jim said:
>   It looks like you are dropping one-letter words
>   that are coming at the end of your lines, BB.

i appreciate all error-reports.

please give the page-number (as shown on the page)
and the dropped word -- along with its line-number,
which you can obtain by using the provided interface:

>   http://zenmagiclove.com/huckj/wisdom.py

thanks.


>   I did notice what looked like one real 'jim' error in there.

i didn't count, but there's a lot more than one.
nonetheless, i will appreciate any error-report,
whether your error, or mine, even newly-found.


>   Not sure what your "main point" was?

i'll discuss it in some detail in an upcoming post, but
the thrust (which i have already provided, in the past
and quite recently) is that anyone who wants to prove
that they're confident their digitization is dependable
will provide an interface that allows the end-users to
directly compare the text with its relevant page-scan.

end-users will naturally gravitate to the digitizations
which _do_ furnish such a comparison interface, and
therefore come to be skeptical of those which do not.

for instance, you have an error in the first paragraph
of chapter 14, jim.  document explicitly how a person
would check it, if they happened to suspect an error,
and then how you would confirm or deny their report.
(do it, jim, and be explicit, because if you won't, i will.)

then consider my response, which is this u.r.l.:
>   http://zenmagiclove.com/huckf/wisdom.py?whatpage=110

that's how i would _prove_ that my text is _correct_.
as we will see, my methodology is better than yours.
it's far _simpler_, and much _faster_, for _everyone._


>   People who are interested in figuring out
>   the real "main point" should, again, take a look at:

i suppose everyone defines "real" in a different way...


>   People who are interested in figuring out
>   the real "main point" should, again, take a look at:
>   http://www.freekindlebooks.org/Dev/HuckDiff.txt

...but i doubt that a confusing page of one-word diffs
is gonna be convincing about _anything_ to _anyone._


>   which should give people some idea how many errors
>   there are in the older PG texts. [this is cross versioning,
>   of course, so some of these differences are legitimate,
>   such as spelling of character names "Jo" v. "Joe"
>   for example.]

it could be the case that every single one of those diffs
is actually a "legitimate" difference between the versions.

and you have no way of proving that that is not the case.

especially since you haven't provided a way for people
to easily check that _your_ text is accurate to the scan.

_or_ to verify the widger text is inaccurate to _its_ scan.

which, by the way, is going to be _very_ difficult to do,
since david has never specified which edition he used.

and yes, since david never bothered to do that, people
will _not_ take his digitization seriously down the line.

but they are not going to like _your_ pg#32325 either,
not if they don't know what version you used, but also
because i've posted a version of it that makes it _easy_
to compare the text directly to the relevant page-scan.

it boils down to this:  if you believe in your accuracy,
you will expose yourself to the test of transparency...
you'll post the text, with its original line-breaks, right
next to the page-scan from which that text was taken,
coming from a scan-set which is canonically mounted.

anything short of that is gonna be too little, too late.

people are not going to jump through hoops just to
verify the accuracy of your text, so even if it happens
to _be_ accurate, you won't have sufficient evidence.

so if you _don't_ expose yourself, nobody is going to
believe that your text is accurate, not in the long run.

-bowerbird

p.s.  that's if people _care_ about accuracy long-run.
they are currently drowning in so much _inaccuracy_
they might just tune it all out and go to the movies,
where they know it's all fake and they like it that way.