Red-Editing
For Office 2007, Microsoft introduced a feature called Review. This mode allows one or more people to edit a document and review and/or alter the changes. To do so, MS Office highlights edits in different colors, with the first editor always red.
This feature allows reviewers to scan changes quickly, but it also has downsides. The most obvious is that it slows down MS Word and results in larger file sizes. Another is that sometimes characters and spaces in “No Markup” (the final printed form) cannot be deleted. Plus, Microsoft did not include a hotkey for switching between “Tracked Changes” (showing the edits) and “No Markup.” Fortunately, I found this gem that shows you how to add a hotkey:
This feature allows reviewers to scan changes quickly, but it also has downsides. The most obvious is that it slows down MS Word and results in larger file sizes. Another is that sometimes characters and spaces in “No Markup” (the final printed form) cannot be deleted. Plus, Microsoft did not include a hotkey for switching between “Tracked Changes” (showing the edits) and “No Markup.” Fortunately, I found this gem that shows you how to add a hotkey:
I wanted to discuss a major problem with this feature that has not received much attention. When a person is using review mode, they often make their changes (not review other people’s changes) in the “Track Changes” view and not “No Markup.” This often causes the editor to miss obvious editing mistakes introduced. I call this practice red-editing. Allow me to demonstrate, but because of the text-based limitations of this format, please imagine CAPITALS as the red (highlighted) tracked changes.
Original sentence with a flaw: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dogg.
Tracked Changes view of corrected sentence: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog DOG.
No Markup view: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog .
Did you see the extra space before the period? It’s easy to miss when the red line changes are next to the original words. I often see such obvious flaws even in a document reviewed by professionals. I think the problem occurs because the editor gets into the mindset, “My sentences are better than the originals.” As opposed to, “A solid result is the goal. This may include fixing my own introduced flaws.”
Now, this would not be a proper article if this were the only problem. MS Word underscores a misspelled word with a red squiggly line, which makes these words super easy to spot. But if the text is red, the errors fade into the background. Thus, I spot many basic spelling mistakes in a tracked changes document. And yes, I have introduced spelling mistakes or missed obvious editing mistakes.
There is another reason for red-editing. Seeing the tracked changes is intimidating. “This document has had enough changes.” When an editor cannot see the highlighted changes, there is a sense of freedom to explore and update any part of the document, rather than making the original author feel bad about all the corrections.
And I have a final reason, which is more of an editing philosophy. One might think, “Oh, this is no big deal. The mistakes will be obvious, and the final person will catch them.” I would counter that: the overall goal of a group project is to produce the best possible document.
Thus, if I send the next person a document with flaws I introduced, they will put effort into fixing my mistakes. But then they will feel good. “Hey, I fixed Bill’s messed-up document. Job Done.” What they should receive is a document free of any errors I can detect, so they can focus on the ones I cannot see.
Well, how bad is red-editing? I have worked with many professional editors and business coworkers who used tracked changes. I estimate that half the documents (with more than 10 edits) had obvious introduced flaws. So, at least in my opinion, red-editing is a very real problem that is easy to avoid.
People have strange tics, and I find it amusing that red-editing has led to so many screwed-up documents. Fortunately, I do not use review mode for these articles. Errr… meaning nobody but me reviewed them.
You’re the best -Bill
May 04, 2022 Updated August 22, 2026
Original sentence with a flaw: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dogg.
Tracked Changes view of corrected sentence: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog DOG.
No Markup view: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog .
Did you see the extra space before the period? It’s easy to miss when the red line changes are next to the original words. I often see such obvious flaws even in a document reviewed by professionals. I think the problem occurs because the editor gets into the mindset, “My sentences are better than the originals.” As opposed to, “A solid result is the goal. This may include fixing my own introduced flaws.”
Now, this would not be a proper article if this were the only problem. MS Word underscores a misspelled word with a red squiggly line, which makes these words super easy to spot. But if the text is red, the errors fade into the background. Thus, I spot many basic spelling mistakes in a tracked changes document. And yes, I have introduced spelling mistakes or missed obvious editing mistakes.
There is another reason for red-editing. Seeing the tracked changes is intimidating. “This document has had enough changes.” When an editor cannot see the highlighted changes, there is a sense of freedom to explore and update any part of the document, rather than making the original author feel bad about all the corrections.
And I have a final reason, which is more of an editing philosophy. One might think, “Oh, this is no big deal. The mistakes will be obvious, and the final person will catch them.” I would counter that: the overall goal of a group project is to produce the best possible document.
Thus, if I send the next person a document with flaws I introduced, they will put effort into fixing my mistakes. But then they will feel good. “Hey, I fixed Bill’s messed-up document. Job Done.” What they should receive is a document free of any errors I can detect, so they can focus on the ones I cannot see.
Well, how bad is red-editing? I have worked with many professional editors and business coworkers who used tracked changes. I estimate that half the documents (with more than 10 edits) had obvious introduced flaws. So, at least in my opinion, red-editing is a very real problem that is easy to avoid.
People have strange tics, and I find it amusing that red-editing has led to so many screwed-up documents. Fortunately, I do not use review mode for these articles. Errr… meaning nobody but me reviewed them.
You’re the best -Bill
May 04, 2022 Updated August 22, 2026
