I just checked my previous claims about the problems with P3 (for example) against a pretty straight-forward text. I reviewed 200 pages from that text. P3's made 38 changes on those pages. Of these changes 7 change represented a positive contribution towards making the txt correct. Of
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Jim Adcock <jimad@msn.com> wrote: those positive changes about a half could easily be found by a simple tool like guiguts. 10 of the changes introduced by the P3's were negative changes -- changes that moved the text to a less perfect state. I'd have to look at them before trusting you on this, as you seem to have an extremely negative, fault-finding attitude towards DP. I wonder if you'd count my occasional bracketed comments, such as [**P3--seems to be a mistake in the original; s/b ;], as errors.
The remaining 21 changes were basically "null changes" relating to established DP procedure, which neither really made the txt any better nor any worse.
Nonetheless, they were useful to the formatters and PPers as making the text predictable.
... which means it takes about three and a half years in total for a book to get through DP nowadays? -- And getting longer every day
None of us likes that! Yes, the current round system is broken. It produces better texts than the old 2-round system. Some of the second-round proofers in those days wanted page count and didn't give a #$%@$#% about accuracy. The results were as dismal as you would expect. However, we've now producing very good texts at an enormous cost. We're discussing further changes. It doesn't particularly help, when one is drowning and flailing about for a handhold, to have a bystander jumping up and down, shouting, "You're drowning, you idiot!" -- Karen Lofstrom