# When Good Plans Contain Mistakes



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

How many times has this happened to you… You choose a set of plans out of your select WW-magazine and head to the shop. Sometimes you catch a glaring error in posted/printed measurement early and cross your lucky stars. On occasion, the error(s) is much better hidden and only during assembly does it jump out and bite you in your tool bag.

Well, it bit me today in the shop. I have been so careful to double, triple, quadruple measure before cutting and to leave a slight bit extra for final sizing on this project, A Shaker 7-drawer chest. I even made a couple modifications, using a long dado instead of biscuits and using floating tenons. After making 8-dust panels to fit the side panels, I notched them on the TS sled AFTER having had squared them all and sized them all. Everything looked perfect.

Then I thought I would go ahead and dry fit all 8 dust panels to the sides and rails. Everything was snug… so snug that it took several minutes to fit all 8 dust panels into 8 + 8 dados and tap them into place. Then came the BITE.

All of my dust panels came up an 1/8" short of bottoming out in the side panel dados, on BOTH sides! How could I have screwed up THIS bad? Back to the plans and drawings (*A 7-DRAWER DELIGHT LINGERIE CHEST, WOOD Magazine, March 2009, pp.34-40*). Where was my mistake? What did I do wrong?

Well, all I found was that I was better than within 1/64" in all measurements and angles,... in other words dead on to the claimed measurements.

SO HERE IS MY QUESTION:
*Why would plans ever call for having panels fit into dados without bottoming out?*

The dust panels only fit 1/4"into each of the 3/8" dados (16-total). Common sense tells me they should bottom out into this 3/4" plywood panel. However, I do recognize that I have only built a hand full of furniture pieces in my WW-ing hobby and may be missing something.

SO, AM I?










All 8-dust panels have this gap, though I did make them quite snug.









It looks like I will have to deepen the notches on the dust panels another 1/8" and shorten my bottoms rails accordingly, unless there is a better way…


----------



## 47phord (Apr 10, 2012)

I feel your pain, man. The thing that usually works for me in a situation like this is to sleep on it and look at it again the next day with fresh eyes, just to be sure it really is the plan and not me (which in my case it usually is)as it's easy to overlook stuff when you are in a pissed-off mood. Good luck!


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

So your panels are floating in the dados? If so maybe the original design was with glued up hardwood panels and not plywood and the gap was created to allow for expansion? Those little rubber spaceballs that cabinet doors use should solve the problem.


----------



## longgone (May 5, 2009)

One word *bigassshims*


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Russ,
Plans called for 3/4" hardwood framed dust panels with 1/4" plywood panel inserts. The panels DO bottom out on the 4-legs that are attached to the side panels.

What I do not understand is IF these plans were actually "designed" to have such a gap, and that I may be missing something in my understanding of this. Common sense says no, *but does anyone know if such a dado gap has EVER been designed into such a piece? And if so, why? * I really wonder if there is/was a reason…

FWIW, it would not be too much of a big deal to trim the dust panel notches another 1/8" or blade width each, instead of shims/Space-Balls. Setting up my TS sled with a stop and holding the panels vertical actually makes short work of the task. I would also have to shorten the two bottom rails by 1/4" as well as their floating tenons, but still not difficult. The drawers have NOT been cut or built yet, so that is not a problem. I would just end up with a 19 3/4" wide chest VS the 20" width called for in the original plans (and current measurements indicate).


----------



## MJCD (Nov 28, 2011)

Interesting … as I'm working with a Fine Woodworking plan now - will finish the thing tomorrow - which has a center seat support specification which is 0.25" short; and a piece where the article text differs from the full-size Plan. Fortunately, I'm so out of my skillset on this one, I was paranoid enough to check both specifications prior to cutting.

The REALLY frustrating part to this is the man-hours which go into a piece; then you find it's fractions short.
MJCD


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

Couldn't see your pics before, can't see any good reason for the screwup except someone somewhere typed the wrong number into the plan. Maybe it was a bad conversion from metric.


----------



## LeeBarker (Aug 6, 2010)

I have a conspiracy theory, the only one I subscribe to. I think the plans are, in many cases at least, intentionally sloppy because you will end up frustrated. We do lots of interesting things when we're frustrated.

Like turn the page and there's a new Whiz Bang Electric Do-All and it promises to make everything better, faster and louder. And we bite at that, to assuage the ire we're feeling.

Sales of Whiz-Bangs keep the magazine afloat. Whiz Bangs sell when amateur woodworkers are frustrated.

That's the theory.

Further backing of the concept comes from the simplicity of making a perfect plan: Give the draft to three woodworkers of varying degrees, give them the wood to build the project, and then read the report they submit afterwards. Bingo! Every error fixed.

