I’m sort of ticked off.
Remember the tank I just knit? The blue one ( yeah sorry, that doesn’t help much) the ribbed one with the cable up the front? The one where I spent several hours of my life fixing the ribbing with a stinking crochet hook because I had screwed it up? You know, how I was (despite my education, ability and experience) apparently unable to correctly execute a ribbing pattern? I had to drop down 17 stitches correct their orientation and ladder them back up again. All because I wasn’t paying attention to the pattern. Thought I was, but I guess I just sort of faded to black there for a minute and knit something that bore no relationship to the pattern. Oh well, there’s nine hours of my life I’ll never get back, but I have only myself to blame.
Well get a load of this. Sitting here this morning, again with the trusty cup(s) of coffee and reading my e-mail. There is one there from Fibertraditions, from a lovely knitter named Linda. Now it just so happens that Linda is knitting the same tank top, and when she got to the armhole armscye her ribbing was all screwed up. Clearly Linda has better self-esteem than I do, because instead of beginning a shame spiral of self doubt and degradation….Linda checked the Vogue Knitting Corrections webpage, and lo and behold…
The pattern is wrong.
It’s not me…it’s them! Them, them, them! For the rest of this post I will be attempting to ignore the fact that this error cost me nine hours of my life. I will have you know though, that I have not forgotten this, and that I am merely putting aside my bitterness and resentment for another day.
Here’s where I’d like you to pay attention. Here is a page of errata for knitting books. Here is errata from another magazine, here is another, and another. I have put this many to make it clear that I’m not picking on anybody. There is obviously a lot of error in knitting patterns.
(We will also spent the rest of this post ignoring that despite the fact that there is tons of errors in knitting patterns, and despite my belief that I am a decent knitter, when there is something wrong with my knitting I instinctively blame myself …)
This is what makes me mad, a search of Fine Woodworking, revealed that there is apparently ONE ERROR they would like you to know about, not in that issue, in the history of the magazine. This magazine has no error corrections on their site, and this one has one correction for the last year.
Given that these magazines also supply patterns, charts and complex materials lists, am I the only one who thinks it’s odd that they have such a lower number of errors? Without giving in to my natural tendency toward conspiracy theories, do you think that it’s possible that it has anything at all to do with the fact that most of the knitting magazines are bought by women and most of the woodworking magazines are bought by men? Note again that I am not picking on knitting suppliers…the issue is widespread and besides, I don’t think it is their fault. I think…(deep breath) I think it’s our fault.
If one of Joe’s electronics magazines cost him hours in a frustrating error, he would never buy it again. I confirmed this with him. No way…”my time is worth something” he said. I would appear that the magazines that he reads know this, since this quote was found in their writers guidelines.
“Double and triple check your facts…Publishing corrections in subsequent issues will not recover missed opportunities, hurt feelings, or damaged reputations.”
You betcha. Joe’s time is worth something. There is no way that magazine expects that he would continue to buy their schematics and patterns if they are error riddled. He simply wouldn’t stand for it.
Now me….I’ve been buying error riddled knitting magazines and books for years. Something which is really, really my fault, since I’ve never even complained. Nine hours of my life….gone, and not only do I not say a word, I blame myself for not checking to see if the pattern was wrong before I started, and I have every intention of buying it again, and again and I still love them. I’ve also bought lots of excellent books and magazines, with no errors at all. There’s lots of great vendors out there, and this rant is in no way directed at them.
Since Gloria Steinem is unlikely to address this knitting pattern issue any time soon (what with women still owning less property, making less money and holding less political world power than men) I think I’ll settle for dropping the magazine a polite note, (before I buy my next copy – ’cause you know I will) just to let them know that I care, and my time is worth something.
(PS. the mango tank is fine …no mistakes)
(PS again…I just finished reading Carol Shields “Unless“. That could explain a lot about this post, It could get anyone going)
Yarn Harlot
Aaargh. You’re absolutely right, of course it’s because women still don’t value our own time and effort enough. So why don’t we bitch more?
I just finished Unless too, about 3 weeks ago. Her imaginary letters made me howl, and also made me wish I could fire off such cutting barbs.
Could it be that knitting is more complex than woodworking? Not that I would have any direct knowledge of this, but follow my logic. We use lace weight yarns to create intricate patterns. They use 1x4s to build clunky-looking fences. How many men do we know, who inlay stunning wood mosaics? Could be that technical editing a knitting mag is more complex. What do you think?
