On Thu, November 29, 2012 2:57 pm, Bowerbird@aol.com wrote: [snip]
and yes, after some brief checks, #84 definitely seems _not_ to be based on the 1818 edition, meaning that it _probably_ used the _1831_ printing, as that is the other major one for this particular book.
The first 7 chapters were based on the 1985 Penquin Classics edition which modernized some spelling and punctuation. It looked like the remainder was based on the 1831 edition (probably in a modern reprint). I may have scans around of a photo reprint of the 1818 edition, if anyone is interested.... [snip]
so here's the question:
in general, is it worthwhile to do any further cleaning on a book which just came out of distributed proofreaders?
No, not as to the text. The formatting/markup will obviously have to be improved in a different environment. [snip]
and heck, if i'm gonna do one poll, might as well do two...
so here's the question for the second poll:
for a list of "the bottom-20 p.g. digitizations", which books would you nominate for inclusion? (note: download-count acts as multiplier here; so we want bad-quality plus high-downloads.)
Dracula? A Tale of Two Cities?
here are a couple "honorary nominations", which have already been suggested _often_ in the past:
peter pan tarzan
Yes to Tarzan of the Apes, just because we know that #78 is the bowdlerized version, and no other versions have been produced.
frankenstein
Yes, although it appears that at least one replacement Frankenstein is in the works, so further attention may not be necessary.
alice in wonderland
Which Alice? The latest ones look pretty good, and came out of the DP process, so I would think that the basic text is pretty accurate.
pride and prejudice
Again, which one? And I haven't seen much comment about failures in P&P (other than markup). Lets get a complaint forum up and going, then see what people complain about most.