robert said:
>   These appends seem to me to imply that
>   diffing parallel/independently produced texts
>   is a faster and more efficient way
>   to correct the OCR process
>   than sequential manual checking.

much faster.  much more efficient.


>   Has anyone (possibly including DP)
>   ever tried any of the above, and
>   documented the results in a scientifically valid way?

well, yeah.

just one week from today, it will be 7 full years since i posted this:
>   http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/bparchive?year=2005&post=2005-10-03,3


>   Does DP work that way anyway?

nope.  and they didn't want to learn, either.

because, at the end of 2006, i posted this in a d.p. forum:
>   http://www.pgdp.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=24008

***

much faster.  much more efficient.  absolutely no comparison.
it's a complete waste of time to proof by reading word-by-word.

***

by now it should be clear to everyone why i am getting
so tired of repeating myself.

-bowerbird