# Alpha or Beta?



## Ralph Rotten

So I was having a discussion with a few dozen other writers about using *Beta *readers, and during the conversation there arose an interesting dispute.

It would seem that most people actually use *Alpha* readers.

Okay, keep in mind that this term actually came from the software world; I did not make up the definition.


See, it's only a Beta if it is one step from publishing. A Beta is the last revision before final release.
But what we found during the discussion was that many of the writers were having their books read BEFORE sending to an editor.
And that would make it an Alpha, not a Beta.


Me personally, I don't believe in ever showing anyone anything but the finished draft (aside from snapshots on twitter.) 
So I do not Beta test my book until it is tight, edited, and I am nearly ready to release.

But the logic from the writers using Alpha readers was "Why would you wait for feedback until after you have paid an editor if you may have to rip it all apart again? Then you have to edit it twice."
There is merit to this logic.


So, how many of you use Alpha readers, and how many use Beta readers?
Why do you prefer to have it read before or after editing?


----------



## JustRob

I don't think it matters what title we give to such readers. Software releases work differently from book publishing as the beta versions are made available to very many people to increase the probability of the more obscure errors coming to light. Unlike fiction, an error in software can be serious even though it is a very small part of the whole and also new software versions continue to be released throughout the product's life, far too often in the case of some software.

 I agree that writers seem to present their work to trial readers far too late in the process. My angel and I often feel that it wasn't even worth the writer's time writing a work because the underlying story was in some way flawed, which is sad. We would rather comment on a detailed outline before the writing proper starts and thereby save everyone involved a lot of time, but writers seem reticent to share their story ideas before having something more concrete in terms of a recognisable _work_ to establish their copyright, which is understandable. That is in a way why pure readers, such as my angel and I profess to be, can be seen as more trustworthy as we are  less likely to steal story ideas for our own use.


----------



## Aquilo

I have two sets. I guess you'd class one as Alpha, the other Beta. My Alpha readers will get a very first draft, but they are my specialist readers: a paediatrician, my MI5 go-tp lady and computer specialist, BDSM consultant who teaches BDSM, or my general dark-content go-to lady. They're checking the technicals that we've already discussed, so that by the time I've shelved it and I'm ready to come back in, they have their thoughts ready to go. I then edit and edit and edit, then send it to three other betas I trust, who are general readers. After that, it's edits again, proof, and onto an editor.

I know some authors who have betas read as the write each chapter. Some edit in Google docs, allowing multiple betas to read at the same time and add comments.

I think it's just how it best suits you. I like to check, re-check, then check again. At first with specialists and their terminology, then with readers to see if they read the terminology smoothly.


----------



## Amnesiac

I have a small group of friends that read my near-published draft. One of them is a friend and client for whom I've edited a number of books for, so it's nice to shift to the other foot once in a while.

I don't know if they are betas, alphas, or what... But they provide proofreading, suggestions, and tweaks, so it's a lot of fun.


----------



## Ralph Rotten

Amnesiac said:


> I have a small group of friends that read my near-published draft. One of them is a friend and client for whom I've edited a number of books for, so it's nice to shift to the other foot once in a while.
> 
> I don't know if they are betas, alphas, or what... But they provide proofreading, suggestions, and tweaks, so it's a lot of fun.





Do they read it *before* you send it to editor, or *after* you send it to editor?


----------



## luckyscars

JustRob said:


> I agree that writers seem to present their work to trial readers far too late in the process. My angel and I often feel that it wasn't even worth the writer's time writing a work because the underlying story was in some way flawed, which is sad. We would rather comment on a detailed outline before the writing proper starts and thereby save everyone involved a lot of time, but writers seem reticent to share their story ideas before having something more concrete in terms of a recognisable _work_ to establish their copyright, which is understandable. That is in a way why pure readers, such as my angel and I profess to be, can be seen as more trustworthy as we are less likely to steal story ideas for our own use.



Really? I totally disagree.  I think one need only take a stroll in the workshop here to see that there's very little stopping a lot of writers from thrusting their ”stories” down the throats of 'readers', often when they haven't even written anything but a paragraph!