Leslie – you may have a point, but… It’s not just the complex knitting patterns that have errors – it’s the simple ones, too. Besides, electronics is probably up there in terms of complexity…
This all could be be solved with a policy of test knitting. Several Canadian women’s magazines triple-test their recipes to save consumers time and money. Why don’t knitting magazines do something like that? Why are we paying money for something that we apparently ought to assume has errors?
I think with your nice note you should include an invoice for your time. Nine hours times $80 per hour. You can also sweetly offer to accept the payment in free magazines, before taking the case up with the public.
Oh, and another thing… Remeber that issue of Vogue Knitting with the huge error on the cover (the mis-crossed cable)? I’m willing to bet that it didn’t affect their sales.
Food for thought…
I’d say the tech. editing involved in a knitting magazine is more complex. I mean, not only do you have to get materials and schematics correct, but you’re also talking people through the entire process of creating and shaping the fabric. That’s some scary stuff right there.
The more complex a system, the more chances for errors to creep in.
Not that it doesn’t irritate me to find errors–it does –but I work in publishing and I’ve learned how easy it is, even with many eyes checking things, for errors to slip through.
It may also be a cost-pressure issue. I know that in my little segment of business-to-business publishing, we’re having to do insane amounts of work with fewer staff, meaning errors are more likely to slink past our eagle eyes. The magazines may have fewer staff to do the checking and less time in which to do it.
I’m with ya! I DID check the Vogue errata page for my ONLY blue tank but only ONE error was address there. It took more than 9 hours to figure out the problem…I knit the first two inches over and over. Determination…that’s what we have. We love knitting so much we’ll buy error ridden patterns and crappy yarn just to do this thing called ‘love’. (Gladly most patterns and yarns are wonderful!)
Having marched and carried those signs in the ’60’s, I am sure you’re right on the “women buy thing”. We won a few battles, but not the war.
I sympathize with you Melanie, having worked at lots of jobs where the work load got heavier, the staff got fewer, and the errors crept in (accounting…different but just as picky) However, it seems to me this is a fixable thing. It is an excuse used in so many areas by companies these days….we don’t have the staff, we cut back. I’d pay an extra buck for a magazine that was less error prone. That extra buck could pay for more staff, and a test knitter maybe?
Complaining politely is a good thing. I never used to do, just sit and fume about it. I now let the companies know. I complained about some sub-standard yarn recently and they (the manufacturer) replaced it. Doesn’t always happen, but sometimes. I am waiting for the reply to the letter I wrote about a pattern magazine I bought. I bought it for one specific pattern, #11. When I turned to #11, it was the repeated instructions for #10. I read every pattern in that stupid magazine, and the instructions for #11 are not there. Now there’s an error for you!.
Barb B.
Just brainstorming here… Perhaps it’s because men who design woodworking and electronics projects (generally practical stuff) are often of a more technical cut, and they pay more attention to the technical aspects. It’s not about the finished item itself as much as it’s about the process. (Or it could be that the men who build things from these publcations don’t even follow the directions — could it be? — so errors are never found.) Women who design knitwear, on the other hand, are perhaps far more interested in the artistic aspects; it’s not as much about the execution or the technical stuff as it is about the fiber and the finished product.
And, unlike Joe, we keep going back for more — throwing good money after bad, as it were. Sometimes I think that we’re too easily appeased by an apology and a “sorry for any inconvenience,” and too optimistic — thinking that if an editor or designer is aware that there’s a problem, surely they’ll do their best to fix it next time. Not so, it seems.
My off-the-cuff 2 cents.
Honestly, I don’t think it’s a mens or a womens thing. I mean, besides the fact that arguing the pros and cons of any gender is an exercise in spinning your wheels, I think it has to do with the way fiber arts are now. The demand is so high, that I’m sure that less and less talented artists are submitting patterns. The demand is so high, that there’s probably a ton of pressure to not even proof things because there’s no time. The demand is so high, and the pay is probably so low, why should anyone put their heart and soul into it… well, besides the fact that they’re kind hearted and passionate about their work (supposedly). I think it’s a myriad of issues, which boil down to a butterfly flapping it’s wings in Malaysia.