I'm certainly open to other ideas, but I've seen this so often (nearly 100% of the time back when I was buying plans for community college adult ed classes) that I'm operating on this unless and until I get really convincing evidence to the contrary.

Case in point: I just finished a rocking horse from a Grizzly plan (purchased years ago, to be fair) and there were two errors in the cut list. Furthermore, the photograph had a detail quite different from the plan (though the narrative was consistent with the plan).

Kindly,

Lee


----------



## fussy (Jan 18, 2010)

Mike,

Wood, in particular, seems to have a tendency to make ths sort of mistake. I have seen them come back nearly a year later with corrections to a published plan. One in particular was the arm dimensions for their a&c couch were wrong and were corrected several months later. One probably should wait 7 or 8 issues, checking carefully for revisions, before building anything.

Steve


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Mike, be glad they are not electrical plans. You would have to totally redesign to make the plans work ;-)


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*@MJCD* and *Russ*-Yeah, it seems like this "mistake/misprint" thing involves several of the most popular WW-ing magazines and no ONE entity appears exempt.

*Lee*-That is a very interesting "conspiracy theory", and quite convincing with the abundance of evidence published throughout the WW-ing World over the past decades (I have collections dating back to the mid-1980s). Common sense would say that *"poor published plans"* would be bad for the bottom line of the publishing company, however it is obviously continuing to occur on a very HIGH percentage basis. I am afraid that you may have convinced me… ;-)

*Steve*-As far as "waiting for the corrections to be made, I think that would take a lot of additional scanning of the "select" magazine. For example, I have:
Wood Magazine: Issues # 1-201(only missing #1) collection from Dec.1984-Dec 2010
I use the online index to find a project and then reach for the hard copy. At this rate, I will never know if measurements/plans have ever been corrected. Shoot, even the DVD plans, that I actually purchased from Popular WW-ing, for building my workbench were 3yr old at the time of purchase (approx. 18 issues later), yet the plans had the same mistakes in them as when the magazine had been published. The only thing that saved me that time, was the "Sketch-Up" model of the workbench. At least Sketch-Up software showed the correct measurements without fail.

*Topa* -"Shocking" you would say such a thing! *;-)*
But at least in the electrical business there would be a financial (criminal?) liability for such foul-ups. With WW-ing magazines, it looks like it may have been turned into a "profit center"... kind of like bank fees, you know, when you want a "corrected" set of plans they will sell THOSE to you at a "discounted" profit to make you feel better. *;-)*

One final rant:
*ARE ANY OF YOU WOODWORKING MAGAZINE EXECS OUT THERE LISTENING!?*


----------



## racerglen (Oct 15, 2010)

And now we wait for the executive response.
Mike, I'm with you on the error factor, most of the mags have a correction or MORE
in each issue, you'd think there'd be some sort of check system in place at that level.


----------



## iowawoodworker (Mar 30, 2010)

While we shouldn't have to worry about errors like this in published ww plans, I do have a suggestion on how to catch them before I actually start cutting my valuable stock. Granted, this may be a little overdone, but personally, I don't have the money to buy extra materials to make up for this kind of error.

For more complex projects, I like to pre-build them in sketchup. I try to create all the parts according to the plans and "virtual-fit" them together before I even make the first cut in real stock. First, I enjoy doing this because I'm just that kind of person, but I find this exercise has value in other ways too.

It helps me visualize the parts and final product in 3-D and can make the assembly process described in the text of the article easier to understand. It also gives me a virtual product I can use to try out modifications without wasting real wood. And, of course, it can also help identify measurement errors like the ones you found.

This shouldn't excuse poor quality control by editorial staff, but it saves me some headaches and money.

Mark


----------



## rexb (Mar 28, 2012)

I agree with Mark. For me, the first step of a complex project is always 3D modeling, whether the plans are my own or someone else's. Of course, 3D modeling is what I do for a living, so it doesn't take long and I enjoy it.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Mark* and *Rex* my hat is off to both of you, for your dedication to Sketch-Up. I did attempt this once, but found it more tedious to do than I personally cared for (http://lumberjocks.com/topics/27176 ). On my workbench project, however, I did appreciate that the 3D modeling in Sketch-Up had already been done (on the purchased DVD) and it did allow me to catch a number of "print" errors in the published plans in the magazine.

*Glen*, I appreciate the thought… we'll see.