It sounds like you and this 'angel' of yours are fantastic people, but I don't think you're necessarily typical of the average 'alpha' nor 'beta' reader. I also think the argument from the perspective of saving writers time by telling them early on that their idea doesn't work is kind but not necessarily helpful. Writers need to develop the ability to self audit their work. Where's the agency in having a bunch of other people telling you if your underlying idea works or not? You cannot outsource creative decision making and call yourself a writer, IMO.

I honestly find the idea of asking people to read unedited work to be rude. Often it is an obvious sign of astronomical laziness, too.

When somebody asks me to read a story they have not yet edited, my reaction is 'why do you need me to do this now?' Turns out, they usually want some validation. They don't _really_ want useful, detailed feedback on the story at that stage - if they want feedback at all. Often, they  simplywant their ego massaged and they are in such a hurry to get that they 'haven't got round to editing yet'.

And...this annoys me, sorry but it does. If you need validation of the idea, give me the elevator pitch, but don't guilt me into reading a badly-executed “novel” just so you can find out if it 'has potential'. It especially annoys me when these people don't tell you up front the work is unedited until you start pointing out mistakes, then all of a sudden you get this whole 'oH yEaH U R rIte! tHeRe aRe tOnZ oF mIsTaKes lOl I gOTTa dO eDiTing sTiLL HAR!" thing. 

My view on that is pretty simple: If you're not providing me with your best effort when it comes to your writing, why should I provide you with my best effort when it comes to 
My reading? 

I'm not saying I've never done it. I get it, sometimes we're just excited or really on the fence about our work and need that little bit of approval from somebody we respect to push us into investing further hours into all the editing, etc. But still it is a bad habit nonetheless, one that can backfire on us when we inundate person(s) we respect with half-baked product that is too raw to be enjoyable. 

People's time is precious and there's a lot of writers who genuinely do need their work read. Don't be the asshole who consumes hours of Rob or 'his angel's' life with half-ass just because they are good people who will do it. That’s not fair.

(For me the feedback wouldn't even be terribly useful, because my story usually changes damn near wholesale between a completed draft and the final copy...)


----------



## Aquilo

luckyscars said:


> And...this annoys me, sorry but it does. If you need validation of the idea, give me the elevator pitch, but don't guilt me into reading a badly-executed “novel” just so you can find out if it 'has potential'. It especially annoys me when these people don't tell you up front the work is unedited until you start pointing out mistakes, then all of a sudden you get this whole 'oH yEaH U R rIte! tHeRe aRe tOnZ oF mIsTaKes lOl I gOTTa dO eDiTing sTiLL HAR!" thing.



That's annoying. I've not betaed that often. Usually by the time I see a script, the minors are taken care and the focus is on content edits. Saying that, with my first drafts the minors are taken care of as I go. When mine goes off to 'Alfas', they are checking their particular areas, e.g. that BDSM is staying within SSC, or that I haven't gotten my carbon dioxide mixed up with my copper ammonia solution when I'm working in a lab. When it goes to betas: I say I'm after straight read, which means just reading at their normal place and noting down anything that stops that flow. I stress they're not to bother with grammar mistakes: I'm after content issues. Most beta readers won't know exactly what that means, but so long as they can say "This stopped me reading here." I can pick it up myself.

Grammar issues should be left to proofreaders, professional ones at that, or ones who at least know what protected speech means.


----------



## JustRob

luckyscars said:


> Really? I totally disagree.  I think one need only take a stroll in the workshop here to see that there's very little stopping a lot of writers from thrusting their ”stories” down the throats of 'readers', often when they haven't even written anything but a paragraph!



What we commonly see are such sketchy story outlines that we can only say that they might work but it would very much depend on who wrote the story whether they would in practice. I was referring to an outline that had sufficient detail to demonstrate that the potential writer had already worked through the wrinkles in their mind and was themself capable of making the thing work. As such a detailed outline would also be a total spoiler it would probably be inappropriate for the same reader to read the full version later as it might lose its impact, so that is another consideration. 

