MEW 342

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

It is interesting to see the available altenatives:

https://www.acronymfinder.com/SPAG.html

MichaelG.

[Ian PParticipant @ianp]

A new one to me too

Ian P

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi, I’ve never before heard of SPAG, but I do remember one from my sixties school days, and it wasn’t taught by the teachers. It was NORWICH but nothing to do with the programme TYP on telly. I can’t really say what it means, but it was a message used by some of the boys. On the other hand, would many of the younger generation know what; M.B. S.W. M.W. and L.W. refers to.

Regards Nick.

[Andrew Skinner]

On Andrew Skinner Said:

On Bazyle Said:

“I honestly thought SPAG was a common abbreviation, certainly used when I was at school in the 90s. ‘Check your SPAG before you hand the essays in’. ”

That’s the point. People posting on here during the daytime mostly went to school in the fifties and sixties.

So did my teachers, who were using the term. I guess they got it from training, rather than their own school days.

I detect two different meanings for SPAG.

• ‘Check your SPAG before you hand the essays in’ is good advice expressed as a informal abbreviation.  No problem with it provided the audience are up to speed.  Could have been around for decades, but not universal.
• In 2013, SPaG was one a number of reforms introduced into the British primary school system.   The curriculum was changed to improve the next generation’s spelling, punctuation and grammar, and tests introduced to measure attainment.  Those wishing to support children of primary school age need to know about SPaG, not SPAG.

Although spelling, punctuation and grammar were important in my schooldays, we didn’t know them as SPAG.   Decades later, Andrew is exposed at school to some hew education jargon, SPAG in the ordinary sense, believes that’s it, and didn’t notice years later that SPaG is a new twist.   Whilst Andrew’s generation are more up-to-date than mine, time marching on makes fools of us all!

Delighted to reveal that moderators do not inspect posts for spelling, punctuation or grammar on this forum. This community values model engineering in all forms, for which literary skills are not required.  All are welcome!

Dave

[Bazyle]

On Bazyle Said:

“I honestly thought SPAG was a common abbreviation, certainly used when I was at school in the 90s. ‘Check your SPAG before you hand the essays in’. ”

That’s the point. People posting on here during the daytime mostly went to school in the fifties and sixties.

At the grammar school I left in 1988, SPAG would have only been used to describe the English Teacher – Sarcastic, Perfectionist, Articulate and Grumpy.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Well I left grammar school in 1968,and I did get an o level in English language. All that effort in parsing sentences was not wasted, I couldn’t do it now, but I do know that a sentence needs to contain at least one verb, and that adding ‘ize’ to the end of a noun doesn’t necessarily give you a valid verb. This seemed to be unknown territory to the numpties who wrote a lot of our corporate documentation. One of the docs said our vision was ‘a world class…… company’. When I pointed out that it needed ‘to be’ added they simply didn’t understand. The other howler on the coffee machine said “before vending a drink……”. They couldn’t understand that vending meant to offer for sale, which is what the machine did, not the poor sap who had to drink the muck provided.

[NealebParticipant @nealeb]

Interesting that people are talking of SPAG appearing in or about 2013. My wife retired from teaching in 2012, having also been a GCSE marker for many years before that. I can remember her talking about giving or removing SPAG marks at GCSE level for a long time, whether candidates realised it or not!

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I think it just comes down to a proofreader and the author needing to know the subject and who the article is aimed at. Then they should be able to make changes that are needed and leave other things untouched.

From this thread it would seem the target audience for ME and MEW don’t know what SPaG means just as I would not expect an English teacher to know what DRO or Dti meant. Even then who an article is aimed at may determine how it is written, for example one aimed at newcomers to the hobby should contain less jargon than one for the hardened armchair engineer.

Pictures can also help the newcomer as they may never have done something that the long term members here may take for granted. This is where an Editor has the choice of what images to include and at what size certain ones should be reproduced. Take the missing photo 1. Did we really need a photo of the tractor when the article is about a fixed steady? I expect while playing about with text, photos, drawings and a set number of pages Neil decided that Fig 1 was more important and just mixed up the captions.

[JasonB]

On JasonB Said:

[…] and just mixed up the captions.

Yes, that was the point of the < sigh > in my opening post.

If there is a connection to be explored, then let’s call it  ATD [Attention To Detail]

MichaelG.

[Ian PParticipant @ianp]

Shouldn’t that be AtD 🤨

Ian P

[bernard towersParticipant @bernardtowers37738]

Me neither or any of the others!!!

[Ian P]

On Ian P Said:

Shouldn’t that be AtD 🤨

Ian P

It would depend upon whose rules one was following.

…  I made my arbitrary choice, and properly declared it.

