As some of you know, I edit the online version of an academic film journal, which basically means I receive, review and publish essays and festival reports to our website, stuff we can't fit in the printed journal. And I'm constantly amazed at the incompetence of some of our contributors. On a formal writing/editing level, that is - they usually know their subjects very well. Writers can be a sloppy, lazy bunch as it is - but throw in "middle-aged", "academic" AND "written for the web" into the mix and you got a headache-inducing combo. You'd think these professional people in their 40s-50s knew better than to use comic sans, embed images in Word documents, use [space] instead of [tab] and [............] instead of [...], but no. Enough to make your head spin. I spend way more time on these texts than I should.
Anyway. Short story long. Something that's really appreciated by me as an editor is when writers supply their own images. Images can be a bitch to track down, even with Google. So this morning I was thrilled when I got an essay in my Inbox with accompanying images. Perfect! Then I looked at the images. This is the actual size of one of them:
![](http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/5894/strella.jpg)
This guy probably spent a good amount of time tracking these thumbnails down too. What's even more
hilarious frustrating is that he sent like fifteen images - all about the same size - for a piece that warrants perhaps three.
I know, I whine, this is a tiny issue and I can't believe I wrote this much about it. But I'm sure some of you can relate, especially if you work with the web or with people who still, in 2009, have no idea how images, documents or formatting work.