Regarding having written almost nothing before asking for comments, my own way of working is to tackle the most difficult scenes first and then fill in the story with the easier ones subsequently. If a writer offered such an extract along with a detailed outline before doing all the grunt work on the bulk of the story then it would more likely be possible to determine whether they could make the whole idea work. In fact given just the outline one could quite possibly identify the apparently difficult part of the story and suggest that they tackle that before going any further with the idea.

It's that old joke about "How do I get to point B?" to which the answer is "If I were you I wouldn't start from here."



> I also think the argument from the perspective of saving writers time by telling them early on that their idea doesn't work is kind but not necessarily helpful.



Pity then the poor beta reader who has to tell them far too late that it can never work no matter how much they polish it. Not just that it can never work but that finding anything worth salvaging from the wreckage will be difficult. It is difficult to understand the nature of a writer's failure if one can't comprehend what it was that they were trying to achieve and sometimes that is in itself difficult for the reader.

A new version on the old joke then. "I've got myself lost." "No, you were already lost before you started out."



> Writers need to develop the ability to self audit their work.  Where's the agency in having a bunch of other people telling you if your  underlying idea works or not? You cannot outsource creative decision  making and call yourself a writer, IMO.



That's why we read purely as readers, not writers, and only say what doesn't work for us without offering our own creative suggestions. If for example we feel that a character would act differently from the way that they have, then hopefully we have obtained that perception from the writer's own words and not our prejudices. Readers inevitably do read their own ideas into a story when reading anyway and a key aspect of writing is to understand how the typical reader's mind works. That isn't donating our creativity to the writers but simply educating them about us as readers.



> (For me the feedback wouldn't even be terribly useful, because my story  usually changes damn near wholesale between a completed draft and the  final copy...)



Similarly I'm a total pantser, so I just keep writing chapters and versions of chapters until I have enough to pick a selection from to make into a story. There are far more episodes in my character's lives than I could even ever write about. If I had bad feedback from readers then I'd simply shuffle the pack and deal out another story with little more effort. I write fast and furiously with much wastage to produce my source material, much of which nobody will ever get to read, while others here put a lot of work into crafting a single version of their work. Hence there is no universal answer to the question.


----------



## luckyscars

Aquilo said:


> That's annoying. I've not betaed that often. Usually by the time I see a script, the minors are taken care and the focus is on content edits. Saying that, with my first drafts the minors are taken care of as I go. When mine goes off to 'Alfas', they are checking their particular areas, e.g. that BDSM is staying within SSC, or that I haven't gotten my carbon dioxide mixed up with my copper ammonia solution when I'm working in a lab. When it goes to betas: I say I'm after straight read, which means just reading at their normal place and noting down anything that stops that flow. I stress they're not to bother with grammar mistakes: I'm after content issues. Most beta readers won't know exactly what that means, but so long as they can say "This stopped me reading here." I can pick it up myself.
> 
> Grammar issues should be left to proofreaders, professional ones at that, or ones who at least know what protected speech means.



 I should have made allowances for specialized help. That’s definitely different, not least because if you’re asking a BDSM person to check you on BDSM accuracy or whatever you probably (1) Need that to be accurate lest it screw up your entire plot and (2) Not necessarily asking them for feedback on the entire novel but simply on the parts that pertain to their area of expertise.

I just see what I feel is a massive misuse of concept when it comes to having others read work. For me, beta reading is supposed to be a final QA check. It’s supposed to be a “this is what I’ve got, it’s ready as far as I can possibly tell on my own, I just need to get a final opinion before I take my shot with agent/publisher/buying public”. It’s supposed to be a dress rehearsal. Beta readers aren't supposed to be encountering and identifying a ton of grammar mistakes, for instance. That’s a proof reader’s job. 

There are an awful lot of people on this forum and other places who seem to view it as part of their main editing process, or even part of their writing process. People who will ask for beta reading on incredibly undeveloped material and expect what is essentially the equivalent of content editing or script doctoring. I used to beta read frequently and would say easily 50% of what I read just clearly wasn’t ready and it turned out the author was aware of it but simply wanted help...

...which is fine, of course, except that it’s totally deceptive to pursue it in such a manner. Content editing comes at a higher price point than beta reading (which is usually voluntary or a favor-for-favor type deal) and more importantly I am by no means qualified to edit anybody’s work so when I am made to feel like that’s part of the expectation I don’t like it.


----------



## Amnesiac

Ralph Rotten said:


> Do they read it *before* you send it to editor, or *after* you send it to editor?



Usually before. They can catch errors that I've missed, make suggestions, find plot holes, ask for more development of a peripheral character that's grabbed their interest, etc.


----------



## Aquilo

luckyscars said:


> and more importantly I am by no means qualified to edit anybody’s work so when I am made to feel like that’s part of the expectation I don’t like it.



See that's it exactly. Betas are gold dust. I've worked with these Alphas and betas for years. They know me, but I know them too. It's why I have three betas. One's really good at spotting plot holes: she's such a logical thinker, where the logistics from one scene to another come like perfectly timed ticking bombs. Get something out of synch, and she feels the glitch and starts shouting 'unclean, unclean'. The other's really good at pace, and easily says "Yeah, this here is boring me", the other, she's reads by her sleeve, and I know if she's not reacting in her usual ways, then it needs more. They may not speak as an editor but they do _feel_ the same, and it's those gut instincts of theirs that I trust and want. It's why I've stayed with the same betas, or more why my betas have let me stay with them. Their time is as valuable as any editors.


----------



## JustRob

Which costs more, a reader or an editor? Doesn't that answer the question as to the order in which a writer prefers to employ them? Professional readers probably cost virtually as much as professional editors, but are they the people that we are discussing here? It comes as no surprise that a writer would prefer to employ an amateur reader before employing a professional editor.


----------



## Bayview

I use both alpha readers (I call them critique partners) and beta readers (generally non-writers, if I can get them). And there's no reason I'd show them my work after the editor's involved... the editor is the professional, and I give more weight to her opinion than to the opinion of amateurs, so why would I change something she's happy with because a random person doesn't care for it?

My critique partners and I exchange bits of WIPs as we go. We can discuss character development, plotting issues, etc., as the problems arise. If one of us gets stuck on something, the others can provide ideas and encouragement. The work I show them isn't polished, but neither is the work they show me. And we all write reasonably well, so it's not like we're sending illegible drivel back and forth.


----------



## Aquilo

Bayview said:


> My critique partners and I exchange bits of WIPs as we go. We can discuss character development, plotting issues, etc., as the problems arise. If one of us gets stuck on something, the others can provide ideas and encouragement. The work I show them isn't polished, but neither is the work they show me. And we all write reasonably well, so it's not like we're sending illegible drivel back and forth.



I think it's more relaxed and focused when you're swapping between peers. You can get straight to the issue and use terms you wouldn't use with betas, maybe let off a little steam too.


----------



## JustRob

Bayview said:


> I use both alpha readers (I call them critique partners) and beta readers (generally non-writers, if I can get them). And there's no reason I'd show them my work after the editor's involved... the editor is the professional, and I give more weight to her opinion than to the opinion of amateurs, so why would I change something she's happy with because a random person doesn't care for it?
> 
> My critique partners and I exchange bits of WIPs as we go. We can discuss character development, plotting issues, etc., as the problems arise. If one of us gets stuck on something, the others can provide ideas and encouragement. The work I show them isn't polished, but neither is the work they show me. And we all write reasonably well, so it's not like we're sending illegible drivel back and forth.



I have no experience of what professional editors do but I did send a hundred page extract from my draft novel for assessment at a professional agency that advises and instructs novice writers. They gave it to an appropriate published writer for comments, but published writers know what they personally can make work and are evidently not particularly good at seeing the potential in the works of others. He actually suggested that I change the main theme of the story entirely, which was not particularly helpful. That's the problem with paying for someone to read just an extract, especially when it has to be the opening extract from a story that develops substantially later on. At the rates they charged I certainly wouldn't have paid for the entire work to be read, given that I'd only written the novel on a whim with no real ambition to get it published.

