Skip to content

Understanding editing depth

Deciding on how extensive your edits to a text should be can be tricky.

While we advise editors to edit ruthlessly, there are times when a lighter hand is the better approach.

We divide editing into four categories according to depth:

  • DEO edit (AKA "don't embarrass ourselves"): This is the lightest editing type, usually done immediately before sharing an early draft of a piece with the customer for high-level feedback on content. As an editor is likely to give the draft the full editing treatment following potential revisions based on feedback from the customer, it can be helpful to make notes on macro- or microstructure while doing a DEO, or jot down any issues with the text that you'd like to raise with the team. But the purpose of a DEO edit is to correct any obvious errors or inaccuracies and make the draft sufficiently presentable that it can be shared with the customer without causing us any avoidable embarrassment. A DEO edit is essentially a light proofread and should take around 10-20 minutes per 1000 words.
  • Proofread: An editor might be asked to proofread a text that has already been edited to catch editing oversights. Proofread with the intention of preserving the original content: It's safe to assume that the structure is settled and you aren't expected to reorganize sentences. Proofreading aims to catch inconsistent punctuation, backtick use, and capitalization, correct minor grammatical errors and typos, and check links. When proofreading, you're welcome to check in on Slack to find out whether a correction that isn't obvious is essential before making it. The writer and editor may already have debated the issue and made a decision based on factors like consistency with the customer's existing documentation and UI or to avoid introducing ambiguities or inaccuracies. Often, proofreading will entail notifying the writer or editor on Slack of suggested changes rather than making the changes yourself. Proofreading doesn't include running the text through an editing tool like Grammarly and should take about five minutes per 1000 words.

  • Language QA: Some customers contract Ritza to improve existing documentation or provide language QA for new documentation produced in-house. This type of editing requires the editor to make some choices about editing depth on a text-by-text basis, but language QA will usually be a significantly lighter approach to editing than the modern technical editing done on new content produced by Ritza writers. Language QA may occasionally involve substantial restructuring of a document, but this shouldn't usually be the case. Ideally, check in with another team member before doing any major restructuring. When doing language QA:

    • Try to keep to the original structure and retain the original wording as much as possible. As with proofreading, language QA should preserve the original content wherever feasible.
    • Avoid introducing new content. It's best to assume that the writer knows the topic better than we do and we don't have direct access to the writer to double-check changes that may introduce inaccuracies.
    • Focus on grammar, clarity, and consistency. Language QA is about improving sentences, correcting errors, removing repetition, and ensuring consistency in punctuation, capitalization, and terminology.

    With language QA, less is more and it should take around an hour to QA 1000 words, including running the text through Grammarly.

  • Modern technical editing: This is our standard editing approach to Ritza-produced writing. See a thorough breakdown of modern technical editing in our page describing the types of editing we do at Ritza. This type of editing may take a little longer than an hour per 1000 words, it's far more collaborative and consultative than the other editing types, and it's likely to include a greater degree of sentence restructuring. More substantial restructuring of a text should be discussed beforehand with Gareth, Sarah, or the writer. If a text needs many changes, contains recurring grammatical issues, or reveals particular writing challenges, consider the edit as an opportunity to coach the writer and provide specific, constructive feedback.