i see rfrank is making improvements to his smoothreading version of the "sitka" book. i wasn't sure if he would do that as they came in, or if he would simply wait and do all the fixes one time at the end...
an incremental approach is just fine, but it means that no one has yet reported this next glitch, which is a rather amazing one, since it has survived the system through preprocessing and proofing and postprocessing, although it doesn't even pass a simple spellcheck:
Some looked with extreme disfavor upon the establishment, while others wrere friendly.
it's also unclear whether anyone has reported the inconsistencies in the spelling of the baron's name -- is it wrangel or wrangell? -- but perhaps rfrank decided to leave 'em as they are in the p-book. of course, if _that_ were the case, he wouldn't have changed the two cases of the baron's name on page 43, since they are clearly printed as "wrangel". but also there, two alaskan places which -- as the book directly states there -- "today perpetuate his name" are clearly printed as "wrangell", which is the cause for confusion, compounded by the fact that the name is spelled as "wrangell" on pages 54, 61, 63 (twice), and 102, but as "wrangel" on page 75... aside from the inconsistent-with-the-printed-page instances on page 43, rfrank was also inconsistent with the ink-on-paper on page 63 (the second instance), where he was not just inconsistent with the printed book, but with his own version on the same page. (in other words, the page was consistent itself, but rfrank was not.) *** all of this is not to criticize rfrank. indeed, i will tell you that he is an excellent postprocessor. he has a ton of experience; he's probably submitted over 500 books to p.g. by this time... what this _does_ show is that even an excellent postprocessor, with a ton of experience, can have errors that persist through preprocessing, proofing, and postprocessing, and maybe even through smoothreading. (at least this far, these glitches have.) so i think this is good evidence that "once and done" is _not_ a good strategy for a roundless system. that philosophy has _never_ been a part of the roundless system that _i_ preach... indeed, i believe any change should be reviewed and approved by two separate people before it is considered to be "golden"... it's also important to remind ourselves that we are not "short" of proofers. to the contrary, we have a huge _glut_ of proofers. distributed proofreaders has so many proofers that they are now actively considering ways to _throttle_ their p1 proofers! with an _abundance_ of proofers, there is no need to scrimp... we can have multiple proofers look at every page in every book. -bowerbird