A Conversation for How to Make Cheesecake Ice Cream

Not My Fault

Post 1

Arpeggio - Keeper, Muse, Against Sequiturs, à propos of nothing in particular

I was not aware that *introducing* grammatical errors was part of the job-description for sub-editors. I pointed these out to the sub-ed several days ago, and s/he did not correct these errors:

-There is an extra close parenthesis mark after the word 'cognac'.

-'Straightaway' is an adjective for roads that run in straight lines. I think you meant to use 'straight away', which adverb means roughly 'immediately'.

Just a note saying 'Not My Fault'.

I do not know how Edited Guide Entries that are *in* the Guide get edited, but I should like to see this corrected as soon as possible.
Procedure? Anyone with info, please inform.

Arpeggio - 'Just call me Cordwayner Byrd'
for Leïlah el Khalil Zendavesta, MAR


Not My Fault

Post 2

Barton

Now, of course, you are going to need to do an article on Cordwainer Bird.

smiley - smiley

Barton


Not My Fault

Post 3

Martin Harper

Hi Arpeggio smiley - smiley

An inhouse editor should flit by this tomorrow morning sometime to see what comments have been made, and make corrections if necessary. It doesn't always happen, it seems - but there you go smiley - erm

Sub-eds make mistakes - they do a tough job, and it's pretty much inevitable. But they do good stuff too! smiley - bigeyes


Not My Fault

Post 4

Arpeggio - Keeper, Muse, Against Sequiturs, à propos of nothing in particular

Thank you, Lucinda! smiley - smiley

Now I know.

Arpeggio, (who just borrowed Auntie's chip back from Sara, for her shoulder) for LeKZ


No Fault Divorce

Post 5

Martin Harper

If it doesn't happen, you can always post on Feedback...Bugs or Feedback...Editorial, and they'll fix it.
-myre


Attention, In-House Editorial Person

Post 6

Arpeggio - Keeper, Muse, Against Sequiturs, à propos of nothing in particular

Hullo In-House Editor,

Thank you for dropping in. There are a few things that were changed, and did not quite work, and a couple of actual errors which were introduced into this article, including the two mentioned in post 1 of this thread. I have highlighted and explained below. I would very much appreciate your taking the time to tidy this article up. smiley - biggrin Thank you!

Items which need to be fixed in this article follow within ## ** and other marks, and my preferred fixes follow:

How to Make Cheesecake Ice Cream

Entry Data

Entry ID: A575633 (Edited)
Written and Researched by:
Arpeggio -liberating the world from sequiturs, à propos of nothing in particular

Edited by:
beeline

Date: 19 June 2001

There is nothing wrong here; I just left the data in.
___________________________________

Anyone who has ever eaten New York-style cheesecake knows there is nothing quite so exquisitely decadent as that particular texture and flavour. Ice cream is also particularly delightful for its texture and coolness and *it can be made #of# virtually any flavour one wants*.

#The preposition should be 'in', since it is here. I did not write that clause.

*This sentence, which was also added, is both passive and redundant.
I would prefer to see it reworded: '...you can make it in virtually any flavour.
__________

1 pint (0.55 litres) Table cream, coffee cream, or light cream (do not use half-and-half, as they never specify half what and half what else).# If you're actively trying to gain weight, heavy whipping cream is ideal.#

#This was meant to be a joke, but the first bit was omitted, leaving it sounding serious. (Heavy whipping cream does not make nice ice-cream at all.smiley - yuk) It should either read:
'If you are actively courting heart-disease or trying to gain weight...ideal' or
take the sentence out, please.
____________________________

12oz (0.4 kilograms) ?Full-fat? cream cheese (not the kind with herbs in, ?#or# the non-fat? kind which tastes sour)

#'nor' or 'and not' would be correct, I believe.

? Redundant. Maybe like this instead:
'...Full-fat cream cheese (not non-fat, which tastes sour, nor the kind with herbs in)
______________________________

Approximately 1 cup sugar (*8oz*, or a reasonable size coffee ?mug-full?, if you have a desperate need to measure; the rule is 'flavour to taste').

*I did not know ounces were a metric measurement.smiley - bigeyes

?Is this just British? I am used to 'mugful'. If British, obviously, pretend I never said anything. smiley - smiley
_______________________________________

Roughly 2 teaspoons of vanilla extract (you can use a teaspoon, as opposed to a measuring spoon, or just splash some in. Do not use artificial vanilla flavouring). For interesting variations, you can use lemon extract, or a smallish splash of Cognac#)#.

#Extra close parens, please delete.
__________________________________

Once you have all the equipment and ingredients to hand, you can begin#!#

#Not an error, just a personal peeve: I did not write this sentence either. It can certainly stay, but if possible, could we lose the exclamation point? I don't like them much. smiley - tongueout

___________________________________________
In the small saucepan, scald the cream (heat to the point where tiny bubbles form around the edges, and a bit of a skin forms on the surface, but do #not# boil).

#Please italicise. Boiling the cream is a Bad Idea.
________________________________

Add the vanilla extract and sugar to taste. If you're planning to add ##chocolate, you shouldn't sweeten the mixture as much. If you're planning to add sour berries, you'll want to sweeten more.

#My error, the words 'bits of', or 'any solid' should be inserted here.smiley - choc
_________________________
Pour the mixture into the top of your double-boiler (or bowl) and fill the bottom half (or pan) with water. Make sure the water in the bottom half doesn't touch the bottom of the top half #as this will heat *your* mixture up too quickly#.

#Inserted by sub-ed, and it was a good idea to explain, but it will not 'heat the mixture up too quickly', it will cook the bottom solid before the top is warm. It will totally destroy the custard. Can this be rephrased to explain that?

*Reads like dialect, please replace with 'the'.
_____________________________________________________

Allow the water beneath to come to a boil on a high heat, while stirring the mixture in the bowl constantly. When the water #finally# boils, immediately reduce the temperature to medium-low.

#Unnecessary, omit?
________________________________

#Now for the tricky bit!# Stir the cream cheese mixture, paying special attention to the bottom and sides of the double-boiler (or bowl) so that no lumps form. After 8-10 minutes of constant stirring and cooking, there will be a change in texture from 'liquid and frothy' to smoother, thicker, and much less foamy. It is important to be sure the eggs are cooked, because raw eggs can carry salmonella. However, do not overcook, as custards *have a tendency to* get lumpy and revolting if overcooked.

#I think this is a sentence fragment. If you disagree, ignore this. I would *prefer* the wording to be 'Here comes the tricky bit!', or 'This is the tricky bit!'. Exclamation point here seems appropriate to me.

*That is not really correct, and was inserted. Custards *do* get lumpy and revolting if overcooked. I think 'have a tendency to' was an attempt to Anglicise 'have a way of getting', which means 'do get'. Delete?
__________________________________

Chill the mixture in the fridge for about 2-3 hours, stirring occasionally. As it cools, the custard will #stand up in little peaks#, and become very mousse-like.

#smiley - erm, no, it won't do anything of the kind. I think this was an attempt to translate the Americanism 'set up'. 'Set up' actually means to thicken and become firm enough to hold a shape - what gelatine does, please replace with the British verb for the action gelatine does in the 'fridge. Custards do the same verb; at least here in the States they 'set up' too.
_____________________________________

After chilling##, the cheesecake mixture can be eaten *straightaway*, and not frozen, and is very nice indeed. The mousse-style servings should properly be sauced with a fruit compote or chocolate sauce. Be warned, this is unspeakably rich - that crunching sound is just your arteries hardening!

#please insert 'for 2-3 hours'. This is probably my error.

*Per note in post one, 'straightaway' is an adjective or noun, used to refer to straight stretches of road or tarmac. 'Straight away' is an adverb, which means 'immediately', or 'at once'. Please fix.
__________________________________
Place the bowl in the freezer. Every half-hour or so, stir with a spatula, to allow the freezing to take place gradually and evenly. When left overnight in the freezer, home-made ice cream becomes very hard, and must be put in the fridge to soften for about two hours (for the quantity described above) before it gets to the ideal temperature and texture to eat. When thawing, also stir every half hour or so. #Commercial ice cream [ ]often has as much as two-thirds air in, whereas *your* home made ice creams are a little %more dense%. On the other hand, air is reasonably soft, even when frozen...#

#As rewritten, this sentence makes no sense. The bit about frozen air needs to follow the reference to 'air' in the first clause. It really should read:
'Commercial ice cream containers often have as much as two-thirds air in, and air is reasonably soft, even when frozen. Home made ice creams are much denser, so they must be thawed.'

[ Insert word 'containers' please.

*Since this is true of all home made ice cream, and since home made implies 'your', this is redundant, and seems like regional dialect. Please delete.

%'More dense' is more wordy than 'denser'. smiley - smiley
__________________________________________

*The above recipe serves* an adult male approximately two enormous servings in the course of two days. #It also serves# a family of four in reasonably generous servings for one meal, or more meager servings for two.

#If it has already served the adult male, it is not going to also serve the family of four. smiley - silly How about:
'The quantity of ice cream obtained using the above recipe serves an adult male approximately two enormous servings in the course of two days. It could also serve a family...'

*The recipe does not serve anything. There used to be a word like 'quantity' in the original, and I think it is a word that should be there again. If you disagree, obviously, disregard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If I am being too picky, then just please fix the outright errors, and leave the rest. I did try to discuss these problems with the sub-editor, but s/he probably did not have time to address the problems.

It is also an entirely personal preference, but I really do not like the use of contractions in written language. I did not use any. If it is possible to restore the contractions to whole, separate words, thereby re-inserting a little of my personal writing style, I would very much appreciate it. This is a trivial point, especially in a recipe. It is not very important here, and I am not sure what the Ed. Guidelines have to say on the subject of contractions in general, it is merely a personal preference on my part.

Thank you so much for taking the time to address these issues.smiley - biggrin As the article has my name on it, I prefer it not have any errors in it.

Arpeggio, for LeKZ





Attention, In-House Editorial Person

Post 7

Ashley

Hi Arpeggio.

I fixed these errors: the cognac brackets, 'it can be made in virtually any flavour', the explanation about spoiling the custard, 'Straight away', commercial ice cream and the serving quantities.

The rest aren't errors and, therefore, I've left them as they were.

Ashley


Attention, In-House Editorial Person

Post 8

Mark Moxon

With regard to the stylistic points you've made, Arpeggio, it's probably worth reading the Conversation here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F48888?thread=122273 and deciding whether you're ever going to be happy submitting your work through the h2g2 editorial process. It's your call, of course, but this isn't a suitable publishing platform for those who cannot bear to see their work changed editorially. Mark


Attention, In-House Editorial Person

Post 9

Martin Harper

Ashley - Good to see you've corrected all those errors. Obviously, correcting style issues is not your business, and you've chosen wisely to steer clear, I suspect.

Having said that, I'd be tempted to say that the "will stand up in little peaks, and become very mousse-like." thing might still stand a change. That seems to me to be a factual error, rather than a dispute of style?

I'm not going to argue the point, though, so don't worry, and don't feel any need to respond. The post following this one is just general chit-chat and pedantry, aimed at Arpeggio and other interested parties - so don't let it take up any of your time.


Discussion and General Chit-Chat

Post 10

Martin Harper

<------- (shortish) pedantry warning ------->

'set up' - what gelatine does (which the UK and I call 'jelly') is it 'sets'. Perhaps 'set up' in the UK means the little peaks things? I dunno. Obviously, it's annoying when factual errors like this creep into an entry, no matter their source.

I thought I'd mention that "serves four" is a standard phrase used in recipe books and such like. To be sure, it doesn't make actual sense, but it's idiomatic and the meaning is clear. Is this, perhaps, a UK/USA divide?

The missing joke thingy - huge deja vu here: Colonel Sellers had exactly the same problem in his "Atheism" entry - when he talked about the marketing of christianity (cross, etc) as a set up to introducing "Scopes the Monkey", who could be the mascot of atheists. The sub-ed removed Scopes, but left in the now out-of-place comments on christianity's symbols. If I recall, the Colonel was somewhat put out by this, and it continues to cause mild confusion to everyone who reads the entry to this day.

In the case of the Atheism entry, the PR process would have spotted this - somebody would have pointed out the non-factual nature of Scopes (or was it Snopes?), and the Colonel could modify accordingly. In this case, the PR process failed to help, so we are left with a minor problem - I pity the person who reads the entry and tries out the recipe with whipping cream! smiley - yikes Hopefully people will recognise it as a joke, even butchered as it is...

not...or - Well, it's a slightly unusual construction, but it's perfectly valid, and people will understand what is being meant. Best to only fight the battles you know you can win, you know? smiley - winkeye I'm going to largely omit discussion of such technicalities in this post - but in some cases I feel that the sub-ed has done the correct thing, and in some cases I feel that Arpeggio's version would read better - but in all cases I think the differences are pretty minor, and not worth the effort chatting about them. If anyone would *like* my opinion, on the other hand, do say smiley - winkeye

Martin - in touch with his inner pedant smiley - smiley


Discussion and General Chit-Chat

Post 11

Martin Harper

Incidentally, Arpeggio, I'd encourage you to rewrite your own version of this entry, which has been untouched by those nefarious sub-eds. Then you could add in those changes by the sub-ed which you agree with, modify bits and pieces that in retrospect you want to change, and so forth, while keeping those pieces you feel are good as is - as is. You can also select a font or suchlike to give the entry your own, personal, flavour, and use pullquotes and smileys and all that jazz.

Have fun! - Lucinda


Attention, In-House Editorial Person

Post 12

Arpeggio - Keeper, Muse, Against Sequiturs, à propos of nothing in particular

Ashley,

Thank you for fixing the errors that you did fix. The article is much improved.smiley - biggrin

Lucinda is right about the two items that still need to be repaired:

1) 'The custard...little peaks' is outright factual error. It will set. It will not form little peaks. smiley - yikes If it does that, it should be thrown away as too scary to eat.

2) The dangling second half of a joke problem '...heavy whipping cream'. Please just take that out. Anyone who mistook that for serious, and used heavy whipping cream, would end up with something totally inedible. I do not want anyone to think 'in an emergency, I guess it is all right to use heavy whipping cream' -- smiley - yuk.

Both of these are factual, rather than grammatical errors. They really ought to be fixed, if possible, don't you think?.

Thank you again for your time,

Arpeggio, for LeKZ


Attention, In-House Editorial Person

Post 13

Ashley


Done.


Attention, In-House Editorial Person

Post 14

Arpeggio - Keeper, Muse, Against Sequiturs, à propos of nothing in particular

Mark~

I shall investigate that thread when I am not so short on time. I understand an overall sense of uniformity of style, and that makes sense to me. I do think to some extent the style must be determined by the subject matter. A recipe can stand a level of informality that, say, my article on 'Declining English' could not stand.

Since I am still new here, I am learning about the process, and about myself with regard to the process here. I do not want to take any drastic decisions in any direction at this time, nor, perhaps for some time in the future.

I am certainly not taking any decisions until 'Declining English' comes out. If it has had grammatical errors introduced, or factual ones, since it is a detailed analysis of grammar, I shall be quite disappointed. At that point, I may or may not decide whether to submit articles to the Edited Guide in future, depending on how much I feel has been changed to the detriment of my point. It is not so much my style I am concerned with, as my points. If the style is helpful in conveying those points, the style is probably best left as is, IMO. If a different style would convey the points better, that is probably preferable (even if slightly uncomfy, for me as a writer).

I do not believe this is a reflexion of the 'anality' you once suggested was a problem of mine, so much as of the fact that I am careful and precise by temperament, and do not care for haphazardness to be imposed upon me, where there is no good reason for haphazardness. I shall, as I said, wait and see. I should hate to pull out of Il Viaggiatore's uni project on English Grammar. It depends upon how my next article appears, and other factors that are personal at my end.

Thank you for leaving the url, I shall visit it.

Sincerely,

Arpeggio, for
Leïlah el Khalil Zendavesta, MAR


Attention, In-House Editorial Person

Post 15

Arpeggio - Keeper, Muse, Against Sequiturs, à propos of nothing in particular

THANK YOU! smiley - biggrin

Ashley to the rescue.

Arpeggio, for LeKZ


Attention, In-House Editorial Person

Post 16

Martin Harper

Incidentally, I wildly suspect Mark's reference to 'anality' was referring to myself, rather than any of you, LeKZ. There is a little history here, perhaps... smiley - winkeye

It should be said that the process of a University project is very much different to the Peer Review process because the sub-ed:
A) has volunteered for the job, and so is presumably at least a little interested.
B) subs the entire group of entries, so will learn about the subject area through reading those entries.
C) works with the authors in a more collaborative manner.

In other words, they are very different beasts, and you should possibly try out both to see which you are most comfortable with. Plus, of course, there are other options too - I'm going to go and knock together an entry giving a list of at least some of the options available - I'll post a link here when I've finished it.

Martin - would not be comfortable doing a Uni project: not my thing...


Discussion and General Chit-Chat

Post 17

Arpeggio - Keeper, Muse, Against Sequiturs, à propos of nothing in particular

Martin's Inner Pedant,

I could not have said it better myself.

Sara, terminal pedant, for LeKZ


Attention, In-House Editorial Person

Post 18

Mark Moxon

Sounds fair, Arpeggio - it's always going to be your choice. All I'd point out is that h2g2 is less about publishing, perfection and performance, and more about fitting into an online community that's been working incredibly well for over two years.

Good luck. smiley - smiley


Attention, In-House Editorial Person

Post 19

Mark Moxon

I'd never call you anal, Lucinda. Not on the record, anyway. smiley - winkeye


Attention, In-House Editorial Person

Post 20

Mikey the Humming Mouse - A3938628 Learn More About the Edited Guide!

Just thought I'd make 2 quick points:

1) By the time the author sees the changes a sub-ed has made to the entry, the sub-ed no longer has any control over the entry, and can't make any further changes.

2) As with publishing anywhere, in any media, errors do still slip through. The standard process is to make a post on the edited entry (which happened here) and nicely and politely point out the errors (which almost happened here <wink&gtsmiley - winkeye. NB: Anyone can make such comments, not just the author(s). The in-house editorial team makes a point of checking the fora for new entries a day or two after they've been posted, specifically to look for such comments. They then make whatever fixes they think are justified.

smiley - smiley
Mikey


Key: Complain about this post

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more