The Speed vs Accuracy Test
So, the other day during the tutorial, I finally did the speed vs accuracy test that we had been preparing for. I must say, I have never done any tests like this before. There have been tests where I attempt to write a live story that is being continually updated, but even so, that didn't feel as hectic as this one did.
I'm somewhat happy that I probably did better in this actual test than I did for the practice exercise during the tutorial before this.
Now, more about the test. I can see that this test definitely trains someone to look out for keywords and key information in any important story, while "blocking out" the unnecessary details of the story, or details that just add fluff or lesser, more minor information. That is not to say that you don't include them into your story, but you learn that they are not the priority and hence you don't focus on them first. It makes you think about what your readers would want to know first, and so you focus on those details first, before moving on to the less crucial bits of any story.
I found myself scanning each story carefully, and luckily, I managed to extract out the "main story" before typing out the lesser details. Despite managing to do so, however, I must admit that this was still no easy task, especially with a timer ticking at the back of your head. Those brief, instinctive glances at the clock at the corner of the screen did not help with the stress. But I definitely gained an important journalism skill from this test.
The test reminded me of a few articles I saw on gaming news websites about a week back. Given that there are so many gaming news websites (like IGN, Polygon, Kotaku, etc), they are always in competition to get out the freshest and newest stories in the shortest amount of time. This is especially true if there are some big gaming news being revealed at gaming conventions and the like. About a week back, this was exactly the case. Blizzard Entertainment, a pretty big game developer, was preparing to announce their newest expansion for their award-winning MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game) World of Warcraft.
This announcement would be livestreamed on both Twitch and YouTube, so that the rest of the world could watch it unfold. Naturally, me being an avid World of Warcraft fan, tuned into their livestream. It lasted for about two hours. And well, as with livestreams, stream lag happens and you might miss out on some information, so I decided to go online and see what articles might have been posted about the event.
I didn't know it at first, but some articles that I read would reflect on the importance of the speed vs accuracy test. Most articles that I read were published mere minutes after the livestream ended, but had obvious, glaring grammatical or spelling errors. Maybe most readers wouldn't mind such a thing, but I couldn't help but notice them. These errors were corrected in a few hours, when I went to check on it again, but the fact was, I'd already seen them.
And then some other articles, probably published slightly later, were "flawless". They had all the relevant information in them, with no grammatical or spelling errors. I found myself preferring these articles, even though they might have been published a couple of hours later.
Looking back, this made me realize the relevance of the speed vs accuracy test in the industry. Do you want to be the first to publish a story, only to have it riddled with errors? Or would you prefer to make sure everything is perfect before releasing a story, even if you may be later than your competitors?
My guess is that most companies would choose the former, and correct their errors later. It makes sense, because you have to keep up with the competition, who would probably be doing the same thing anyway. If I were ever put in such a situation though, I would still like to make sure my article that would be posted would contain as little errors as possible, even if it means spending about five minutes more on it (five minutes could be crucial in the industry), simply because it makes my work look more professional and credible.
As a reader though, I would not mind waiting a little longer for a more perfect article.
What do you think?
So, the other day during the tutorial, I finally did the speed vs accuracy test that we had been preparing for. I must say, I have never done any tests like this before. There have been tests where I attempt to write a live story that is being continually updated, but even so, that didn't feel as hectic as this one did.
I'm somewhat happy that I probably did better in this actual test than I did for the practice exercise during the tutorial before this.
Now, more about the test. I can see that this test definitely trains someone to look out for keywords and key information in any important story, while "blocking out" the unnecessary details of the story, or details that just add fluff or lesser, more minor information. That is not to say that you don't include them into your story, but you learn that they are not the priority and hence you don't focus on them first. It makes you think about what your readers would want to know first, and so you focus on those details first, before moving on to the less crucial bits of any story.
I found myself scanning each story carefully, and luckily, I managed to extract out the "main story" before typing out the lesser details. Despite managing to do so, however, I must admit that this was still no easy task, especially with a timer ticking at the back of your head. Those brief, instinctive glances at the clock at the corner of the screen did not help with the stress. But I definitely gained an important journalism skill from this test.
The test reminded me of a few articles I saw on gaming news websites about a week back. Given that there are so many gaming news websites (like IGN, Polygon, Kotaku, etc), they are always in competition to get out the freshest and newest stories in the shortest amount of time. This is especially true if there are some big gaming news being revealed at gaming conventions and the like. About a week back, this was exactly the case. Blizzard Entertainment, a pretty big game developer, was preparing to announce their newest expansion for their award-winning MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game) World of Warcraft.
This announcement would be livestreamed on both Twitch and YouTube, so that the rest of the world could watch it unfold. Naturally, me being an avid World of Warcraft fan, tuned into their livestream. It lasted for about two hours. And well, as with livestreams, stream lag happens and you might miss out on some information, so I decided to go online and see what articles might have been posted about the event.
I didn't know it at first, but some articles that I read would reflect on the importance of the speed vs accuracy test. Most articles that I read were published mere minutes after the livestream ended, but had obvious, glaring grammatical or spelling errors. Maybe most readers wouldn't mind such a thing, but I couldn't help but notice them. These errors were corrected in a few hours, when I went to check on it again, but the fact was, I'd already seen them.
And then some other articles, probably published slightly later, were "flawless". They had all the relevant information in them, with no grammatical or spelling errors. I found myself preferring these articles, even though they might have been published a couple of hours later.
Looking back, this made me realize the relevance of the speed vs accuracy test in the industry. Do you want to be the first to publish a story, only to have it riddled with errors? Or would you prefer to make sure everything is perfect before releasing a story, even if you may be later than your competitors?
My guess is that most companies would choose the former, and correct their errors later. It makes sense, because you have to keep up with the competition, who would probably be doing the same thing anyway. If I were ever put in such a situation though, I would still like to make sure my article that would be posted would contain as little errors as possible, even if it means spending about five minutes more on it (five minutes could be crucial in the industry), simply because it makes my work look more professional and credible.
As a reader though, I would not mind waiting a little longer for a more perfect article.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment