In our last issue, I wrote about increasing editorial efficiency by fixing one kind of problem at a time. This raises (*not* "begs") the question, "What kinds of problems lend themselves to this approach?" Some possibilities for your consideration:

* Fixing typographical errors with a spell check:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1700310413

* Editing all headings at the same time to make sure they match in tone and are parallel in construction:

1. Click View > Outline.

2. In the middle of the Outline toolbar, click the "Show Level" dropdown list (*not* the "Level" list, on the left) and select the depth of the heading levels you want to show.

* Editing all of your notes at once:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1701016860

http://lists.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1711082975

* Finding and replacing commonly made errors:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1708048908

http://lists.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1708127357

http://lists.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1708293844

Do you, gentle reader, have additional suggestions? If so, please let me know, and I'll include them in the next newsletter:

mailto:editor [at symbol] editorium.com

Some time ago, I wrote a related article called "Editing from the Top Down":

http://lists.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1707878802

The idea was to start by editing the really big stuff (such as paragraph styling), then move down to medium stuff (spell check), and finally get down to the nitty-gritty of line editing. This is a good approach because (1) it gets rid of the messy stuff up front so you can concentrate on the details without distraction, and (2) it lets you concentrate on one thing at a time.

If that's "vertical" editing, then the approach suggested in today's article might be called "horizontal" editing. Both approaches are useful and will make you more efficient.

Just don't forget to actually *read* the manuscript after you've done all this wonderful electronic stuff. 🙂

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

After reading the article "Divide and Conquer," Hilary Powers wrote:

"If you're editing on a computer, separate passes are much faster than trying to do it all by hand. And Adam Smith had a point (you should pardon the expression) for his day--splitting up jobs as he describes did make for much higher production of basic manufactured goods. But a whole lot of 21st-century organizational development effort goes into undoing the damage the pin-factory mentality did to the human quality of working life and recreating occupations (like ours) that feed the mind and soul as well as the pocket."

---------------------------------------

The previous newsletter said:

"One approach to working in this way [divide and conquer] is to fix every instance of a certain problem the first time you encounter it. For example, if you're reading along and see 'supersede' misspelled as 'supercede,' don't just fix the word and move on. Instead, use Word's Find and Replace feature to 'Replace All.'"

To which Gretchen replied:

"I think people need to be reminded that 'Replace All' can be dangerous if you have references. 'Labour' might be the correct spelling in a reference. What I would do is start just above the references and do a backward replace."

Another possible solution to this problem appears here:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1702836319

---------------------------------------

Pru Harrison wrote:

"I have a recurring problem with italicised commas. Unfortunately your FileCleaner fixes it the wrong way, as far as I'm concerned!

"The problem is this: many authors when wanting to put a book title into italics are careless with their highlighting and include a final comma (when present), which is NOT part of the title. It is extremely tedious looking out for this error (at least, as far as I'm concerned because I know very little about programming in Word). Can anybody come up with a program to fix this for me?"

Here's my response:

It depends on which style you prefer. The old printer's rule is that punctuation follows the format of the text preceding it. The Chicago Manual of Style used to follow the rule, but the latest edition goes the other way. I'm planning on releasing a version of FileCleaner that gives you the option, along with many other new alternatives. If there's anything else in particular you'd like FileCleaner to do, please let me know.

For now, I'd recommend fixing the problem with a two-step Find and Replace:

1. Click Edit > Replace to bring up the Replace dialog.

2. Leave the Find What box empty but format it as Italic (CTRL + I).

3. In the Replace With box, put this:

^&~

4. Click the Replace All button.

5. In the Find What box, put this, with No Formatting (click the button labeled that):

,~

6. In the Replace With box, put this, formatted as Not Italic (press CTRL + I twice):

,

7. Press the Replace All button.

That should do the trick.

---------------------------------------

Many thanks to Hilary, Gretchen, and Pru!

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

The ingenious Greg Chapman has developed a number of free, useful Word add-ins. You can check them out here:

http://www.mousetrax.com/downloads.html

Back in the days of working on paper, editors had to keep an eye out for all kinds of errors and problems--all at the same time. The human brain, which is wired to think about *one* thing at a time, often missed things, and editors were forced to comb through a manuscript over and over again. They also needed to keep style sheets (still a useful practice) to recall earlier decisions. Changing one's mind could have disastrous consequences; it often meant having to re-read the manuscript, unmaking previous decisions and implementing new ones.

If you're still working the same way on the computer, it's time to change. Researcher David Meyer from the University of Michigan explains why multitasking is so inefficient:

"People in a work setting who are banging away on word processors at the same time they have to answer phones and talk to their co-workers or bosses--they're doing switches all the time. . . . In effect, you've got writer's block briefly as you go from one task to another. You've got to (a) want to switch tasks, you've got to (b) make the switch, and then you've got to (c) get warmed back up on what you're doing."

You'll find more information about the university's study on multitasking here:

http://www.applesforhealth.com/HealthyBusiness/multihealth3.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/08/05/multitasking.study/

http://www.umich.edu/%7Ebcalab/multitasking.html

In the classic book Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, economist Adam Smith explained basically the same principle, but with the organization rather than the individual in mind. In fact, the first chapter in his book is titled "Of the Division of Labour." You can read the chapter here:

http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b1-c1.htm

Smith illustrated his ideas with the example of manufacturing pins:

"A workman not educated to this business . . . could scarce, perhaps, with his utmost industry, make one pin in a day, and certainly could not make twenty. But in the way in which this business is now carried on, . . . it is divided into a number of branches. . . . One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving, the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations. . . . I have seen a small manufactory of this kind where ten men only were employed, and where some of them consequently performed two or three distinct operations. . . . They could, when they exerted themselves, make among them about twelve pounds of pins in a day. There are in a pound upwards of four thousand pins of a middling size. Those ten persons, therefore, could make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day. . . . But if they had all wrought separately and independently, . . . they certainly could not each of them have made twenty, perhaps not one pin in a day; that is, certainly, not the two hundred and fortieth, perhaps not the four thousand eight hundredth part of what they are at present capable of performing, in consequence of a proper division and combination of their different operations."

The principle can also be applied to editing, especially on the computer. Rather than trying to find and fix all problems at once, try going after one kind of problem at a time. For example, rather than putting all commas and periods inside quotation marks as you come to them, why not use Microsoft Word's Find and Replace feature to fix them all in one fell swoop? Once you've done that, you won't have to look for them or even think about them again, and you can be confident that you didn't overlook any. Then, go on to another kind of problem and fix that.

One approach to working in this way is to fix every instance of a certain problem the first time you encounter it. For example, if you're reading along and see "supersede" misspelled as "supercede," don't just fix the word and move on. Instead, use Word's Find and Replace feature to "Replace All." When you come to another problem, fix it in the same way. As you do this, you'll find that your manuscript is cleaner and cleaner the farther into it you read, because many of the errors you would have had to fix manually have already been fixed electronically. This, by the way, feels really good.

Another approach is to keep a list of errors and problems you commonly see and fix them all before you even touch anything else. My FileCleaner and MegaReplacer programs are ideal for this kind of work:

http://www.editorium.com/14845.htm

http://www.editorium.com/14843.htm

Whatever your approach, try looking for ways to focus on one thing at a time. Divide and conquer! Doing so will make your work easier, better, and more efficient.

You'll find other good articles on this topic here:

http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2005/03/your_brain_on_m.html

http://www.lifetimefitness.com/magazine/index.cfm?strWebAction=article_detail&intArticleId=372

http://www.rentquick.com/news06.html

___________________________________________

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

Editorium Update reader Paul Sensecall's reference-checking software, ReferenceChecker, is a sophisticated reference-checking program for name+date-style (Harvard and APA) references in Word files. The program's site includes a download section where you can obtain a free, fully functional 30-day trial version:

http://www.goodcitations.com

Paul notes that the software is generating lots of interest among various editing societies. Maybe you'll find it interesting too. And useful! Why not try it today?

Thanks, Paul!

A book I recently edited had lots of lists--with no terminal punctuation. The lists looked something like this:

1. Text of the first item

2. Text of the second item

3. Text of the third item

As I worked, I found myself jumping to the end of each line and typing in a period, like this:

1. Text of the first item.

2. Text of the second item

3. Text of the third item

Then this:

1. Text of the first item.

2. Text of the second item.

3. Text of the third item

And finally this:

1. Text of the first item.

2. Text of the second item.

3. Text of the third item.

After two or three lists, I realized how silly this was. The solution is elementary, but I suspect that many readers haven't thought of it. Here it is:

1. Select all the items in your list, including the paragraph mark on the final item.

2. Click Edit > Replace.

3. In the Find What box, enter this (the code for a paragraph mark):

^p

4. In the Replace With box enter this (a period followed by the code for a paragraph mark):

.^p

5. Click Replace All.

6. If Word asks if you want to search the rest of your document, click No; all you want to search is the list you selected.

That should do the trick.

And, of course, if you want to *remove* periods rather than add them, follow the same procedure but swap the contents of the Find What and Replace with boxes.

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

Rob Dilworth wrote:

After Adobe Acrobat Professional 7 was installed on a colleague's PC, he noticed that he could no longer customize his toolbars in Word. Specifically, if he removed a button from a toolbar or tried to add a template that added a button/pull-down menu to his menu bar, the customizations only lasted as long as his session in Word. Once he started Word again, the customizations were gone.

For the record, here are the workarounds for the problem that Acrobat creates in customizing toolbars in Word:

* If the Acrobat add-ins (Adobe PDF and Acrobat Comments) are in Word, the user can save customizations to Word's toolbars by holding Shift on the keyboard; then, in the menu, by pressing File > Save All.

* The add-ins can be removed from Word by going into the Windows Registry. If the add-ins are removed, then Word works without any problems. Here's how to remove the add-ins:

Run: regedit. Then go to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE > SOFTWARE > Microsoft > Office > Word > Addins. Then click LoadBehavior and set the value at 0. Once the value is set at 0, the add-ins won't load in Word.

Thanks, Rob!

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

Have you checked out the reviewing features in Adobe Acrobat 7 Professional? If not, you really should. You can try the program free for thirty days. I'll be writing an article on these features in the near future:

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatpro/main.html

Before installing, be sure to see the Readers Write column above.

Michael Coleman wrote:

I have a minor problem that I thought you might find interesting. Whenever I hold down shift and control at the same time, then let them go, it acts as a keyboard shortcut for formatting the paragraph I'm in as right-to-left. This is described in the Help file:

--------

Keyboard shortcuts for right-to-left formatting

The feature described in this Help topic is only available if support for a right-to-left language, such as Arabic, is enabled through Microsoft Office Language Settings. In addition, you must be running a Microsoft Windows operating system that has right-to-left support--for example, Microsoft Windows 2000.

CTRL+RIGHT SHIFT: Activate right-to-left paragraph direction

CTRL+LEFT SHIFT: Activate left-to-right paragraph direction

--------

It's actually kind of neat, and I'm sure I'll find a use for it at some point. But I find that I use that key combination often--starting to use the arrows to highlight text and then changing my mind. I'd like to get rid of the shortcut or assign it to a more reasonable key combination. When I check the keyboard shortcuts, it's not listed.

Do you, gentle reader, have a solution for Michael?

In earlier versions of Microsoft Word, it was possible to print comments separately from tracked revisions. You can still do that with Word 2002 and later versions, but how to do so is no longer obvious. Here's the trick:

1. Click View > Toolbars > Reviewing.

2. On the Reviewing toolbar, click the Show button.

3. Remove the checkmark from "Insertions and Deletions." This will turn off the display of tracked revisions (but leave them intact if you want to redisplay them later).

4. Click File > Print > Print what > List of markup.

Word will print a list of your comments without including your revisions.

Fairly easy, once you know how.

Here's another way of approaching the problem:

1. (Temporarily) accept all revisions. This is now trickier than you might think:

a. Click View > Toolbars > Reviewing.

b. On the Reviewing toolbar, click the down arrow to the right of the Accept Change button.

c. Click "Accept all changes in document."

2. Click File > Print > Print what > List of markup.

3. Click OK, which will print comments alone, because the document no longer includes any revisions.

4. Close the document *without saving,* thus preserving your revisions.

Simple but effective.

Thanks to Dan Goldstein for suggesting this topic.

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

More readers sent their results from this deceptively difficult spelling test from Mindy McAdams:

http://www.sentex.net/~mmcadams/spelling.html

Kathleen Much wrote, "I just got around to taking the spelling test today. 100%--and if I had missed any, my children would have excoriated me! Don't ask me why, but I've had an eye for misspelled words since I was in grade school. The California State Spelling Bee put me through college; I won it on my 13th birthday. Good to know I haven't slipped in the past half-century."

Judy Stein wrote, "I want to file a belated report that I made one error (battalion, one of my "demon" words; can never remember which letter is doubled--I probably misspelled it just now). I wouldn't have missed any of the words the other correspondents cited, so I didn't cheat by reading their posts. I'm not asking you to put me in the next newsletter, just wanted the chance to blow my horn, even if you're the only one who hears it."

Thomas Way wrote, "I missed only one word on that spelling test--miniscule. The only thing I can do really well is spell."

Judy Richards wrote, "I did the test--three wrong! but, like a couple of others, was brought up on "judgement." Liquefy and desiccate--no excuses.

Thanks to all!

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

You'll find a couple of hundred excellent articles about editing and publishing on the EServer TC Library:

http://tc.eserver.org/dir/Articles/Editing

____________________________________________________

Sometimes, in a document that's been reviewed by several people, it's nice to be able to accept all changes by a single reviewer--maybe the author or a proofreader whose judgment you trust. (Or maybe yourself!) In Word 2002 (XP) and later versions, this is easy:

1. Click View > Toolbars > Reviewing to display the Reviewing toolbar.

2. On the toolbar, click Show > Reviewers.

3. Select the name of the reviewer whose changes you want to accept (and deselect any others that are checked).

4. Click the > Accept Change button (blue checkmark, middle of the toolbar).

5. Click Accept All Changes Shown.

In Word 97, 98, 2000, and 2001, it's not so easy; it requires a macro. This one, in fact:

Sub AcceptRevisionsByAuthor()
Dim aRevision, ThisAuthor As String
For Each aRevision In ActiveDocument.Revisions
ThisAuthor = aRevision.Author
If ThisAuthor = "Jack M. Lyon" Then
aRevision.Accept
End If
Next aRevision
End Sub

If you don't know how to use such macros, you can learn how here:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706922855

When you use the macro, of course, you'll want to replace "Jack M. Lyon" with the name of your choice.

If you want to accept changes for all reviewers *except* Jack M. Lyon, you can change this line--

If ThisAuthor = "Jack M. Lyon" Then

--to this:

If ThisAuthor <> "Jack M. Lyon" Then

You can also *reject* all the changes by a single reviewer. To do so, change this line--

aRevision.Accept

--to this:

aRevision.Reject

In Word 2002 and later, you can reject all changes by a single reviewer by clicking the Reject Change/Delete Comment button (to the right of the Accept Change button) and then clicking Reject All Changes Shown.

Thanks to Anna Marshall for requesting this article.

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

After reading the previous newsletter on marking revisions for WordPerfect, Adam C. Engst wrote, "[The macro] sounds quite useful, but what about going back in the other direction? Can a macro take styled text from WordPerfect (or other app) and turn it back into revisions and comments?

I tried writing a macro to make this work but was unsuccessful. If you, gentle reader, know of a way to do this, please let me know.

Thanks to Adam for his message.

This week one of the editors I work with needed to show tracked revisions to an author she's working with. The problem was, the author used WordPerfect, not Microsoft Word. We tried opening the marked-up Word document with WordPerfect, but no go. Additions were there, marked in red, but deletions had reverted to regular text. Saving the document in various formats and then opening in WordPerfect brought us no joy. What to do? Well, how about a macro that checks and formats each revision? If it's an insertion, color it blue and accept it; if it's a deletion, mark it with strikeout, color it red, and accept it. Then save the document in Rich Text Format (RTF). When it's opened in WordPerfect (or any other word processor that accepts RTF), all of the changes will be visible. Here's the macro, which I hope you'll find useful:

Sub FormatRevisions()
Dim ThisRevision As Revision
For Each ThisRevision In Selection.Range.Revisions
Application.Run MacroName:="ToolsRevisionMarksNext"
If ThisRevision.Type = wdRevisionInsert Then
With Selection.Font
.Color = wdColorBlue
End With
ThisRevision.Accept
GoTo Continue
End If
If ThisRevision.Type = wdRevisionDelete Then
With Selection.Font
.StrikeThrough = True
.Color = wdColorRed
End With
ThisRevision.Reject
GoTo Continue
End If
Continue:
Next ThisRevision
End Sub

If you don't know how to use such macros, you can learn how here:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706922855

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

If you were unable to run the style macros in the past few newsletters, you may find this message from Eric Fletcher helpful. I already knew about Eric's tip here, but I keep forgetting to implement it, in spite of Steve Hudson's efforts to educate me. Please accept my apologies. Eric wrote:

Your style listing macros came at a perfect time for me as I'd just received a large file full of oddball styles (actually, it was from a French version of Word so the style names were also all in French!).

However, I thought I'd pass along a tip about future macros. If users have the "Require variable declaration" option set (Tools | Options dialog in VBE), these macro won't run until they add the following line to declare the "sty" variable:

Dim sty As Variant

Defining variables is not entirely necessary but is recommended. If the option is set in VBE, it sets "Option Explicit" at the top of the macro editing window and forces all variables to be defined with Dim statements. I was tearing out what hair I have left trying to work out why some of my previously-working macros started displaying errors until I realized that it had happened after I'd followed someone's advice about setting the option.

----------------------------------------

Donna Payne wrote:

I have a variation of the list styles in use macro. This is from my company's latest book, Word 2003 for Law Firms.

Sub DisplayAllStylesInUseAtInsertionPoint()
Dim oStyle As Style
Dim oRange As Range
Set oRange = Selection.Range
oRange.Collapse wdCollapseStart
For Each oStyle In ActiveDocument.Styles
If oStyle.InUse Then
oRange.InsertAfter oStyle.NameLocal
''' Some Styles cannot be displayed
''' in particular contexts
On Error Resume Next
oRange.Style = oStyle.NameLocal
If Err.Number <> 0 Then
oRange.InsertAfter " (Style Not Displayed)"
End If
On Error GoTo 0
oRange.InsertParagraphAfter
oRange.Collapse wdCollapseEnd
End If
Next oStyle
End Sub

Many thanks to Eric and Donna.

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

After reading about Copernic Desktop Search (for PC) in last week's newsletter, JM, a Macintosh user, wrote:

For years [similar search capability] has been built into the operating system as part of Sherlock, the file finder. I use it almost every day. Doesn't search browser history, as far as I know. I'm on OS 9.2; assume this wonderful thing has survived the switch to OS X.

Romke Soldaat wrote:

"This mail is not entirely free of self-promotion, but if you're interested in new add-ins for Word, you may want to have a look on http://www.wordtoys.com. This package contains quite a few features that might interest editors and other linguistic professionals."

I checked out Romke's WordToys macro package, and it's chock-full of useful features. It's also free!

http://www.wordtoys.com

Many thanks to JM and Romke.

The August 18 issue of Editorium Update featured a macro to delete styles that exist in a Word document but are not used in that document. While I was writing that macro, I also wrote a couple of others that I thought you might find useful.

The first macro, ListCustomStyles, lists (at the end of the document) any custom styles in that document. If you need to know what weird styles your client is using, this macro will tell you what they are.

The second macro, ListStylesInUse, lists (at the end of the document) any style being used in that document.

If you don't know how to use macros like these, you can learn how here:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706922855

And now, here are the macros. Enjoy!

Sub ListCustomStyles()
For Each sty In ActiveDocument.Styles
If sty.BuiltIn = False Then
Selection.EndKey Unit:=wdStory
Selection.InsertAfter Text:=sty.NameLocal
Selection.InsertParagraphAfter
End If
Next sty
End Sub
Sub ListStylesInUse()
For Each sty In ActiveDocument.Styles
If sty.InUse = True Then
Selection.HomeKey Unit:=wdStory
Selection.Find.ClearFormatting
Selection.Find.Style = ActiveDocument.Styles(sty)
With Selection.Find
.Text = ""
.Replacement.Text = ""
.Forward = True
.Wrap = wdFindStop
.Format = True
.MatchCase = False
.MatchWholeWord = False
.MatchWildcards = False
.MatchSoundsLike = False
.MatchAllWordForms = False
End With
Selection.Find.Execute
If Selection.Find.Found = True Then
Selection.EndKey Unit:=wdStory
Selection.InsertAfter Text:=sty.NameLocal
Selection.InsertParagraphAfter
End If
End If
Next sty
End Sub

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

In the August 11 issue, Francelia Sevin wrote:

"On my Mac in Word 2001, toggling the track changes on/off doesn't work. I still cannot copy and paste text and include the tracked changes. I have upgraded with the latest patches for 2001 and that hasn't made any difference."

I asked for help with this, and Hilary Powers responded:

That sounds like the PC Word 97 tracking-copy bug, alive and well in Mac Word 2001. If so, the PC workaround--bookmarking the material and inserting it in its new spot (with tracked changes turned off in the receiving document)--should work just fine. To move something in the same document, save the bookmarked file under a different name, then reopen the active file and turn off tracking, insert the bookmarked passage from the copy, and delete it from its original location. Then turn the tracking on again, and you're back in business.

--------------------------------------

Karen Bojda responded to the same question:

Well, there's the workaround I learned about on CE-L, but for some reason I think you already know about this one 😉

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0208E&L=copyediting-l&P=R613

"This is a known 'issue' (bug) in Word 97/98. It's been fixed in Word 2000 and higher. A workaround is to insert the text (Insert > File) into the new document rather than paste it. If you don't want to insert the whole doc, you can bookmark just the part you need and then enter the name of the bookmark into the 'Range' box of the Insert dialog."

I can confirm that this works in Word 98 on the Mac. You have to save a copy of the file under a different name, since Word won't let you insert a file (or even a bookmarked part of a file) into itself. It might be a cumbersome workaround, but I've used it and been grateful to know about it.

--------------------------------------

A more detailed explanation of how to do this is provided in the March 24 issue of Editorium Update:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1716395972

Many thanks to Hilary and Karen.

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

Copernic Desktop Search is a powerful (and free!) file indexing and search engine for Windows computers. The website says:

"Easily search your entire hard drive in less than a second to pinpoint the right file, e-mail, music or pictures.

"CDS brings the power of a sophisticated, yet easy-to-use search engine right to your PC and allows you instantly to search files, e-mails, and email attachments stored anywhere on your PC hard drive. It executes sub-second searching of Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint files, Acrobat PDFs, and all popular music, picture and video formats. CDS also searches your browser history, favorites, and contacts."

http://www.copernic.com/index.html

Thanks to Keith Soltys for bringing this program to my attention. If you're a Mac user and know of a similar program for Macintosh, please let me know.

I frequently edit books that are compilations of articles by various authors. Some know how to use Word pretty well; others don't have a clue. Those in the latter category either don't use paragraph styles or create styles that aren't needed. After I've fixed and consistently applied the styles I need, I like to get rid of the other unused styles the authors have created. The following macro seems to do the job quite well. Maybe you'll find it useful:

Sub DeleteUnusedStyles()
'Courtesy of the Editorium
'www.editorium.com
For Each sty In ActiveDocument.Styles
If sty.BuiltIn = False Then
If sty.InUse = False Then
sty.Delete
Else
Selection.HomeKey Unit:=wdStory
Selection.Find.ClearFormatting
Selection.Find.Style = ActiveDocument.Styles(sty)
With Selection.Find
.Text = ""
.Replacement.Text = ""
.Forward = True
.Wrap = wdFindStop
.Format = True
.MatchCase = False
.MatchWholeWord = False
.MatchWildcards = False
.MatchSoundsLike = False
.MatchAllWordForms = False
End With
Selection.Find.Execute
If Selection.Find.Found = False Then sty.Delete
End If
End If
Next sty
Selection.HomeKey Unit:=wdStory
End Sub

