Proof reading for a 'Guide to Fares & Ticketing' (formerly 'Fares FAQ') required

[yorkie]

We're looking for volunteers to do some proof reading (preferably people who are employed in the rail industry and are knowledgeable about fares, ticketing & routeing) for a document that will be a guide to fares, ticketing & routeing (working title at present: Fares FAQ).

There will be 10 sections:

• Routeing
• Smart Cards (including Oyster)
• Ticket types & conditions
• Excesses, upgrades & Supplements
  
• Multi journey tickets
• Discounted fares
• Integrated fares
• Legal
• Transactions & compensation
• Disputes
  

It's not complete yet, but most sections should have the first draft complete within the next couple of weeks.

If you are interested, please reply here (or send me a PM). If you're only interested in specific section(s) please state which one(s).

 

[soil]

Are you writing this yourself, or with others?

Have you proof-read your OP? It is not clear whether you want:

people employed in the rail industry, who are knowledgeable about fares, ticketing & routeing

or
people employed in the rail industry and
people who are knowledgeable about fares, ticketing and routeing

or maybe just

people knowledgeable about fares, ticketing and routeing, whether employed in the rail industry or not.

 

[Bayum]

I can proof-read for grammar, spelling and punctuation if you'd like?

The teacher in me wants to anyway... It'll be an education on both sides.

 

[yorkie]

preferably people who are employed in the rail industry and are knowledgeable about fares, ticketing & routeing

Hope that clarifies!

And no, it's certainly not just me writing it!

 

[Bayum]

preferably people who are employed in the rail industry and are knowledgeable about fares, ticketing & routeing

Hope that clarifies!

And no, it's certainly not just me writing it!

Yorkie, it still implies that you would prefer to have proof readers who work on the railway.

I don't know if that is your intention, but it doesn't differentiate between working on, or being knowledgable about fares. Do you want people who are knowledgeable about fares? Or just railway workers who are knowledgeable about fares?

 

[Monty]

I'd be more than happy to do some proof reading for you Yorkie, especially the Legal and Penalty Fares & Prosecutions sections.

 

[MetroDriver]

Yorkie, it still implies that you would prefer to have proof readers who work on the railway.

I don't know if that is your intention, but it doesn't differentiate between working on, or being knowledgable about fares. Do you want people who are knowledgeable about fares? Or just railway workers who are knowledgeable about fares?

It seems absolutely clear to me Bayum, that the preference is for working within the industry and having the knowledge... :roll:

 

[soil]

I wonder if it would work as a wiki.

 

[lyndhurst25]

Who is this Frequently Asked Questions aimed at? Railway staff, enthusiasts or the general public?

If it's the general public then I'd be careful in just using people from inside the railway industry to proof read. The problem being that they'll often allow the use of jargon because of their familiarity with it. It just doesn't stand out to them as being potentially unintelligible to the man on the street. For example "you can excess your fare" may be understood by rail workers and fares geeks, but to members of the public would better be written as "you can pay the difference".

 

[cuccir]

Who is this Frequently Asked Questions aimed at? Railway staff, enthusiasts or the general public?

If it's the general public then I'd be careful in just using people from inside the railway industry to proof read. The problem being that they'll often allow the use of jargon because of their familiarity with it. It just doesn't stand out to them as being potentially unintelligible to the man on the street. For example "you can excess your fare" may be understood by rail workers and fares geeks, but to members of the public would better be written as "you can pay the difference".

Yes, but that would imply that the best bet would be to ask somewhere other than here - perhaps the MSE forums? Of course they may have already thought of thIs!

 

[Yew]

I'm happy to proof read stuff, can't say I will be much help, but I suppose I might be able to pick out any paragraphs that could be confusing to someone just getting into fares.

 

[trc666]

I would also be more than happy to assist with this, especially in regard to ticket types, Oyster and Penalty Fares / Prosecutions.

 

[The Colonel]

Happy to assist in this.

 

[barrykas]

I wouldn't mind helping out either.

 

[headshot119]

I'd be happy to read through for spelling, and grammar.

 

[cookiescrumble]

I'll be more than happy to help. I have no idea about oyster cards though.

