Following a discussion on LinkedIn, copywriter and editor Ragini Werner mentioned one of my articles, on her blog: http://needser.blogspot.com/2009/06/cross-word.html.

The article, “Benchmarks for Estimating Editing Speed,” presents an admittedly unscientific survey of some leading editors’ rules of thumb. It was published in Corrigo, the newsletter of the technical editing SIG of the Society for Technical Communication. (Let’s call it the STC TE SIG!) I’m gathering new data from editors (contact me with your benchmarks).

Ragini, founder of NEEDSer, is a native-English copywriter and editor who specializes in helping Dutch writers banish Dunglish (English with a Dutch accent) from their writing. Her blog, The Bashful Blagger, is a lively read, full of honest and humorous details about the wordsmith’s life, mixed with some videos and references that extend the conversation.

In December 1999 (almost ten years ago), I wrote a piece about e-mail newsletters, for the Publishers Marketing Association’s newsletter (now called The Independent, by the org now called the Independent Book Publishers Association, http://www.ibpa-online.org).

“The Promise and Pitfalls of E-mail Newsletters” told the story of Paul and Freddie, small press editors who accidentally sent a newsletter with recipients exposed in the To field rather than hidden in the BCC field. Worse, they accidentally sent an apology e-mail three times.

As I refresh the Wordsupply site, I was tempted to archive this essay. Trouble with e-mail newsletters seems so quaint now.

But then, last week, one of the most talked-about Web 2.0 start-ups misfired a mass e-mail. (No point in mentioning its name – the point is that the times have not changed.)

Sending an HR rejection e-mail, the company accidentally revealed all recipients in the To field – including some who no doubt were applying confidentially. (The CEO apologized by e-mail – tactfully, and only once :o)

No matter how technologically sophisticated we become, we’re prone to human error. The same management safeguards apply – adding oversight that’s commensurate with the risk of misfiring the message. As our tools get more powerful, that risk will increase.

As I wrote in that pre-dot-com-bomb piece, I have certainly suffered my own communications doozies, and will again, for sure. In the meantime, I will leave that essay online.