MichaelG.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Wish I could find the old Model Engineer magazine circa 1960 I have that lists an editorial team of about 8 people.   Happy days, slow moving, with plenty of cheap labour.   Maybe a couple of proof-readers in the background and no doubt they had a Tea Lady, Lift Attendant, Office Boy, Buttons, and Commissionaire on the staff too.

In contrast, I believe Neil edits MEW on his own, and the job is part-time.  Mistakes are inevitable whenever hard work is rushed to a tight schedule and I can’t get excited about the odd typo in a hobby magazine!

Dave

 

 

 

[Michael Gilligan]

On Michael Gilligan Said:

 

If there is a connection to be explored, then let’s call it  ATD [Attention To Detail]

 

Do we really need to use so many TLAs?

Yes, I know they ought to be called TLIs

[Nick Wheeler]

On Nick Wheeler Said:

Do we really need to use so many TLAs?

[…]

Possibly not

But if everything was written in full … it might soon get tedious.

MichaelG.

[Graham MeekParticipant @grahammeek88282]

For my part having endured 10 years with the NHS and their abbreviations. I hate them.

In my article writing I have always written the subject in full, before using any abbreviation, that way the reader does not have to assume the meaning.

Given how much the younger generations are shortening the Language with their text messages. The question about grammatical correctness now, is a bit academic.

A recent Text exchange between Grandparent and teenager,

How are you? reply “K”.

Did you like your birthday present? reply “Gorg”

This may be all very “Cool” with teenagers, but this does nothing for the 70+ age bracket.

Regards

Gray,

 

 

[Nick WheelerParticipant @nickwheeler]

My policy for any text/email/blog/etc that looks like it was created by the cat killing a pigeon on a keyboard is to delete it without reading. It doesn’t take long for anyone who has important information to remember how to communicate it effectively.

[SillyOldDuffer]

On SillyOldDuffer Said:

Wish I could find the old Model Engineer magazine circa 1960 I have that lists an editorial team of about 8 people.   Happy days, slow moving, with plenty of cheap labour.   Maybe a couple of proof-readers in the background and no doubt they had a Tea Lady, Lift Attendant, Office Boy, Buttons, and Commissionaire on the staff too.

In contrast, I believe Neil edits MEW on his own, and the job is part-time.  Mistakes are inevitable whenever hard work is rushed to a tight schedule and I can’t get excited about the odd typo in a hobby magazine!

Dave

 

 

 

And the editorial panel of eight or more always seemed to include names such as Prof Chaddock, GH Thomas, ET Westbury, Ian Bradley and so on.

But between them and the printers, where the proofreaders were to be found, would have been a squad of nameless sub-editors whose job it was to correct spelling, grammar, style and factual errors, as well as untangle twisted prose, before it got sent to be set in hot lead to make a printing plate. (Or earlier, set in rows of moveable type all clamped together.)

The plate was then used to run off a few “galley proofs” which were then pored over by actual proofreaders and any errors that had slipped past the squads of editors and sub-editors and compositors and typesetters were corrected .

With the demise of hot lead and the rise of computer-generated photo-etched printing plates in the 1980s-90s, the proofreaders were all “let go”, along with the compositors who had made, and checked, the hot lead plates. The onus for accuracy fell to the sub-editors.

Then as print advertising revenues declined in the 21st century, the sub-editors were all “let go” and the last remaining editor left out of the editorial panel of eight got to do all the editing, and all the sub-editing and all the final proofreading himself (on “proofs” from his own office laser printer).

Now, with the press of a button on the typical last remaining editor’s computer in the spare room of his home, a completed printing plate typically comes out of a machine next to the press some hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Without even a cursory glance, it is bolted into the press, which starts spitting out magazines immediately.

Not a tea lady in sight. Nor a sub-editor, let alone a proofreader. All part of a bygone era, as you say. Today’s advertising revenue simply won’t support it. In the heyday of print, advertising was reckoned at 85 per cent of revenue for most newspapers and magazines, and termed “The rivers of gold”. Now that most advertising has gone over to the internet, publications are left to struggle along largely on the remaining 15 per cent trickle that traditionally came from subscriptions and cover sales.

All things considered, the error rate ain’t too bad. But it certainly ain’t what it used to be. I rarely read a book these days without finding at least a couple of errors in it, let alone a magazine or newspaper. (And that includes the websites of the major international dailies I read.)

‘Tis the world we live in.

[Graham Meek]

On Graham Meek Said:

…
Given how much the younger generations are shortening the Language with their text messages. The question about grammatical correctness now, is a bit academic.

A recent Text exchange between Grandparent and teenager,

How are you? reply “K”.

Did you like your birthday present? reply “Gorg”

This may be all very “Cool” with teenagers, but this does nothing for the 70+ age bracket.