I’d like to point out something else, though, dear harlot. How much time did it take you to write this blog? I mean, thinking, typing, proofing… how much time should you add to your invoice? How much further could you have gotten on, say, entrelac socks?
Just a thought *grin*
best
Right on! The blogworld of knitters has developed into a huge network; it would seem that this could and should become a large voice. Ya, I know it’s not world peace, but every experience of change fosters another. Looks like a job for Debbie Stoller (and the rest of us)! Stitch and Bitch for sure.
When I read Unless, I told myself that I would start writing some letters. I’ll get on that right now…
Would you like a copy of the letter I wrote to Ford Motor Company? It got me nowhere, but it was a good letter. Well okay, the dealership closed shortly afterward, but surely I wasn’t responsible. (evil grin)
Here’s another thought. I am currently working on my Level 1 Master Knitter’s Certification. One of the tasks is to knit a swatch, and then write a pattern for that swatch (I think, if I remember correctly that it has to be in a cable pattern of some sort). Anyway, they are pretty specific in laying out a process you should take to write this pattern–more specific than they are in any other section of the course. It made me think that pattern errors are a real problem for them, and therefore, I would assume that they are also a real problem for the magazines. Never having submitted a pattern to a magazine, I don’t know what their guidelines are, but maybe there just needs to be more stringent guidelines. And Lene’s comment about triple testing recipes makes sense if you are making a recipe–the most complex of which might take three or four hours, but triple testing a pattern that could take weeks? For a monthly magazine…I suppose it could be done, but what a corporate culture upheaval that would take on the part of the magazines!
Puts me in mind of the old Flanders & Swann routine where Flanders says his car is due for its three year testing, that they’re moving it back to two years…”There’s even been some talk of testing them before they leave the factory.” Granted that errors in typesetting could be responsible for some of the problems, but with enough nudging you’d think responsible magazines would give the typeset instructions to at least one test-knitter to test drive.
Stephanie:
I agree totally. I found a big design error that was time-costly that I posted about on my blog recently. And I knit a Debbie Bliss sweater with chunky cashmerino (so time-costly AND pricey) that was FULL of mistakes, with no evidence of errata on her site.
I have emailed both publishers, but when I spend $20 – $40 US dollars on a book, I EXPECT for there to be few if any mistakes. I don’t think that’s too much to ask…
Clarification: Debbie Bliss does have errata on her site, but not for that pattern book.. (mostly only for quite old pattern books).
I should have written “…people who design…” Oops.
I would like to add, also, that as a former typesetter, typing a knitting pattern (or 20+) would be excruciating! And proofing (if they’re even proofed) would be no less. Are these people knitters? Would it even help if they were? I doubt it on both counts. Mistakes wouldn’t likely be found until someone actually knit using the copy intended for publication (all sizes, please). There is much less interpretation involved (and far fewer abbreviations to decipher) in following a cut list, exploded plan, and instructions to build a table — and it’s easier to type and proof.
2 more cents; a total of 4 (I’ll try to keep it at that).
I have often thought about and been frustrated by this issue. I wonder if the editors are loathe to second guess a well known designer.
Far less time could be spent on error checks if, rather than knitting the whole thing up, the staff charted or drew the pattern out to see if everything lines up.
At least wool can be re-used for the most part. If you cut a board of mahogany to the wrong spec…
I recently found a mistake in the latest copy of Knit N Style magazine. I spent hours figuring out the correction and politely e-mailed the publication about the mistake and gave them the correction. This is weeks ago and although they nicely sent a “thank you” for the info, they have yet to include it in their correction page on the web site. It’s not like it would take so much time or effort to pop the correction onto the page and save other readers (who are omniscent and know to look for corrections before starting a pattern 😉 ) the headache we all know of figuring out it’s the pattern’s mistake, not ours.
I really didn’t mean to get you all worked up. REALLY. But I guess I did generate another excellent blog!
BTW, the pattern for the tank of which we speak, is in the VK edition with the blue tank with the mis-crossed cables on the cover. And these two were not the only errors – there were another eight! PLUS there was an error in listing the stinkin’ errors.
