When you think about it, the meaning is changed by this mistake. "For more then just gamers" would mean that it was initially for more, but then later on it was just for gamers.
Sure, the mistake is obvious to you and me, but non-native English speakers may not find it so. And even if you personally don't care, the author may not want to give the impression of carelessness that this mistake implies. I'm sure the site as a whole doesn't.
It seems to me that the only people who benefit from "single sourcing" are the people who are writing these books and giving overpriced lectures to rooms full of unemployed tech writers.
I benefit from single sourcing. No, it doesn't directly make my books more effective, but it does mean I spend a little less time replicating changes all over the place, so I have that much more time to spend on more direct improvements to the books.
It's not a "magic bullet," and won't even help at all in certain situations. But if you've got a lot of similar books with slight variations, and output them to multiple formats, single sourceing will help keep you sane.
Slashdot Mirror
When you think about it, the meaning is changed by this mistake. "For more then just gamers" would mean that it was initially for more, but then later on it was just for gamers.
Sure, the mistake is obvious to you and me, but non-native English speakers may not find it so. And even if you personally don't care, the author may not want to give the impression of carelessness that this mistake implies. I'm sure the site as a whole doesn't.
I benefit from single sourcing. No, it doesn't directly make my books more effective, but it does mean I spend a little less time replicating changes all over the place, so I have that much more time to spend on more direct improvements to the books.
It's not a "magic bullet," and won't even help at all in certain situations. But if you've got a lot of similar books with slight variations, and output them to multiple formats, single sourceing will help keep you sane.