A while back I got this question from an author:

Do you need to have a trail of every iteration of changes—or could we put this on Google docs and always have a master at hand?

I’ll spare you the litany of #CrankyEditor thoughts that went through my head, and get right to the answer: no. Not no, but heck no.

Of course, being the second-guesser that I am, I first wondered if I was out of the loop. I mean, I work a lot, I have a process, and that means I am intimate with Microsoft Word and track changes. But it’s been a dozen years since I worked inside a corporate publishing house. Maybe something had changed? Maybe somebody forgot to tell me? If I can just email a manuscript back and forth, why would I need Google Docs?

I didn’t want to have to learn something new right then in the middle of multiple deadlines, and I didn’t want some whippersnapper to tell me how easy it is. I always look for new efficiencies, but learning new software isn’t my idea of that. So I asked around.

Editors, I asked on Facebook, have you switched to Google Docs from MS Word with track changes? Is that the way the publishing industry is going? What I learned was this: no, the publishing industry isn’t using Google Docs to edit. So I’m not obsolete yet. 🙂

I heard lots of complaints—buggy, crappy formatting, no true track changes—but I also heard that the bugs were being worked out every few weeks, that it is a much stronger app now than when it first came out. So I’m not going to badmouth Google Docs—I haven’t tried it. I believe it could a great tool if you’ve got several people who all need access to the same document—a meeting agenda, say, or a list, a spreadsheet, an itinerary. (Indeed, one editor told me her publishing company uses it for this sort of thing, “but never for editing.”) You could have a team of folks working on a project together, or just commenting on a company bulletin board. Songwriters batting lyrics back and forth. A brainstorming session. All of these types of collaborative efforts are suited to the Google Docs process.

But the most fundamental functionality of Google Docs—access for everyone—is antithetical to how book editing is done—which is to pass a manuscript back and forth, discussing and changing one pass (version) at a time. The time the MS spends with both editor and author individually (studying and actively thinking about it) is as important to the process of editing as the time the MS spends away from both author and editor (looking away, or incubation).

I can’t stress enough how vital it is for you, dear author, to walk away from the manuscript for a few weeks while it’s in my court. Let go, take a break, think about something else. If you have access to the document while I’m working on it—looking over my shoulder, in essence—you will inevitably continue to make changes.

I know how y’all are. 🙂

If the “latest version” becomes a moving target, my attention is divided. This isn’t the best use of my time and it’s certainly not the way to get my best work. I’ve always thought of editorial work as a collaborative effort … but there are many ways to collaborate. So I’m saying no to Google Docs.

I also say no to Apple Pages. I say no to editing on your phone or your iPad. I say no to copyediting a .pdf. And, again, I say no to Google Docs. I’m not going to apologize for any of this, because I know it is best practices/standard in my industry.

Now, let’s get back to work.

Tweet: There are many ways to collaborate. So I’m saying no to Google Docs.
Tweet: Google Docs’ fundamental functionality is antithetical to how book editing is done.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I have not received any compensation for writing this post. I have no material connection to the brands, products, or services that I have mentioned. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”