Woohoo Carol Shields!! I’ve only read one of her books, but apparently she’s connected with HC in some way, since we have at least 2 copies of almost all her books, one in general collection and one in special collections (and the ones we don’t have in SPC we’re trying to acquire). Not that it’s relevant, but hey…that’s why they call me the queen of random. =)
I will just take one moment to trumpet what probably all of you already know: Marianne Kinzel’s First and Second Books of Modern Lace Knitting (LACE KNITTING, hear?) are, as far as I or anyone else can tell, error free. If you’re going to boycott error-ridden knitting mags, you’ll need some source of patterns to soothe you…no clothing in them, save for collars and ornaments, but I’ve always thought that “Rose of England” would do me better as a shawl than a tablecloth.
I will just take one moment to trumpet what probably all of you already know: Marianne Kinzel’s First and Second Books of Modern Lace Knitting (LACE KNITTING, hear?) are, as far as I or anyone else can tell, error free. If you’re going to boycott error-ridden knitting mags, you’ll need some source of patterns to soothe you…no clothing in them, save for collars and ornaments, but I’ve always thought that “Rose of England” would do me better as a shawl than a tablecloth.
I think this may be why I don’t like knitting from patterns.
It seems to me that, given the high likelihood of errors creeping in when patterns are given in alphanumeric code (k2tog, etc.) only, there should be a push for
(a) greater explanation of what a given section is supposed to do and look like, i.e. “Over the next three inches in the pattern, you will be decreasing evenly on either side of the seam line. You will begin with 120 stitches at the starting row for this section, knit 30 rows, and will end up with 100 stitches in the 30th row. The decreases will occur every other row for 20 rows (110 stitches at the end of row 20), then every row for 10 rows.” instead of diving right in with vague directions like “decrease evenly over the next two inches, then decrease twice as often over the next inch.” or “Work a 1 x 1 rib for the first two or three inches of the sweater (to your taste). This means knit one, purl one over and over on the right side, and purl one, knit one over and over on the wrong side, abbreviated (K1, p1) repeat to end on RS, and (p1, K1) repeat to end on WS (this is the same as saying purl the purl stitches and knit the knit stitches on the wrong side). This will probably end up being about 20 or 30 rows.”
Wordy, yes, but easier to check and easier to correct when knitting if there are uncaught errors.
(b) more charts, including charts of decrease areas, even if the knitting is done in stocking stitch.
(c) more photographs, particularly close-ups of difficult areas.
The charts make it easier to envision what is coming up, and the photographs allow you to double-check to see if what you’re knitting is the same as what they’re expecting to result from the directions. Several times I’ve been stumped by confusing (perhaps wrong) directions until I looked closely at the picture and figured it out myself.
You lost nine hours, Ms. Harlot? Try fourteen years! When I was 18 I decided that I was going to knit a pair of socks. I followed the pattern to the letter, but what I ended up with was definitely not a sock. I couldn’t even get my foot in it. I took this as a sign that I was not smart enough to be a knitter, so I abandoned my needles and did not pick them up again until the current knit craze started picking up steam about five years ago. That is when I learned that a pattern could be wrong. Who knew?
Let’s consider, for the moment, a comparison between Vogue knitting, and that most macho of cooking magazines, Gourmet(their manifesto declares a puruit of men’s interests in the kitchen) There’s the famous oil of wintergreen errata (details here http://herbalgram.org/naturemade/herbalgram/articleview.asp?a=91), which does suggest that magazines for men are certainly capable of mistakes, and ones that are potentially hazardous to your health. In knitting, a pattern mistake means figuring it out and doing it over or just plain wonking. In woodworking, bad instructions might mean ruined materials or an embarassing fall for a party guest. It’s a different degree of editorial angst, not so much a gendered thing.
So, I’m in Switzerland and I think, “well, surely by the time I come back there will be something non-blue on Harlot”.
Sigh. Might as well go sleep off the jet lag…
Very nice rack, though. And HAPPY BIRTHDAY! Imagine that I sent a lovely card.
Stephanie I could not agree with you more! This has been a serious pet peeve of mine for some time, and I will no longer embark on any published pattern without trying to find any errata. I suspect that many directions/patterns are being edited by non-knitters, who are check for obvious spelling or mathematical errors, but to whom the actuall instructions have little or no meaning. Seriously unfortunate. We SHOULD speak out on this!
Wow ! – you’re such an enabler. It would never have even occurred to me before to check whether any errata had been printed for a pattern . I just dive right in and then assume it’s me when it all goes pear-shaped … and usually it is.
