ok, let's see if i can clear the decks here,
so i can get to some serious work next week...

***

a while back, michael intimated that i was
talking out of my ass when i speak of errors
in the p.g. library, and that i should have sent
_him_ the reports, so here is supporting data...

***

first is a piece i wrote on errors in the p.g. copy
of "swiss family robinson", _still_ all uncorrected...
>   http://snowy.arsc.alaska.edu/bowerbird/2005cleanup/on_swiss_family_robinson
(this error-report was posted two full months ago.)

***

second is a new review of the "fixes" in "the secret garden":
>   http://snowy.arsc.alaska.edu/bowerbird/2005cleanup/the_secret_garden_fix_analysis

this was a "re-do" of a book that was already in the p.g. library,
so i was able to test my ideas on comparing dual digitizations...

i have previously written on this project, in a gutvol-d message
that was sent december 27th, shortly after the e-text was posted.
in that message, i praised the accuracy, and noted 10 errors...
this new post examines subsequent treatment of those errors.

error-reports like this tend to get _very_ specific, so i've also
posted the page-images online to help outsiders negotiate:
>   http://snowy.arsc.alaska.edu/bowerbird/2005cleanup/page000.jpg
replace "000" in that u.r.l. with the page-number (zero-filled to 3 digits)
to see the image-scan of each page as it's discussed in the error-report...

in a nutshell, though, i reported 10 errors, and just 2 were fixed!
this in response to a carefully-prepared error-report that gave you
the page-number, the incorrect text, and the necessary correction,
written only after i had taken a _very_ close look at each page-scan...

how many error-reports will you get that are so well-documented?

yet a mere 2 out of the 10 reported errors were actually fixed!  wow!
is that a performance that you all believe that you can feel proud of?

***

third, i talked about how "alice in wonderland" was
_very_close_ to z.m.l. compliance, but _not_there_...
sorry, my memory was just a little wrong, there are
_3_ excessive linebreaks in alice30.txt (not just one,
as i had reported), one before each of these lines:
>   CHAPTER I
>   CHAPTER II
>   `Thank you, it's a very interesting dance to watch,' said

of course, a linebreak that is "excessive" by z.m.l. standards
is probably not something the _whitewashers_ will consider
as an "error" that they need to "fix", but michael said that
he wanted to know about such things, so i have told him...

***

my messages were written in the course of ongoing
threads, the first over on the bookpeople listserve,
the second two right here.  so all of these reports
hit michael's e-mailbox.  if you have any questions,
do please feel free to ask them.  otherwise, i will just
sit back and wait for y'all to make these corrections...

no need for a flame-war, though.  i am convinced that
you'll never build a better error-correction system, so
somebody else (like me) will have to build one instead,
and i'm prepared to do that...  so save your energy...

***

you will hear more from me starting on monday.
which is appropriate, since tinsley likes to call me
a "monday morning quarterback".  heck, over on
the d.p. forums, he's got it down to its acronym...

get used to it, jim, you'll be hearing a lot from me,
with _extensive_ demos, starting real soon now...

-bowerbird
p.s.  if jim's thinly-veiled insults persist over at d.p.,
i'll have to start posting in those forums in response;
is that _really_ what you guys want?  think about it...