Group Editing
Over the last three months, I have been coordinating the editing of five technical documents. They are assembly instructions for electrical parts used on aircraft. While I am the lead author (having completed 80% of the first draft), many people have contributed to the content, format, and approval of the document. My epic journey to release these documents has led to some interesting observations, which I thought would be fun to share. Wait. “Fun” is not the best word to describe it. Amusing? No. Therapeutic? Wrong direction. Painful? Yup, that’s the word.
Group editing differs vastly from group creating because the effort lacks spirit and focus. I think this is because each team member did not have a hand in the initial development, they do not apply great effort. Instead, participating editors desire to shift the document to their own style and content. And to make matters worse, their effort lacks pride. I like to think of it as they are boxers smacking an opponent around versus a painter lovingly capturing a stunning scene.
However, the editors sometimes take on a peculiar, twisted pride after making many edits to a single section. Then, they treat this section as their own and do not like it when others try to edit it. Then, they lightly review their edits and pick apart the other sections. Often, the comments are mean-spirited.
Now, I must take a sidestep from the fun world of fiction writing. Engineers do a lot of writing, but it is vastly different from fiction. Their words are dry, complex, terse, and explanation-heavy. Plus, a new writer has entered the engineering world, the vast tentacles of the legal community. For example, I must carefully apply the term “shall” and follow all the rules associated with legal directives. A significant rule is never to guarantee anything. But this is supposed to be an assembly document meant only for internal use. Really? You bet.
However, it is not all boring. Engineers sometimes add a touch of humor, and I have even seen Dilbert cartoons incorporated into serious documents.
Back to the group editing. Individuals have an innate desire to contribute to or make a change. This means it is difficult for them to lay down the pen and say, “This document is good enough.” This desire leads to endless revisions, awkward sections, strong opinions, and hurt feelings. To make matters worse, people often struggle to concede that their approach is not the best.
Group editing is not a team-building exercise due to the numerous compromises, arguments, and flawed final results that often occur. I have found the best way to group edit is in a meeting. This is when people gather in a conference room, review a section, share ideas, and quickly eliminate incorrect directions. That’s nice, but group editing is rarely done this way.
Instead, a document is emailed or placed on a shared server with the tracked changes enabled. This flawed approach introduces numerous errors because not all changes are tracked, recorded, and synchronized. Additionally, there can be numerous changes to one section, and the resulting over-changed mess is difficult to unscramble.
Another problem is that five people can discover the same error and make five corrections, each with a slightly different approach. However, the worst problem is when somebody works on an older revision and saves it over the latest version. Meaning they overwrite other people’s work. Then there is the sneaky change. This occurs when the group overrides an edit, but the person wants it restored. So, they save over somebody else’s work, and the edit magically gets reintroduced. Sometimes, the change is discovered in time, and at other times, the flawed document is released. Of course, the sneaky author claims innocence.
Change tracking helps, but it also can be an enormous obstacle. The problem is that it records a change, but it does not register the intent behind the change (unless a note is provided). This feature also prevents the document from being updated, as the prior information remains present. I have witnessed conversation loops lasting weeks around changes that were approved, unapproved, and then re-approved. It is maddening.
Another enormous problem with change tracking occurs when people view the edits (I call this red editing) rather than the final document. Imagine a cut-and-paste type of edit. If done while red editing, it is easy to overlook an extra space or miss a space between two words. Also, the result can be grammatically incorrect. This method seems like an easy pitfall to avoid by simply clicking the “view final result” button. True, but nearly every editor uses the view edits mode, including professional copy editors, who should know better.
The difficulty of group editing increases exponentially with the number of editors involved. Currently, I am working with five people, which is already a challenge. 30 people? Wow, that would be a nightmare.
Another aspect of having so many people is that they often gang up on other members of the group, leading to good ideas not being appreciated and strong opinions prevailing. This inevitably leads to side negotiations, which often result in unpopular changes being approved. Does this not sound like an awful election?
To give you an idea of the effectiveness of group editing, I estimate we collectively spent 200 hours of work on each 20-page document. Yet, the resulting changes affected less than 10% of the original content. This is because group editing rarely makes wide-sweeping changes. Instead, group edits focus on small areas that are sometimes important. Of course, that was because my original document was excellent:)
Here is my recommendation to have the most effective group edit. Use a maximum size of three knowledgeable people. Start with a discussion about editing goals and editing direction. Another way to do a group edit is no direct editing. Instead, insert notes and let the original author make the corrections. I also appreciate notes that include justification, which leads to less confusion. Additionally, the author’s pride is less hurt, and they can learn positively from their mistakes.