I think Aubergine is dead-on though, it’s not some great misogynist conspiracy – it’s just part of the increasing dumbing-down, quantity over quality, crappy way that most things in life seem to be going these days. Humph.
I was discussing this commentary with my DH (a moment’s pause to relish a husband who will sit sipping coffee and discussing knitting errata though he is by no stretch of the imagination a knitter). His comment was that, because knitting patterns are complex designs for actions that can take many forms (think of the several cast-ons, decreases, inccreases, etc.), these patterns could be considered to be more like software than woodworking or electronics (in which he suggested there was a strong pre-fab component like transistors). I thought this idea was an intriguing one, especially because of the line-by-line (row by row) component of knitting and the “group line” instructions. And, of course, software even beats knitting for “errata”!
Along the same lines, what about the instructions that are simply incomplete or leave you to your own devices. Cast-on, yes, but cast-on HOW? And forget any Vogue pattern giving you a clue about selvedge treatment even though they ALL require seaming. If you followed their literal instructions, your seams would be lumpy, bumpy and horrible — for such crucial components of finishing you need a general knitting guide like Sally Melville’s The Knit Stitch or — even better — Janet Szabo’s Book on finishing techniques (http://www.bigskyknitting.com/finishing.html). Szabo points out that good/effective finishing depends on the prep work that patterns often just leave out!
Among the reasons I no longer subscribe to any knitting magazine is their indifference to the quality of their pattern instructions. The first thing I assume now is that there is an error in the pattern. Frequently that is the case. Pity the poor knitter who distrusts his/her own knowledge and defers to the pattern. I have a copy of an old Better Homes and Gardens knitting magazine that has the model on the front cover wearing the sweater wrong side out. OOPS! So it’s not even just the instructions.
Re: Modern Lace Knitting….quick note. My Mom knit the centre of one of the tablecloths (with thistles) out of baby wool into a shawl for my first born…and the rose for the second. They are gorgeous and perfect for shawls.
(No errors in either pattern!)
Barb B.
WOW! I just looked at the Vogue correction page. So many errors in so many issues! But just how can you trust a mag that spells “knitting” as “kintting”?
Actually, this is the main reason that I NEVER buy Vouge Knitting anymore. NEVER. Life is too short to be toyed with by carless editors.
Actually, that would be “careless” editors. I don’t actually mind if they don’t own cars. But, then again, I’m not an editor, nor do I play one on TV
Commented on this very issue to another knitter today. I’ve Googled for errata and have had some luck, but of course that’s only AFTER I realized the problem. Knitters shouldn’t have to double check all known errata sites before they start knitting, but maybe that’s what we’ll have to do. That’s a bunch of shit, if you ask me.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, Stephanie. (See how I’m bringing the woodworking in here? Heh heh.) I recently used a pattern from a knitting magazine for the first time, and a few inches in I thought, “Oh no! I didn’t check online to see if there are mistakes in the pattern!” But excuse me — why should I have to do that? Your comparison with the manly mag is very illuminating, and I love the blurb it includes about wasting time. I say we should all write letters reminding the publishers of knitting patterns that we don’t want to waste our time and effort either.
(Hi, Ms. Steinem! I love your work!)
This problem could absolutely be solved for the cost of yarn. If the magazine could select a group of ‘beta testers’ from their readership and send them the patterns and the yarn to complete them a month before the issue went to press, they could have errata for (almost) free, and people would be stampeding to get a coveted ‘pattern tester’ position. It would be good for the magazine, good for the testers, and great for the readers.
yes, i think as a general rule, women tend to think, “I did something wrong” –rather than blaming the publication.
as for ‘typesetting’ being part of the problem, not nowdays–most ‘typesetting’ is done by computer, and its no harder than typing you no longer have to deal with inverted characters that could easily be ‘mis read’
a second problem is how we knit. many knitters today are slaves to ‘written directions’ and follow them, slavishly, (in spite of the fact that these same directions, time and time again have been wrong!)
Learn to read your knitting. to look at it.. refer to the directions, but knit it as it should look.
a complicate pattern for with crossed shoulder, or intricate shaping might need paying attention to, but a cable? you ‘decided’ the cable wrong at some point–because it didn’t look right –so make a point of looking at the design that is emerging from your needle tips. Does it look right? if not why? look at the photo of the garment? does it look like the photo?
if not, why not?