----------



## mafe (Dec 10, 2009)

Auuucchhhh.
Shame shame shame.
Yes measure twice, check plans once and cut as little as possible….
I feel with you.
Best thoughts,
Mads


----------



## Elizabeth (Oct 17, 2009)

According to Wood Magazine's Errata website, while there were two errors (known so far) in this issue, neither of them were for this project.

http://www.woodmagazine.com/woodworking-tips/editorial-extras/magazine-changes-and-updates/?page=4


----------



## Tennessee (Jul 8, 2011)

I have a different theory on why the plans are incorrect. Having met a couple of magazine people in the guitar trade, I can tell you these people make way less money than you might think. Many, many issues of most magazines don't get sold, advertising is down, (although you would not know it to look inside most magazines), and printing costs are WAY up. Most people EXPECT nice, coated paper with great colorful ink and definition, adding to the printing costs. And if you looked lately, most of these publications are down to a couple dollars an issue on subscription, where most of the people are.
So where do they save?
Labor…
When they have a set of plans drawn up, they hire the cheapest engineering firm they can find, and off they go. We see it in the Mechanical Contracting trades. When a small job comes up for bid without much profit, you can almost bet that the prints will have at least 3-4 mistakes in them, because the architectual firm could not justify putting the high pay people on a small job, when there might be a nice, big ticket hotel to draw up. Same thing in a magazine. They might even have a low paid CAD designer on staff, low paid and just out of college, of course. Maybe even an intern…
Pretty hard to get the attention and loyalty of a low paid person when it comes to many, many measurements.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Hey Thanks Elizabeth!* I will definitely be checking this link often on future projects.


----------



## OggieOglethorpe (Aug 15, 2012)

I don't work with other people's plans often, but when I do…

I NEVER cut from a published cutlist. This is for two reasons:

- *When I create my own cutlist / build plan, I can verify that identical parts, complementary parts, etc… all agree, as well as develop an order of operations.* The order of operations assures that I'm sizing identical parts with the same setup, parts are ready for matching joinery cuts with a single setup, and that matching and complementary faces are maintained. It sucks to get ready to cut mortises, or dados, only to realize you have all but one or two of the parts that need the identical cut. Also, if all identical parts are cut together, if you're off a tick, it'll rarely matter.

- *I don't often work from mill-cut "boards" when building furniture. * It's not unusual for me to "straighten" grain, by bandsawing a part on a diagonal to the mill edges, then jointing and ripping, to adjust figure. For posts, legs, etc, I'll read the grain from above, mark my "new" square or rectangle, then joint / plane / rip the vertical part to create the best grain view from several angles.

During the overall process, I'll often select, mill, and dry assemble the "case" first. I'll then start from scratch for the rest of the parts. The dry fitted case provides a running error check for the rest of the parts. You can also create story sticks to allow you to work on the doors, drawers, details, etc… with no math or measuring. You might say that complex projects actually end up as multiple projects.

If you're doing a kitchen or a line up of built-ins, the steps above are going to be way overkill and wasteful of wood, but for the best looking furniture, they work for me.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

I am pretty much with you on point #1 Barry. I will rough cut from a published cutlist, but usually 1/4"-1/2" on the large side, just to get a layout of the wood I am using. On this current project I have a bunch of "pinkish" soft Maple that I organize so that I don't throw a "white" piece in a contrasting place. While most of this finishes quite close to each other, the raw wood stands out quite a bit.

And I definitely appreciate using the same setup to cut ALL alike cuts/pieces. Even on my glued up dust panels I left enough to shave square/size the assembled panels on my TS sled so they were identical.

RE: #2-I have not gone to "straightening grain" yet. I do however, shuffle my rough stock around to try and match the grain as much as possible BEFORE I start resawing, jointing and ripping. I am getting better at this, though I can definitely show you where those pieces are that I mismatched are on past projects. They stand out like a sore thumb. *8^(* BTW, twice now I have cut 12/4 and 8/4 along the edge to get quartersawn grain for stiles and rails, if that counts. The 12/4 Maple I was able to use as single rails and stiles, though I had some unexpected warping that I didn't account for when originally cutting. My 8/4 Ash that I quartersawed stayed straight as an arrow and worked really well. OK, having said all that, maybe I have been "straightening the grain" a bit more than I originally thought. ;-)

RE: #3 (3rd paragraph)-I agree here and am VERY glad that I have NOT started on all the drawers that will now need to be 1/4" narrower than originally called for! As far as the use of "story sticks", I hadn't really thought about doing that, though I do try and set my TS sled stops as few times as possible when sizing identical parts. In a way that might be considered semi-story sticks. That is how I cut all of the notches on the dust panels (and how I will now modify them to "fit" correctly).

BTW, I still need to build that tool holder tray for the workbench. That is still on the to-do list.


----------



## OggieOglethorpe (Aug 15, 2012)

"BTW, I still need to build that tool holder tray for the workbench. That is still on the to-do list."

