&gt; <br />&gt; why are we still doling out pages one-at-a-time?<br />&gt; <br />&gt; <br />&gt; <br />&gt; in 2002, i understand why d.p. was conceptualized<br />&gt; <br />&gt; in such a fashion...   o.c.r. wasn&#39;t nearly as reliable,<br />&gt; <br />&gt; so there were corrections necessary on every page,<br />&gt; <br />&gt; and each one might demand a chunk of your time.<br />&gt; <br />&gt; <br />&gt; <br />&gt; but today, you can clean an entire book in an hour<br />&gt; <br />&gt; -- in one pass, or in six 10-minute sessions, say --<br />&gt; <br />&gt; and send it to the smoothreaders for a final check...<br />&gt; <br />&gt; <br /><br />I&#39;ve scanned and reviewed the proofing on a lot of books,<br />all ABBYY-OCR&#39;ed, and one error per 10 pages exhibits<br />good book selection Abbyy management skills I wish I had,<br />or maybe books with 12 lines per page.<br /><br />No question it shouldn&#39;t take five more more passes,<br />plus post-processing measured in days rather than hours.<br />At least all the auto-detectable stuff should be done before<br />a proofer ever sees it; and any remaining clues should be<br />visible to the proofer (like Roger is doing.)<br /><br />I&#39;m pretty sure we could do better work, quicker, if we proofed <br />in parallel, then compared (and merged) the results, As long<br />as we have serial proofers, we can&#39;t measure either techniques<br />or (worse) people.<br /><br />The best way to get past the tedium is to come up with an<br />objective means for comparing results derived from different,<br />and differences in, the process. Until then we&#39;re stuck with<br />our prejudices.