(as for debbie bliss, i can’t stand her patterns,
1-english notation for stitches (decreases/increases etc)
2- crappy photo’s. her sweaters look wonderful when you are sitting curled up on a couch holding a cup of tea to your lips. What do they look like when you have a tote bag on one arm, a baby (or a briefcase) on the other, and you’re standing on a bus, trying to hold yourself upright? any sweater looks good when you can’t see the details of how the neck/shoulers/sleeves fit!–and she rarely if ever shows a sweater being worn by a standing adult with arms in a natural pose.
3-they are original written for machine knitting and poorly translated into hand knitten patterns. which are full of errors.
4-she started designing knitwear and patterns for the same before she knew how to knit.. (a bit of a fraud in my estimation.) she know how to draw pretty things, but didn’t have a clue how to actually make them.. (in the real world can you imagine a ‘furniture designer’ who never sat in a chair in their life? or who never made a chair (even one from milk cartons?)No way. but in the knitting world, knowing how to knit is not considered an important aspect of designing knitwear!–she did learn how to knit, sort of..
her baby designs (that she actually knit) are quite nice.. but her adult stuff is useless.
Now that, dear, was a fan-f&*king-tastic blog entry! Hear, hear!
I am a new knitter and was looking into Debbbie Bliss patterns because there were a few sweaters that caught my eye, but was indeed disapointed when I saw the list of errors. It is too bad that bad patterns can turn people away from knitting for life. For a new knitter, spending hours on a piece in good faith that the pattern is right, only to find that in the end it wasn’t, can be devastating. Also, I can’t detect mistakes as well as a more experienced knitter can because I have yet to figure out what does what yet.
Are there any patterns out there that I can count on?
I’m one of those conspiracy theorists, who believes every pattern has tons of errors in it!
The reason being, that my first “real” project was a Vogue pattern, which was a cute bag with a shaped cabled pocket. The pocket shaping was obviously done over about 10 to 12 rows, and the pattern had it all in 2 rows. Yeah. So beginning knitter me actually wrote the decrease pattern over. Since then my confidence in myself has been unbounded, and my confidence in pattern writers has been nada (unless it’s Rowan, they are awesome- hardly any errors!).
I have never, and will never EVER buy anything from Vogue again. I don’t trust them. Other people have found errors in their book patterns and e-mailed them for errata information and got crappy rude answers. I don’t think they should be supported until they get their act together.
Anyway, I don’t know if you’ve seen this site:
http://knitblog.com
But Missa of Midnight Knitter runs it, and I have been sending her lists of all the errata I can find for the errata section on that website. Maybe it will help you, I hope so.
Thanks for a well-written piece, I’ve been linking to it a good deal. Today I just wrote an email of complaint to a company that sold me an error-ridden pattern. I referenced this page, told them my time WAS worth something, and I did not anticipate buying from them again.
Laura
What, the book publishers never heard of proofreaders?? Or maybe that should be proof *knitters*?
When I pay good money for a book I expect it to be right. Am I expecting too much?
Margie
Two thoughts:
The worst errata I ever encountered in my life were in a biostatistics textbook when I was a grad student. They even had an error in one of the formulae that you used to calculate a particular test! I wrote to the publisher listing the mistakes and complaining, they sent a letter back apologizing and telling me that they’d send me, free, a copy of the next edition that came out (that’s some 10 years ago and I never saw the book. And I was at the same address for five of those 10 years).
I am now a professor and will NEVER use a stats textbook in my classes from that publisher; they were just too sloppy. (So it does have repercussions down the line, as small as they may be).
(And karma being what it is, I suppose, I now make extra money by reviewing textbooks for publishers. One of my big things in my reviews is to point out any mistakes or typos I find. It grates me that a student might pay $130 for a book that still has typos in it).
Second, maybe if the knitting mags were required to offer a “bounty” on detected errata – the first person who notifies them of an error gets a year’s free subscription, or the yarn necessary to knit the pattern, or a free book, or something, maybe the magazines would try harder to copy-edit.
My solution to the errata thing? I never get around to knitting a pattern out of a book or issue of a magazine until it’s been out for several months to a year. By then, usually someone somewhere has spoken up.
But yeah, it’s annoying that there are errors at all.