jon noring said:
Anyway, the proofers did find a couple errors (and as I noted the text has not been sufficiently proofed yet),
and when will "sufficiency" be reached? :+) (sorry, folks, this post of jon's is so juicy, i have to respond twice!)
Anyway, the proofers did find a couple errors (and as I noted the text has not been sufficiently proofed yet), which have been corrected in the current online text. I don't know if they corrected the errors you found
as i told you before, no, you still haven't gotten all the errors. you might have found 2. great! but there are still 2 more. :+)
I don't know if they corrected the errors you found but I don't really care.
oh, i think you care _very_much_ about finding every last one. that's why you are still soliciting for even more proofreaders...
And of course, I won't tell you here exactly what errors the proofers found
it's trivial to find the changes you made.
but for $100 I'll be happy to tell you
and for $100, i will spell "trivial" for you. :+)
(but I'll be nice and give you a clue: "didn't" and "liked".) Otherwise you can download the XHTML document again and run a 'diff' on it -- happy hunting!
"hunting"? there's no need to go "hunting". just drop two files on the comparison app. and "diff"? please. what a clumsy-ass tool. in a case like this, with only a couple changes, that will not matter much. but as a programmer, i've written several apps that present the output in a way that's much friendlier than that of "diff" -- not to mention a whole heckuva lot smarter -- absolutely necessary if the comparison gets sticky. (e.g., ok, already, i don't need to see the differences that were created by the change to british spellings.)
You can say what you want, but unless you "show the pudding", no one's going to believe you. Your credibility is zero.
and the flack you're desperately throwing up is trivial to defeat. aside from the two changes that you so generously "hinted" about, i see you also added the character entity for the trademark symbol. gotta get that trademark on "trusted edition", don't you? after all, you want people to be sure which e-texts are "trustworthy", right? as for one correction made, from "liked" to "like", well, that error occurred on page 363, did it not? indeed, it is the very top line on page 363, right? now if you look at the scan i used for my proofing demo, at
http://users.aol.com/bowerbird/proof_wiki.html which i put up a few months back, you'll see i used page 363!
what a surprise! but maybe that was just, like, a very rare coincidence, eh?, that the very page on which there is one of the few errors remaining would be the same page -- deep into the book -- that i would use in my public demo of a proofing interface? yeah, maybe it was, jon, maybe it was. or maybe i was merely toying with you. you won't know unless you "call my bluff" on those 2 errors that i say are still in your text, will you? there's a $300 payoff in it for you if i am bluffing, as opposed to a mere $75 payoff for me if i'm not... it's pretty hard to resist a 4-to-1 differential, isn't it? (and for your $75, you'll finally have error-free text, which -- despite your serious efforts -- has eluded you for months. of course, project gutenberg will have the exact same text.) but act fast! this is a limited-time offer! or before you know it, the price of the next-to-last error might jump to $40, and the price of the last one up to $60, for a grand total for the pair of $100. you just never know. after all, these errors are _rare_. that drives the price up... -bowerbird p.s. by the way, a u.r.l. for that d.p. forum i said you should see is:
http://www.pgdp.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=128023#128023 (this forum is for d.p. members only, which jon is, but anybody else can visit as well, just by registering as a member first; that's free. heck, stick around and proof a couple pages, and see if you like it...)