I also sent the entire draft novel to an acquaintance in America who happened to teach English literature and especially literary analysis in depth at a university there. He had very kindly offered to read the whole thing for no fee and he actually read it twice, telling me that he enjoyed it even more the second time and that "the reader is repaid handsomely for the time he spends with it." I don't think that it was simply that he was an acquaintance offering undeserved praise as literary critique was  specifically his profession. In fact students' appraisals of him are to be found on ratemyprofessors.com and they often state just how demanding he is. Hence I must assume that he was for me the ultimate alpha reader as he clearly wasn't applying any bias towards market demands, so I received an appraisal of my work purely in its own right. Regarding publication potential he said that the work might only appeal to a limited readership, which hardly surprised me and certainly didn't bother me. Whether by that he meant others of his calibre I don't know but I am well aware that my style of writing has its idiosyncrasies. So apparently it isn't just whether a reader is a professional but what their specific profession happens to be and indeed what the writer expects to gain from their writing that decides how to seek and value any pre-publication critique.

A writer specifically has to decide whether they can achieve their objective best by keeping within the publishing mainstream or by ploughing their own furrow. The fact that, as my acquaintance wrote, "the reader is repaid handsomely for the time he spends with it" doesn't mean that an editor or publisher would necessarily see the same potential in a work as they are commercial professionals with different criteria to fulfil. How many mainstream readers actually read a novel twice to get the full experience that it offers if it isn't already an acknowledged classic? How many professionals in the publishing industry could devote their time to doing that to assess it for publication?

Writers must understand what their objectives in writing are and then allow themselves to be guided by readers and editors only to the extent that it assists them in fulfilling those objectives. The choice of particular alpha or beta readers, critique partners and editors stems from those objectives but, as I stated previously, expenditure is often behind one's decisions. That's why I joined WF of course, because I've run out of expert university professors willing to read my draft novel for nothing.


----------



## Bayview

JustRob said:


> I have no experience of what professional editors do but I did send a hundred page extract from my draft novel for assessment at a professional agency that advises and instructs novice writers. They gave it to an appropriate published writer for comments, but published writers know what they personally can make work and are evidently not particularly good at seeing the potential in the works of others. He actually suggested that I change the main theme of the story entirely, which was not particularly helpful. That's the problem with paying for someone to read just an extract, especially when it has to be the opening extract from a story that develops substantially later on. At the rates they charged I certainly wouldn't have paid for the entire work to be read, given that I'd only written the novel on a whim with no real ambition to get it published.
> 
> I also sent the entire draft novel to an acquaintance in America who happened to teach English literature and especially literary analysis in depth at a university there. He had very kindly offered to read the whole thing for no fee and he actually read it twice, telling me that he enjoyed it even more the second time and that "the reader is repaid handsomely for the time he spends with it." I don't think that it was simply that he was an acquaintance offering undeserved praise as literary critique was  specifically his profession. In fact students' appraisals of him are to be found on ratemyprofessors.com and they often state just how demanding he is. Hence I must assume that he was for me the ultimate alpha reader as he clearly wasn't applying any bias towards market demands, so I received an appraisal of my work purely in its own right. Regarding publication potential he said that the work might only appeal to a limited readership, which hardly surprised me and certainly didn't bother me. Whether by that he meant others of his calibre I don't know but I am well aware that my style of writing has its idiosyncrasies. So apparently it isn't just whether a reader is a professional but what their specific profession happens to be and indeed what the writer expects to gain from their writing that decides how to seek and value any pre-publication critique.
> 
> A writer specifically has to decide whether they can achieve their objective best by keeping within the publishing mainstream or by ploughing their own furrow. The fact that, as my acquaintance wrote, "the reader is repaid handsomely for the time he spends with it" doesn't mean that an editor or publisher would necessarily see the same potential in a work as they are commercial professionals with different criteria to fulfil. How many mainstream readers actually read a novel twice to get the full experience that it offers if it isn't already an acknowledged classic? How many professionals in the publishing industry could devote their time to doing that to assess it for publication?
> 
> Writers must understand what their objectives in writing are and then allow themselves to be guided by readers and editors only to the extent that it assists them in fulfilling those objectives. The choice of particular alpha or beta readers, critique partners and editors stems from those objectives but, as I stated previously, expenditure is often behind one's decisions. That's why I joined WF of course, because I've run out of expert university professors willing to read my draft novel for nothing.