Great bench, though! I still haven't run into anything where it wasn't the ticket…


----------



## cutworm (Oct 2, 2010)

Murphy's Law. I'm way to familiar with it.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

*in the electrical business there would be a financial (criminal?) liability for such foul-ups*

No such luck Mike. The engineers always have a clause in the specs saying the contractor is responsible for a complete and operating system. The owners don't like to pay for engineers errors. Engineers don't like to pay for their own errors useless they had to post a bond for their work. I don't think that happens very often. Sometimes you can get paid, but since they have 10% of your money in retention, it is usually a cost of doing business for the electrician to cover their @$$ ;-)


----------



## JesseTutt (Aug 15, 2012)

I have had the same experience. I wish magazines & books would have someone who builds each project from the gallery prints before it goes to print, but I suspect that would involve an additional cost that publishers are not willing to spend.

Having been a professional programmer I have firsthand experience that I cannot find most of my typographical errors. We always had other programmers help locate these kinds of errors.


----------



## Grandpa (Jan 28, 2011)

I think someone builds the wood project then hands it to a helper that measures it and writes down the dimensions ont he cut list. Too bad he is the lowest paid guy on the payroll.


----------



## OggieOglethorpe (Aug 15, 2012)

"I think someone builds the wood project then hands it to a helper that measures it and writes down the dimensions ont he cut list. Too bad he is the lowest paid guy on the payroll."

Highly doubtful from the stated experiences of authors I know.

In my experience, woodworking authors do their own work. Lots of articles are submissions from folks who don't write for a living. Many are professional woodworkers, quite a few aren't, some work for the publication, many don't. All of the authors that I've met, in many cases during extended classes, are hands-on, dusty pants, men and women who simply write about what they do.

In reality, ANY of the folks complaining here could write and publish and article. All you need is an interesting technique or project to share, write it up, and submit your work. It's just like writing a blog for Lumberjocks, only you need to appeal to the managers of the magazine for acceptance, with a subject they think would meet the interests and needs of their readers. Differences in magazines are obvious, those differences show the editorial flavor you'd need to meet to be published in a particular magazine.

Woodworking writers don't have roadies, grad students, guru-devotees, or a Man Friday, who follows them around with a dust pan and refills their drink.

I'm sure some of them occasionally make a mistake, they're human. There is also a handoff to artists for sketches and illustrations, editing, spell and grammar checkers, etc… At any point, there is the potential to introduce a mistake.

Along with all of that, all of the publications I'm familar with are relatively small businesses working within comparatively tight margins. In order to provide the product a a price we will pay, the resources to check every measurement at each stage of the process is simply not feasable, so they do their best.

One upon a time, I used to build electronic circuits, including etching my own boards, from magazines aimed at that hobby. At least errors in woodworking projects don't usually catch on fire when you use them for the first time… ;^)


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Topa,
It is sad to hear that lack of accountability is rampant throughout that industry as well. That is one commonality we don't need with DC (and I don't mean dust collector).

Barry,
I believe you have probably hit the nail on the head, in that personal WW-ing is pretty much an over-grown hobby with many participants yet no centralized control/organization/vision/accountability. It is sad to think that overcoming someone else's foul up in the plans, ends up as a source of pride for the individual WW-r who builds that project and corrects for that mistake. Something just does not sound right about that fact… Even if it is true.


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

Lee's conspiracy theory sounds interesting. I can imagine the editors having to run all project plans past the folks at Rockler first before publication. 

Seriously, Barry and Tennessee have it right. Print media is expensive and the competition is relatively inexpensive. Of course the best way to ensure that a faulty plan never finds its way into print is to have staff build a mockup of the piece from the pre-published plan, which is not going to happen.


----------



## LeeBarker (Aug 6, 2010)

On this current rocking chair project, I am building from plans that were cut up and scattered. I have done pretty well so far because the narrative portion is nearly complete. The plans are no longer available. The design seems pretty well refined, which suggests that the chair was thoughtfully developed.

In a moment of idleness I was reading ahead in the narrative (I have no subassemblies, just parts with mortises everywhere there is a flat surface).

Late in the game you're to make the form for bending the back slats, rip two pieces per slat and glue them up in the form and leave them for 24 hours.

Wouldn't that be a great first step? Make the mold, rip your stock (with 4 extra) and then, every day when you walked in, you could do another, set it aside, and proceed with the rough shaping of parts.

As it is written, when you get to that point, you're pretty much stuck there and, more important, out of the flow of the project.

Someday, when I grow up, I'll do a lot better than this (cue the "yeah, yeah" chorus of skeptics).

Kindly,

Lee


----------