If you don't know how to use such macros, you can learn how here:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706922855

You'd think the macro could be a lot shorter:

For Each sty In ActiveDocument.Styles
If sty.BuiltIn = False Then 'Ignore built-in styles
If sty.InUse = False Then sty.Delete
End If
Next sty

But Microsoft Word, ever uncooperative, considers any style that has *ever* been used in a document to be "in use," even if the text formatted by that style has long since been deleted. That means a style can be "in use" even if it's not applied to text anywhere in the document. So, to see if a style is *really* in use, we have to search for text using that style. If no such text is found, then we know that the style really isn't in use and can be deleted.

Note that the macro completely ignores Word's built-in styles, since these *can't* be deleted.

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

After reading last week's article on pasting tracked revisions, Hilary Powers responded to the last paragraph in the article, which read, "But maybe, just maybe, it's a feature, giving you a choice about whether or not to copy and paste revisions. But if that's true, why not copy revisions when tracking is on, and *not* copy revisions when tracking is off? That would be more logical. Shoot, maybe it is a bug. If so, now you know how to squash it."

Hilary wrote:

It's a feature. Lots of times I'm working along, and I want to pull something from the main document, which has tracking active, to the style sheet--and I want the final version of whatever-it-is, not any changes I may have made in it. That wouldn't be feasible with the apparently logical system. Keeping only the final version is the more likely choice, so it makes sense to have to do something to keep the tracking.

But it's a feature only in Word 2000+; in Word 97, there's a genuine bug: you can't copy tracking AT ALL. If you want to reproduce a passage with tracking intact, you have to bookmark it, then use Insert, File, Range (bookmark name) to put the bookmarked passage into a file that has tracking turned off. (If you want the whole file, you can simply Insert it without the Range bit.)

------------------------

Several readers responded to my answer to Wallace Sagendorph's superscript problem in last week's newsletter, including Mary Eberle, Eric Fletcher, Shirley S. Ricks, and Iwan Thomas. Eric Fletcher wrote:

I bet I won't be the only one to let you know about a much easier method to solve Wallace Sagendorph's superscript problem!

I would just change one instance manually, then select and copy it. Then, in the F&R dialog, put "m3" in the Find what and "^c" in the Replace with. The caret c replaces each instance found with the content of the clipboard.

Of course, your two-step method works for the general case but I'd be a little hesitant to use it unless I was pretty sure the manuscript didn't include other constructions that would get messed up. For example, H2O would end up with a superscript 2 with your wildcard method. I once discovered (luckily just before press!) that the 2 in all instances of "V2 rocket" had inadvertently been changed to a superscript because of an earlier fix to km2.

I really like the "Highlight all items" feature of Word's Find dialog as a tool to easily check the total number of items about to be changed. If it looks a bit too high or I'm not sure, I tick it to cause all found items to be highlighted, drop out of the dialog, copy and then paste into a new Word document. This gives me a list of all found items that is easy to sort or review before committing to the replace. We've done several jobs where URLs and email addresses are sprinkled throughout the ms. I tag them with "URL text" character styles (displayed in purple during editing). Not only is it easier to see this way, but the "highlight all/copy/paste to new doc" procedure gives me a sortable list of all such items--always very handy for confirming currency of such items. I also use a similar method for pulling all citations for easier checking.

Many thanks to Hilary, Mary, Eric, Shirley, and Iwan for their excellent tips and comments.

_____________________________________________________

NEED HELP?

If you need help with Microsoft Word, there are actually lots of places to go. Some of the best include:

The Word-PC List:

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/word-pc.html

The McEdit list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/McEdit/

Microsoft's Word discussion groups:

http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/FlyoutOverview.mspx#13

(Look in the lower right of the page.)

The Word MVP site:

http://word.mvps.org/

Woody's Lounge:

http://www.wopr.com/cgi-bin/w3t/postlist.pl?Cat=&Board=wrd

But if you can't find what you need in those places, send your question here:

mailto:help [at symbol] editorium.com

I'll put your question in the newsletter to see if some astute reader knows the answer.