First Aid 2012 Errata - Significance of Errors

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Phloston

Osaka, Japan
Removed
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
Messages
3,882
Reaction score
1,675
I know that there's already a thread for FA2012 errata, however I'm not making this one for posting about errors-found, but instead to merely bring light to the significance of the errata.

The following link provides the official errata (thus far), posted by the FA authors:

http://firstaidteam.com/updates-and-corrections


Moreover, I just spent >2hrs going through all of the errata and making the corrections in my own copy of FA. Not only is the list extensive, but the character of some of the errors is profound.

I insist that anyone reading FA2012 take a look at the errata list above and make the corresponding corrections, as some of them are most certainly overwhelming.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Seriously how do they get away with this garbage? Does no one even read it before publication? The errata in the 2011 book was huge too. Very lazy... even to the point of shameful.
 
Hilarious review from amazon:

It is incomprehensible that a review book that simply summarizes other books, that changes so very little of its material every year, can have SO many mistakes. Seriously, do a search for First Aid Errata and you'll see the pdf with all the errors. It's put out by the same folks; they offer $10 for writing in with an error. It's 10 pages long, about 20 errors listed per page, just for the 2012 edition. I'm no math whiz, but that's like 2 grand worth of payouts. How about you pay the same for someone to actually READ the book before you publish it? There was a similarly long errata pdf last year for the 2011, so either they're not correcting old errors or they're managing to screw up whole new things. Who is editing these things? I mean, it's pretty much the same exact book every year!

Yes, they've gone to color. And that is appreciated. But giving someone stars for including color diagrams is, well, lame. This is 2012. Color has been around in print for some time now. They've even got it in movies, I hear.

And they even managed to screw up the colors! Green for inhibitory, red for stimulatory. Really? Someone's been taking too much Ethambutol.

First Aid is like the fat, lazy General Motors of the 70's. Consider themselves the Standard of the World, too complacent to fix their problems, much less improve their product (with the exception of this year's big move to color - Now you're on the trolley!). And everyone uses them because that's what the old folks used.

Where are you, Japanese First Aid?

EDIT/UPDATE: Holy cow. The Errata has errata. Seriously. They have updated the long list of mistakes to acknowledge that the previous list of mistakes has mistaken mistakes. There...there are no words...
 
They never paid me for my submissions so I just stopped sending them in. Ridiculous that the gold standard in Step 1 review can be this shoddy. Although given the fact that there is basically no competition, they have no reason to actually put in any effort.
 
Top