User group newsletter editors are often afraid to touch submissions from group members. Some how, they think that the author will be upset and may not contribute in the future if the editor dares to touch the oh-so-perfect prose. So they let it flow into the newsletter untouched.

In fact, the reverse is true. The Phoenix OS/2 Society's biggest problem is usually an overabundance of material; a month rarely goes by when we don't have to "bump" a review to the next issue. Our comparatively small user group (500 members) is able to publish a 32-page magazine every month, and in one calendar year we had 59 members contributing.

We attribute that success to a message we make clear to the membership: "If you write for us, we'll edit. We'll fix your text, if necessary, so that you don't look like a dork - but we very much want your contributions." It does help that the magazine editor and assistant editor are professional writers, but it's the promise that "We'll make you look good" that does the trick.

However, most user group newsletter editors know as much about editing as a novice computer user knows about writing an effective and informative review. Herewith, I share some of the lessons we've learned about editing- and about editing user group publications, in particular.

Purpose of a review

Anything outside of this is superfluous. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be included, but it's the first part of the overall content to cut when you get tight on space.

Those questions don't have to be answered in the order given, but it's the order that most readers expect. Also, praise should generally be lumped together, followed by criticisms. Reviews, especially from user group members, should always identify the background of the reviewer. If the writer runs an ISP, he'll have a different perspective on a Web development tool than will a home user, or a small business user.

Most novice writers have a really hard time getting into the article. Hell, so do most professional authors. I've learned a lot about editing from my friend and mentor Alan Zeichick, editor in chief of Network Magazine, who describes the first paragraph of an author's version as "First, the earth cooled." ("HTML was developed by..." is no longer necessary for anybody's review, but I bet you guys still see it.) The other phenomenon is the "wandering around" first paragraph: "I was sitting around, the other day, thinking about HTML editors, and I thought, gee, why don't I look at this one...". In both cases, you'll find it easiest to simply cut the first paragraph and make the second paragraph the lead.

(I hope the last paragraph didn't make any of you blush. I wasn't talking about YOU.)

All reviews - and most articles - should endeavor to describe, in the first paragraph, what category the product fits in, and reach some kind of conclusion: at least an "it sucks" or "it's pretty good." Not every member reads the newsletter/magazine cover to cover, but they like to know the thumb's up-or-down about products.

The "about" box information.

EVERY review should include the "about" box information. Grab any computer magazine, and you'll see, at a minimum: Company Name. Product name and version (HTML Studio 1.55). Price. URL or other company contact info.

One danger, common among inexperienced writers who are baffled by what to say, is the "rewrite the manual" review. "First, I put the diskette in the A: drive and typed INSTALL." Except in your Novices column, that's simply unnecessary, and we'd probably kick back a review that consisted of only that sort of thing. It doesn't answer the "what is it, how well does it do it, is it worth the clams?" issues.

These articles typically focus only on the installation experience, not the user experience - often, one supposes, because they wrote the article 15 minutes after ripping off the shrink wrap. You won't get better reviews unless you learn to (painfully, I know) throw them back at the author and tell them to improve it - or spend your own time doing surgery on what they handed in. Most of us do the latter, painfully and grumpily, but if you really DO edit the articles, the more savvy members will see what changes you made, and do their best to improve, next time around. That's especially true of your columnists, who tend to care more about their work.

Most novice authors have a tendency to write gushing praise - even if they hated the product. I think it's because they're so excited to get FREE SOFTWARE that they feel compelled to say something good. I recall a book review from one of our regular columnists who spent most of the article talking about the disorganization of the text and the lack of clear definitions - but then concluded with a "you should definitely buy it" paragraph.

People don't want to sound mean

I think most people don't want to sound mean. But you have to stress to your writers that the audience is NOT THE VENDORS. It's the readers, the other members of the user group. Saying "buy it" if the product stinks, or is merely ho-hum, is cheating the user group members... and this is about "users helping users," remember? Also, that you can get straight answers from the people without an axe to grind.

Spell check. Most user group members don't. I don't know why.

Be consistent in your grammar. Use serial commas (x, y, and z versus x, y and z) or don't use them, but pick a style and stick to it.

Edit the text to fit the space available. NEVER NEVER change the font size or layout to make the text fit unless (a) it's a great article or (b) your layout style sheet easily incorporates it. Any article can be written shorter, a painful lesson for writers to learn. I think the ultimate was Ed Mendelson's review of all of Lotus SmartSuite in a PC Magazine first look - in 1200 words. Good writing is the skill of saying everything needs to be said, but in as few words as possible.

One very easy text edit is to remove "there is," in all its forms.

For instance:

There are three ways to remove Windows XX from a computer: x, y, and z.

You can remove Windows XX from a computer in three ways: x, y, and z.

The second is stronger, usually shorter (though not much in this instance), and clearer. I don't always cut the "there is" but it's something I use rarely - even in email. Stick to a "you" construction for articles. Some new authors try the "users can..." or "one can..." approach, but it's impersonal, awkward, and passive. The review is a conversation between the user and his friend, the reader; that's the tone you should strive for.

I've run out. Finally. So I'll shut up now.

Esther Schindler esther@bitranch.com