Oh, I agree - you absolutely need to keep your own goals in mind, and you absolutely need to evaluate any opinions you get and decide which ones are valuable. I _do_ write for the market, so I _do_ value the opinions of the people who know that market best, but if those aren't your goals, those opinions won't hold as much value!

Quick note, though - when I think of editors I think of the people employed by the publishers I want to work with. I think we all have to be really careful about the rise of people _calling_ themselves editors, but without much experience to back that claim up. I certainly wouldn't think someone was qualified to offer editorial advice just because they're a published writer!


----------



## Ralph Rotten

luckyscars said:


> I honestly find the idea of asking people to read unedited work to be rude. Often it is an obvious sign of astronomical laziness, too.




Truth!


----------



## Ralph Rotten

Bayview said:


> Quick note, though - when I think of editors I think of the people employed by the publishers I want to work with. I think we all have to be really careful about the rise of people _calling_ themselves editors, but without much experience to back that claim up. I certainly wouldn't think someone was qualified to offer editorial advice just because they're a published writer!




Yup: Most writers actually use proofreaders, not editors. An editor not only proofs the book, but provides artistic guidance based on their publishing experience.

A real editor doesn't just fix your book, they show you its true potential.



One reason that I prefer BETA testing (versus alpha testing) is that I have found that I get better feedback with a nearly perfect manuscript. Errors and problems distract the reader. Once the reader starts thinking they are smarter than the writer, they view your work with a more subjective attitude. I want feedback that is not swayed by a buncha typos.


----------



## Aquilo

JustRob said:


> as I stated previously, expenditure is often behind one's decisions. That's why I joined WF of course, because I've run out of expert university professors willing to read my draft novel for nothing.



I can understand this, more than. We use what we can at the time. 

However (and on a generic note here away from you, Rob), forget a script not being ready for an editor, most new authors you see aren't ready to talk an editor either, and I mean that in the loveliest way possible to any new author. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 A good content editor can take an hour to edit 2-4 pages an hour, so you can imagine the notes that come with just those pages. It's why those stages before that: with betas... peers, all add their weight in gold to the process. Each step teaches a new author to not only handle critique but also how to react and talk about it in order to get their thoughts across. All of it's a major part to the process.

To be honest, I love working with new authors who come into DSP, and I'll prefer to work with them over established authors, mostly because you can see they need to bridge that gap a little more between moving from aspiring into first-time published authors. Editor comments are always tailored differently to that and each author's needs, say to more seasoned authors who may not need as careful approach to explain the 'why' behind any recommendations. I don't expect a new author to know what seasoned authors like Bayview know about working with recommendations (and Bayview is a cracking writer who's been published with DSP), but I know my genre, and I'd like to trust that a new author would respect that insight enough to discuss it with me without any drama, just either: 'okay I like the recommendation" or "Can I stet as I think it this needs to be kept because....". And most times you only that by having gone through alphas... betas etc. So it doesn't really matter who you get to look at your script, what it does or doesn't cost: it's just really good that you do. It all helps in the long run.

Although... if you find you're needing a beta read after an editor has seen it, I'd certainly question the skill of the editor, or an author's respect for editors who can do their job.


----------



## Ralph Rotten

Aquilo said:


> Although... if you find you're needing a beta read after an editor has seen it, I'd certainly question the skill of the editor, or an author's respect for editors who can do their job.




That depends on the editor. In BV's case, she typically has a professional editor involved, which is much different from what most of us Indies use.
If you have a working editor proofing your work and ensuring that it gets the right arc, then there is little need for a beta.
But most Indies and self-pubs use proofreaders, not real editors. Huge difference. 

Just wanted to clarify my perspective as an *Indie*.
If you are publishing classically then your process will be different.


----------

