When is Best for Beta?

[R.L.]

I was wondering when people thought the best stage to utilise Beta readers was.

Some say at the before the work goes to an editor etc. Some say after, some say both.

What have people here found most useful/successful?

[Judy]

This depends on whether you're looking at a content editor or a copy/line editor. A content editor can check for continuity errors, gaping holes in your plot, and other major structural issues. They should come first. (not required but helpful if you are new to writing.)

Then beta readers. They'll give you the reader's perspective. Don't expect them to catch everything but to give you some general feedback about what they thought about the book, if it interested them, etc. Be sure to state that the book may have errors and has not gone through final editing.

Then finally the copy editor to streamline your sentences, cut fluff and fix typos, spelling, and grammar issues. I'd recommend trying to fix as many of those earlier as possible. This is just the final run-through before publication.

In all honesty you could do it either way. If you're worried that your book isn't very polished, you might want to do the copy editing before the beta readers, as they may not be able to ignore errors. My work tends to be pretty clean, and I just have to watch for extra fluff and overused words and terms. So I do the beta reading first.

[Kevis]

Every author is different, so if anyone tells you that betas come before or after, listen to them at your own peril. Critique partners definitely come first (and no they're not the same thing as beta readers. I consider them alpha readers, since they can be used at any early point during the writing of the book). Many authors I know use beta readers in the very same way a software designer uses a beta tester, or how Hollywood screen tests their newest movies--that is, after the project is completed and needs to be tested for market before its release. This is a fine way of catching things that you or your editor missed and ultimately improving reader experience. It's an especially effective method for authors that DO pay for a developmental/content edit.

Having said that, I personally don't use this method. I prefer to use beta readers to give me feedback before I send my books to my editor. Although I disagree with Lou (or any author) who thinks this is the only right way to use betas, I agree with him that it's a great way to address the issues that need fixing from a reader's perspective before the editor gets involved.

Why?

This is in part because I don't see how it makes sense (for me at least) to pay (at a substantial cost) for the three phases of editing (content, copy, and proofreading) only to start tinkering with the story yet again after its been edited. In my opinion that defeats the whole purpose of hiring an editor.

You either trust your editor or you don't. Even worse, you can end up introducing lots of mistakes back into your manuscript by using reader feedback (who may or may not have the insight to give you usable feedback). When my books go to my editors, that's the final phase of the book's development before its off for publishing. It's obvious that this is the method that works best for authors who also DON'T go through a developmental (or any other kind of professional) edit.

There are others, as Judy suggests, who use betas before and after. But again, for me, it really comes down to an author's personal developmental style. A person who is constantly tinkering with their books would do well to use betas before and after. Otherwise, you go with the process that works best for you and ignore anyone who tells you otherwise just because they have a process that works for them.

That's my two cents anyway.

[Megan]

Here's my process:
1. I do a careful first edit of the complete manuscript. I consider myself the alpha reader, and I don't bring in anyone else until the first draft is finished and I've had a chance to go over it.
2. Five beta readers give feedback while I step away from the manuscript completely. Usually one month, but at least two weeks.
3. Second edits
4. Another five (new) beta readers take a look.
5. Third edits. Depending on how I feel about the manuscript at this point, I may be done with beta readers or I might go one more round. The goal is to have the manuscript as perfect as I can make it before paying a professional editor. I want to avoid as much go around (and cost) as possible with the professional.
6. Final developmental edits
7. Copy (line) edits.

Note: the numbers here are approximates. Sometimes I use more than 5 betas in a round, or sometimes a first beta will ask to read the draft again after edits, so I'll include them in the second round. Also, I carefully evaluate all criticism before changing anything. Sometimes I don't agree with a betas comments, and I won't automatically change what they suggest. BUT if more than one beta has the same comment, it's a good bet that it's a real problem.