AWS D1 Spot the Airs CONTEST

Date 05-31-2012 04:34

AWS D1 Spot the Airs CONTEST

It just seems to me that if you write a book, charge $500 for it and have it become a part of laws, it should be proof read better. I have far from read all of the D1 series, but have spotted many errors in these and other AWS publications.

SO, I propose a thread for posting the errors we have found and perhaps we can help make the wonderful books read better.

Please stay on topic and only post about typos and other such errors in the latest editions, and not what you just disagree with or what you would change or augment. Let's keep it scientific, facts are facts, and not ...well I think it should...

Example 1.   AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2010 Commentary Table C-6.1 should read Table C-6.2, as it pertains to Table 6.2 and not Table 6.1

Example 2.   AWS VIW-M:2008 Figure 5.4. Look at the decimal equivalents under the 32 nds.
1/32 = 0.312,   3/32 = 0.937 etc.

By jrw159

Date 05-31-2012 11:45

"AWS D1 Spot the Airs CONTEST"?????? :eek:

jrw159

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 05-31-2012 13:01

What's the matter John, it's just an illegal... Oh, er, I mean... non-standard terminology for 'errors'.

Don't you see the irony in the error of spelling within the Title of a thread for posting errors in the codes? :lol:

Have a Great Day, Brent

By Skaggydog (**)

Date 05-31-2012 14:06

Thanks Brent.
I wish you guys would contribute as I know your books must be full of hot pink underlines of errors you have found

Example 3. AWS D1.8/D1.8M:2005, C4.2 (1)…(see C4.2.2) should be (see C4.2.3)

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 05-31-2012 14:38

I used to...but for the last couple editions I just wait for the powers that be to find them and send out errata. Probably shouldn't be like that but it just seemed like everytime I did find something that could be contributed to missed editting it would already be out in an errata. Besides, I'm not one to speak about typos, misspelled words, improper punctuation, etc. My language skills are far from perfect.

Having sat in on a couple of committee meetings while at FabTech last year I learned alot about the process they go through to TRY to make sure that if they change one thing it follows through to change all other references, pages, footnotes, etc. I understand how we occassionally get Tables with wrong references, or the text sends you to the wrong Table, etc. They don't mind our help at all when we find those things and especially now that D1.1 is on a five year cycle. They need the info ASAP so that errata can be sent out so we in the field can make the correction and have a good copy of the code.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By jrw159

Date 05-31-2012 15:56

Yes, quite ironic to say the least. :lol:

jrw159

By G.S.Crisi (****)

Date 05-31-2012 17:32

Good publishing practice says that after a standard or code has been printed, it goes under a final checking and if one or more mistakes are found, an "errata corrige" (i.e. a list of mistakes and how they should read) is printed and is delivered together with the publication.
Giovanni S. Crisi
Sao Paulo - Brazil

By PWCameron (**)

Date 06-07-2012 17:24

...and if that human is a volunteer, he/she should be cut some slack.
PWC

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 06-07-2012 18:47

I agree Paul.

If they quit changing around the figures, tables and such, shuffling the order or renumbering them vs. just adding the newest ones to the end of the list...they wouldn't need to proof read each and every reference to make certain they have revised links/references everywhere they need to be. Of course hind sight is 20/20...LOL