As a group editor, I have learned to apply edits with great care and precision. This is one of those “less is more” situations. Finally, group editing requires one person who has the final authority. Hmm. Sounding like a government.
You’re the best -Bill
October 28, 2020 Updated June 07, 2025
Group editing differs vastly from group creating because the effort lacks spirit and focus. I think this is because each team member did not have a hand in the initial development, they do not apply great effort. Instead, participating editors desire to shift the document to their own style and content. And to make matters worse, their effort lacks pride. I like to think of it as they are boxers smacking an opponent around versus a painter lovingly capturing a stunning scene.
However, the editors sometimes take on a peculiar, twisted pride after making many edits to a single section. Then, they treat this section as their own and do not like it when others try to edit it. Then, they lightly review their edits and pick apart the other sections. Often, the comments are mean-spirited.
Now, I must take a sidestep from the fun world of fiction writing. Engineers do a lot of writing, but it is vastly different from fiction. Their words are dry, complex, terse, and explanation-heavy. Plus, a new writer has entered the engineering world, the vast tentacles of the legal community. For example, I must carefully apply the term “shall” and follow all the rules associated with legal directives. A significant rule is never to guarantee anything. But this is supposed to be an assembly document meant only for internal use. Really? You bet.
However, it is not all boring. Engineers sometimes add a touch of humor, and I have even seen Dilbert cartoons incorporated into serious documents.
Back to the group editing. Individuals have an innate desire to contribute to or make a change. This means it is difficult for them to lay down the pen and say, “This document is good enough.” This desire leads to endless revisions, awkward sections, strong opinions, and hurt feelings. To make matters worse, people often struggle to concede that their approach is not the best.
Group editing is not a team-building exercise due to the numerous compromises, arguments, and flawed final results that often occur. I have found the best way to group edit is in a meeting. This is when people gather in a conference room, review a section, share ideas, and quickly eliminate incorrect directions. That’s nice, but group editing is rarely done this way.
Instead, a document is emailed or placed on a shared server with the tracked changes enabled. This flawed approach introduces numerous errors because not all changes are tracked, recorded, and synchronized. Additionally, there can be numerous changes to one section, and the resulting over-changed mess is difficult to unscramble.
Another problem is that five people can discover the same error and make five corrections, each with a slightly different approach. However, the worst problem is when somebody works on an older revision and saves it over the latest version. Meaning they overwrite other people’s work. Then there is the sneaky change. This occurs when the group overrides an edit, but the person wants it restored. So, they save over somebody else’s work, and the edit magically gets reintroduced. Sometimes, the change is discovered in time, and at other times, the flawed document is released. Of course, the sneaky author claims innocence.
Change tracking helps, but it also can be an enormous obstacle. The problem is that it records a change, but it does not register the intent behind the change (unless a note is provided). This feature also prevents the document from being updated, as the prior information remains present. I have witnessed conversation loops lasting weeks around changes that were approved, unapproved, and then re-approved. It is maddening.
Another enormous problem with change tracking occurs when people view the edits (I call this red editing) rather than the final document. Imagine a cut-and-paste type of edit. If done while red editing, it is easy to overlook an extra space or miss a space between two words. Also, the result can be grammatically incorrect. This method seems like an easy pitfall to avoid by simply clicking the “view final result” button. True, but nearly every editor uses the view edits mode, including professional copy editors, who should know better.
The difficulty of group editing increases exponentially with the number of editors involved. Currently, I am working with five people, which is already a challenge. 30 people? Wow, that would be a nightmare.
Another aspect of having so many people is that they often gang up on other members of the group, leading to good ideas not being appreciated and strong opinions prevailing. This inevitably leads to side negotiations, which often result in unpopular changes being approved. Does this not sound like an awful election?
To give you an idea of the effectiveness of group editing, I estimate we collectively spent 200 hours of work on each 20-page document. Yet, the resulting changes affected less than 10% of the original content. This is because group editing rarely makes wide-sweeping changes. Instead, group edits focus on small areas that are sometimes important. Of course, that was because my original document was excellent:)
Here is my recommendation to have the most effective group edit. Use a maximum size of three knowledgeable people. Start with a discussion about editing goals and editing direction. Another way to do a group edit is no direct editing. Instead, insert notes and let the original author make the corrections. I also appreciate notes that include justification, which leads to less confusion. Additionally, the author’s pride is less hurt, and they can learn positively from their mistakes.
As a group editor, I have learned to apply edits with great care and precision. This is one of those “less is more” situations. Finally, group editing requires one person who has the final authority. Hmm. Sounding like a government.
You’re the best -Bill
October 28, 2020 Updated June 07, 2025
Follow me