 

[michael769]

I'd be happy to give things a once over, from a "can someone who knows only a little about ticketing follow this?" point of view and I'd be happy to give the legal and prosecutions bit the once over too.

 

[johnnycache]

Very happy to assist

 

[tannedfrog]

Yorkie, it still implies that you would prefer to have proof readers who work on the railway.

It clearly states that, there is absolutely no ambiguity

 

[Mojo]

It clearly states that, there is absolutely no ambiguity

Glad I wasn't the only one thinking that...

 

[RJ]

Yorkie, it still implies that you would prefer to have proof readers who work on the railway.

I don't know if that is your intention, but it doesn't differentiate between working on, or being knowledgable about fares. Do you want people who are knowledgeable about fares? Or just railway workers who are knowledgeable about fares?

I don't think it's a bad idea. There are some people on here who are very knowledgeable indeed, but have no idea on how to communicate appropriately with anyone but those who have a similar level of knowledge. I certainly think amongst some that there is an element of being wanting to be seen to know the most/everything, rather than assessing the needs of the person seeking assistance and posting an appropriate response. This is the kind of thing that probably puts people off asking for help.

For example, recently, someone simply asked if they could travel from A-B via C. In response, someone gave a full and unabridged rundown of how to use the NRG to find the answer. Understandably, the person was confused. All that was required was a quick "no" and a brief explanation why, which makes sense. It's not uncommon to see this kind of thing happen on here. People shouldn't have to feel like they need to possess a huge amount of knowledge before asking a simple question. So why do some people's replies make this the case? I'm certain that the FTR section is not trying to be exclusive or cliquey so perhaps this sort of thing should be reined in?

Many railway staff have first hand customer service experience so are well placed to understand how to communicate with a variety of customers, whether they be knowledgeable or travelling on the railway for the first time. lyndhurst25 made a good point about the use of jargon. In my time, not one person who wanted an excess asked for an "excess." They'd ask for an upgrade, an extension or just to change the ticket. It's fair to say that very few people actually know what an excess fare is.

The combination of input from knowledgeable people and good customer service perspective from those with experience I feel would be great for a fares FAQ. Some people have both skills, some have more than one than the other. Although that said, I hope that veritable and publicly accessible sources are being used to compile the information, i.e not The Manual!

 

[ian13]

Quite happy to proof read for accuracy.

 

[yorkie]

This is close to completion, and is due for launch on Monday 7 January 2013.

If anyone has some time in the next week to do some proof reading before we launch, please either send me a PM or reply to this thread, thanks

 

[cjp]

This is close to completion, and is due for launch on Monday 7 January 2013.

If anyone has some time in the next week to do some proof reading before we launch, please either send me a PM or reply to this thread, thanks

Should you feel you need a view from "The Man On The Clapham Omnibus" on your guide I have some time - but I am not offering as a pundit on these matters.

THE MAN makes his appearance in the decision of Lord Justice Greer in the 1932 case of Hall vs Brooklands Auto-Racing Club.

I would like to think it will be excellent and informative but fear it might be a widely read as the National Conditions Of Carriage rather than appeal to and be read by us on the Omnibus as light reading.:cry:

But of course I could be wrong and it is an illustrated guide it could be a best seller ....

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I would like to think it will be excellent and informative but fear it might be a widely read as the National Conditions Of Carriage rather than appeal to and be read by us on the Omnibus as light reading.

I must say that the general tenor of the work has been well established for some months now, and so, if it is not to the taste of the good passengers of Clapham, then I guess tha now is not the time to re-configure its intended audience. The previous title of a "Fares F.A.Q." probably establishes its technical rather than chatty style. Sorry.

However, some of us also contributed to an earlier work, subsequently abandoned, with more accessible "Beginner's Guide to Ticketing" and if your fear is borne out following publication, then we could always re-visit that work.
But in the meantime, I suggest that we all reserve our judgement until we have the opportunity to read it all.

 

[johnnycache]

I'd be happy to read it through if you can PM or post a link

 

[headshot119]

I'd be happy to read it through if you can PM or post a link

Amen.