why are we still doling out pages one-at-a-time?
in 2002, i understand why dp was conceptualized
in such a fashion... ocr wasn't nearly as reliable,
so there were corrections necessary on every page,
and each one might demand a chunk of your time.
but today, you can clean an entire book in an hour
-- in one pass, or in six 10-minute sessions, say --
and send it to the smoothreaders for a final check...
I've scanned and reviewed the proofing on a lot of books, all ABBYY-OCR'ed, and one error per 10 pages exhibits good book selection Abbyy management skills I wish I had, or maybe books with 12 lines per page. No question it shouldn't take five more more passes, plus post-processing measured in days rather than hours. At least all the auto-detectable stuff should be done before a proofer ever sees it; and any remaining clues should be visible to the proofer (like Roger is doing.) I'm pretty sure we could do better work, quicker, if we proofed in parallel, then compared (and merged) the results, As long as we have serial proofers, we can't measure either techniques or (worse) people. The best way to get past the tedium is to come up with an objective means for comparing results derived from different, and differences in, the process. Until then we're stuck with our prejudices.