Tree Tech Consulting    The Knothole  Hop To Forum Categories  The CTLA Guide    Editor Needed

Closed Topic Closed
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Editor Needed
 Login/Join 
<Wayne>
posted
Being one of those people who rereads my reports, letters, memos and notes to my wife several times to see if what I wrote is what I meant to say........ Scotts posts under this heading have got me worried about the integrity of the 9th edition. I can work with the tools but I'm not equiped to disect the apprasial concepts to the degree that others are. Am I alone in feeling a pain developing in the pit of my stomach?
 
Report This Post
<Dennis Brown>
posted
Reply to post by Wayne, on May 17, 2000 at 17:07:04:

Wayne, You are not alone. Malox maybe? I hope someone is writing down all of these notes that Scot is bringing to our attention. We need to get all such information consolidated.

I will be the first to admit that editing is hard to do. I too utilize resources I have close to proof work. It is obviously very important. Especially when you are paying a high cost for the publication. Perhaps someone will publish all of the inconsistences and provide them to purchasers of the 9th edition.

It is the same feeling when I accidentally ran across the list of changes, errors, and addendums to the $90 Arboriculture (Harris, Methany, Clark) text. They were on the ISA site. I was glad to see them, but I wondered how many people who owned the text knew about them. I have seen no reference to them in industry publications.

I am not sure if the answer is more editors or better editors.
 
Report This Post
<Russ Carlson>
posted
Reply to post by Dennis Brown, on May 17, 2000 at 17:07:04:

Being somewhat intimately involved with technical writing (I'm married to a technical writer) I recognize the problem all too often. It is one thing to copy edit the publication, and something else entirely to properly edit it for content and context. Too many of the technical publications are not showing the proper regard for this simple protocol. If it is going to be published and sold, the audience deserves an error free manuscript.

I've suggested before that ISA needs better editing of their publications, but so far my comments have fallen on deaf ears.

As a note, Julian Dunster has been appointed by ISA as the new rep to CTLA (on Dr. Harris' retirement from the position). I know Julian reads this board, so I hope the posts here regarding the Ninth Edition will be heard and heeded.
 
Report This Post
<Julian>
posted
Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on June 07, 2000 at 11:23:45:

I have been copying the various comments into a single file, and mulling over what to do with them. I think the best and simplest approach will be to bring the deficiencies to the ISA's attention and maybe publish them as a comprehensive errata. Perhaps we can work together on this site to provide a section which lays out the corrections and draws readers attention to them, along with brief explanatory notes.

Various chapters have, in the past, produced their own interpretive guides to help chapter members understand the CTLA guide. PNW is thinking about doing this, I know Ontario had one as did Minnesota.

Do the thronging hordes think this woulkd be a reasonable approach?

Julian Dunster
 
Report This Post
<Scott>
posted
Reply to post by Julian, on June 07, 2000 at 20:43:02:

Julian wrote: "...perhaps we can work together on this site to provide a section which lays out the corrections and draws readers attention to them, along with brief explanatory notes." Well I certainly hope somebody else besides me is looking at 9th with a critical eye. I found the errors I've posted as I found occassion to study those particular parts of the Guide. Hopefully others will do the same.

ERRATA should indeed be compiled comprehensively and distributed to the appraisal community. IMHO ISA has a responsibility to do it (distribute that is, I have no illusions anybody but the users will assemble them). Failing that, I think Russ's intent in creating this section was that it could be updated dynamically and available to all. If nothing else it could be linke to the ISA site.

CLARIFICATIONS. CTLA has a responsibility to clarify some of the errors, e.g. where several boldface terms are used for a single concept, decide on one so everybody is using the same terms rather than inventing or selecting their own.

INTERPRETATIONS. These are entirely separate and distinguished from ERRATA. I've started to assemble a list of things that need or could benefit from interpretation... for my own use, but will reflect on the issues more and have some experience with 9th before attempting to complete them. These are a tricky business. On the one hand IMHO part of CTLA's mission should be to provide explanation and rationale for it's pronouncements (ideally with theorteical support) and that is lacking. Third party attempts to do this risk having to guess what CTLA's intent was. And there might be varying interpretations.... "what the 9th Edition means to me.... what I did on my Summer vacation...." On the other hand, third party intrepretations may in fact provide useful alternatives to the CTLA position(s) or articulate a theoretical basis that remains lacking. CHAPTER or REGIONAL interpretations that reflect local conditions, law or tradition may be usefule to those regions, but should not be confused with basic analytical techniques which should be fact neutral.
 
Report This Post
<Wayne>
posted
Reply to post by Dennis Brown, on May 17, 2000 at 17:07:04:

Dennis,

Actually, I was unaware of the errata sheet for Mathney and Clark.....!! Off to ISA website
 
Report This Post
<Russ Carlson>
posted
Reply to post by Julian, on June 07, 2000 at 20:43:02:

We have the place- right here. Let's roll up the sleeves and get to work.

I have a minor aversion to promoting this site through ISA's web site. I don't want it to appear too commercial, and certainly not self-serving or competitive. Yet this kind of discussin can take place freely here, on a private site, where it might not be as appropriate on the publisher's site. Since I have a site and CTLA don't. . .

I sure won't mind if someone drops a bug in ISA's ear (maybe an earwig?) about linking here for that purpose. I see this kind of discussion as beneficial all the way around, and it will lead to a better product with the next edition. CTLA can't be held hostage by the masses or swayed simply by public opinion. But CTLA is a committee of individuals, and can't think of all the aspects without a little outside help.
 
Report This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  

Closed Topic Closed

Tree Tech Consulting    The Knothole  Hop To Forum Categories  The CTLA Guide    Editor Needed

© 1997-2003 Tree Tech Consulting. All messages are the property of the original author.