Regards

Gray,

 

 

Radio hams using morse code will know that it was heavily abbreviated from the earliest days, and a modern operator will still send century plus abbreviations like TNX OM FER UR FB RPT K.   Thus the old-school abbreviation for ‘gorg’ is ‘FB’, short for ‘fine business’.  ’73’ is Best Wishes, and ’88’  – Love and Kisses!

Many  telegraphic abbreviations date to the Phillips Code of 1879.  Much used to cut cable costs, only finally disappearing commercially in about 1970.  ‘SAIK’ = ‘Shot and Instantly Killed”;  ‘IXC’ = ‘It is claimed’; ‘OP’=’opportunity’, and ‘FPABND’=’Full Prices Asked But No Demand’.   Some of it still survives outside telegraphy, especially in the US, with  ‘POTUS’ – President of the United States; ‘SCOTUS’ – Supreme Court of the United States; and ‘POX’ – police;

Youngsters have never been impressed by dad jargon. Top-hole old bean went out with the Frothblowers Club.  Blighty, wizard, bimble, erk, and prune were old-fashioned when I was little.   No, young speak should have been frozen in 1968, with all further change forbidden. Impossible to get more ‘right on’ than ‘primo’ and ‘grok’.

🙂

Dave

[Graham MeekParticipant @grahammeek88282]

Well Dave you have lost me, I have clearly led a very sheltered life.

Regards

Gray,

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

GWR used codes for it’s rolling stock see

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Western_Railway_telegraphic_codes#

No doubt to cut down time spent operating keys. Toad is a lot shorter than brake van. Lots of other commercial outfits had similar codes, in their case to reduce cost. I doubt they were worried about cyber security

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

On the ‘figure’ issue, it’s incredible how many contributors use ‘figure’ for ‘photographs’,  or interchangeably with ‘drawing’, ‘sketch’, ‘part’ and ‘diagram’.  Sometimes using three or four different signifiers in the same article. It usually makes logical sense within the article, but is inconsistent between them. It also adds to the confusion that we now have screenshots and renderings that some consider photos and some consider figures; I tend to go with each author’s treatment of these to reduce the potential for errors.

I used to try and change all ‘drawings’ to be a figure, but as this has led to errors on longer articles I’m starting to accept the division into figures and sketches or figures and parts (as was the case in early issues).

Also we have rules about capitalisation and spelling. At the beginning of a sentence, ‘photograph’, ‘reference’ and ‘figure’ are spelt out in full. Within a sentence they become ‘photo’ (no period as it’s now an accepted word not an abbreviation), ‘fig.’ and ‘ref.’, but ‘figs’ and ‘refs’ without a period as they end in the same letter as the full word.

Usually, such in-text references are marked out with commas, not parentheses, unless they are an essential part of the sentence structure.

The first instance of any such reference should be in bold, but repeats are not.

What this does mean is that in a large proportion of articles, probably virtually all, I have to manually edit all the figure and photo references. For a complex article, especially if ‘images’ are misclassified, or I have to remove one (for reasons such as quality, copyright, repetition or just redundancy), then it can take longer to do this than to do the more normal editing activities, such as checking grammar and spellings.

In order to make the articles easier for readers to follow, with a simple, consistent approach to referencing images in the articles, I have to do all the working out what an author really intends on the readers’ behalf. I hope this drawn out explanation of the surprising complexity that goes into doing this, explains why sometimes I make mistakes.

My apologies for not getting it right every time, but that is a tough task with no independet proofing, as has been pointed out above.

Incidentally, I read most articles five to seven times before they go to print; often against the clock at the final stages. Once you have read an article that many times, it’s almost impossible to spot minor errors, although I try.

Neil

[bernard towersParticipant @bernardtowers37738]

Dont fret Neil we can only do our best and if that is not good enough for a few you are on winner. I wouldnt have your job for all the tea in China.

[bernard towers]

On bernard towers Said:

Dont fret Neil we can only do our best and if that is not good enough for a few you are on winner. I wouldnt have your job for all the tea in China.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

I know that on the articles I have submitted to MEW it can take almost as long as writing the article (I am a quick writer) to sort through all the pictures, choose the best dozen or so and then tediously put them in order to match the text, name all the photos as Photo 1 etc, write the captions and then go back through the text and insert all the references to Photo 1 and so on. And then go back and check them all. And it is very easy to get mixed up along the way and have to redo some.

Then the editor has to input all that into the publishing system, and quite possibly change all the photo numbers if there is not room to include them all, or he feels they would work better in a different order, or if one is pulled out to use on the front or for a pointer etc. No wonder errors occur. And it is a truth universally recognised that more errors make it into print in photo captions than anywhere else in most publications. For some reason they are able to sneak through the proofreading process unnoticed. Yet the research shows captions are the second most-read element on the page, after the main headline, by general readers. So then they all get noticed!

[Author]

Posts