and that are under you don't do their job in a sastisfying way, its "your" (again, whoever is responding for hiring persons for this task) job to fix this problem and actively look out / ask for replacements. If you aren't doing this, then sorry i have to say, you are doing a non-sufficient job at what you should do.

And before any Freelancer feels wrongly insulted/attacked or w/e:
Please keep in mind the title of the thread is asking for opinions on SR5E products.
Not on freelancers in specific. I'm fully aware that most likely non of you have the right to hire externals by yourself.


Still, if any of you could raise this issue in /internal/ communications (again?), especially the part with the "People would do without CGL having to spend actual Money on them", this might help the case a bit.
Hearing something from a co-worker has usually a different weight in a discussion than ramblings of some random internetperson.

[All4BigGuns]

Get on the list, if we need extra eyes he'll hook you up.

But thats not an if.
CGL's proofreading Quality is subpar, especially in many cases that are rather easy to spot. I don't think there are many customers that debate that.
If it was as easy as you put it, the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.

Personally, I'd say that the cases that actually pose a real problem are less than the complaining would suggest. Certainly there are some, but almost all of the 'errata threads' here have a lot of things that are just nitpicks like spelling or minor grammar errors. Heck, the tables on Rigger 5.0 aren't that bad--still easy enough to tell what's what, just off kilter slightly.

[Herr Brackhaus]

Heck, the tables on Rigger 5.0 aren't that bad--still easy enough to tell what's what, just off kilter slightly.

Except in the cases where entries are just plain missing, like drone weapon mount costs (clarified by Wakshaani, fortunately), the micro drone rack, and drone speeds in tactical combat (and what speed P is, since that's not mentioned anywhere), just to name a few example.

[Critias]

Get on the list, if we need extra eyes he'll hook you up.

But thats not an if.

It really, really, is.  The problem isn't always spotting the errors in the first place.  I'd love to say more, but NDAs don't let me, so I'll just repeat, "the problem isn't always spotting the errors in the first place."

If the guys "you" (abstract, not you critias in Person, except if you would happen to be the HR-Guy of CGL) work with and that are under you don't do their job in a sastisfying way, its "your" (again, whoever is responding for hiring persons for this task) job to fix this problem and actively look out / ask for replacements. If you aren't doing this, then sorry i have to say, you are doing a non-sufficient job at what you should do.

The fact you think there's an HR person shows me that you've got some mistaken assumptions about not only this process in particular, but CGL (and likely the gaming industry) as a whole.  Things in the RPG industry don't work the way you seem to think they work. 

Still, if any of you could raise this issue in /internal/ communications (again?), especially the part with the "People would do without CGL having to spend actual Money on them", this might help the case a bit.

Again, this is already the case.  There are already people doing this "without CGL having to spend actual money on them," and there have been for a very long time.  I cannot imagine how to be any clearer about this;  it is a thing that is already happening, and it has been the way it's been done for years now. 

But, yes, the quality control issue has been raised internally.  It's been raised internally before, and I'm sure it will be raised internally again.  There've been formal announcements about it, in fact.  We know it's an issue.  Everyone knows it's an issue.  There is nobody that doesn't know it's an issue, I promise.  I'm not trying to be an asshole here, guys (or gals), I just want to make sure y'all understand that there is a proofing process in place, that proofing process does already heavily rely on the community, and we are aware of the problem -- and also, if you want to joint that proofing community, the door's open -- but that most of us can't do anything about it, even though we're just as frustrated by it as you are (hell, our names are on these products).

[Rift_0f_Bladz]

Heck, the tables on Rigger 5.0 aren't that bad--still easy enough to tell what's what, just off kilter slightly.

Except in the cases where entries are just plain missing, like drone weapon mount costs (clarified by Wakshaani, fortunately), the micro drone rack, and drone speeds in tactical combat (and what speed P is, since that's not mentioned anywhere), just to name a few example.

Or at least one vehicle (the Mil/Sec Rhino) that has stats that don't match at all (chapter stats vrs table at end of book).

Personally (and my opinion) don't care for the way fluff and crunch is mix in the SR books, I prefer something more like Pathfinder's fluff then hard crunch (example feats). That said, I overall enjoy Rigger 5.0 (issues aside) and level of crunch to fluff is closer to what I wanted. Just would like more concise rules and not contradictory.

Again (really trying to emphasize this) love the set up of Rigger 5.0. It is more like the last two good crunch books (Run and Gun and Run Faster). Right amount of crunch to fluff.

I personally could care less about the metaplot, so any chapter that is dealing with that is wasted on me and my group (using 60's-ish timeline with 5th rules).

[Wakshaani]

And -- because a few of you have expressed interest in becoming part of a potential solution, working as a proofer/editor/whatever -- I think the management-approved method for getting ahold of Jason is via his "JM_Hardy" account, right here on the forums.  There are long-time fans who, in the past, worked as proofers (for store credit, IIRC), so it's a transition that people can make.  If you want to reach out to Jason, reach out to Jason, and see if he feels the proofer pool needs a few more warm bodies in it.

Just re-quoting the above.

We have proofers. We probably need more. There's the guy to talk to about getting in there.

Don't forget, every freelancer started as a fan (And we still *are* fans!), as did the staffers, on up the chain, and want to see the best things possible. We want this stuff to be all sorts of kicking hindquarters, so if you want to help, give it a spin!

You might be surprised.

[PeterSmith]

The only conclusion I can draw is that the owner loves battletech so he wants to get it right and makes sure, with community support, it's is fixed if it's not right.

100% wrong.

[Medicineman]

I totally get that the freelancers shouldn't/ can't respond to this type of stuff.

And yet, here we are.

Und das ist auch gut & richtig so !

with a german Dance
Medicineman

[All4BigGuns]

I totally get that the freelancers shouldn't/ can't respond to this type of stuff.

And yet, here we are.

Und das ist auch gut & richtig so !

with a german Dance
Medicineman

And this would mean what?

[Zweiblumen]

I totally get that the freelancers shouldn't/ can't respond to this type of stuff.

And yet, here we are.

Und das ist auch gut & richtig so !

with a german Dance
Medicineman

And this would mean what?

This is a good thing.

(And this is also good and right so!)