jon said:
such tools can be used to find possible errors, and then a human being makes a decision on what to do.
that's what the tools were always intended to do, jon. that's why we call them "tools", and not "proofreaders".
But now we are back into the human proofing realm,
nobody ever left that realm except you and your misrepresentations...
using tools to make the human proofreader's life easier, rather than trying to replace the human.)
if you repeat a misrepresentation enough times, do people actually start to believe it? do you?
In short, it shows the need for good ole' human proofing as exemplified by DP to convert raw OCR texts to finished, high-quality digital texts.
d.p. is one way to proof a text. it's not the only way. jeff just showed us another way to find lots of errors.
The focus should be on giving the proofers better tools to do their job better and easier, and not trying to replace them.
that's been my focus. and i'll be releasing an app to do just that. what have you been doing in this specific regard? -bowerbird p.s. i've got responses to your earlier posts too, jon, but this thread is a lot more interesting than yours is.