let me now _contrast_ the undeserved superior attitude that some d.p. members manifest about their product with the _humble_ nature of the request gardner made, where he _invited_ me to analyze one of his books and report back to him how he could improve his workflow. my general attitude here is to try to be of _assistance_. but so much of the time, i am vilified, and the nature of the interaction turns confrontational and viscous. so it's nice when someone like gardner comes along, and reminds us all that it doesn't have to be that way, that we can talk pleasantly about how to do better... *** you might recall that i found 159 differences between the archive.org o.c.r. and gardner's proofed version...

http://z-m-l.com/go/gardn/gardn-159diffs.html

i've resolved those differences, and found that they split almost exactly down the middle between cases where the o.c.r. was wrong, and gardner was wrong. this was an _intermediate_ version of gardner's file -- the last one he had before he rewrapped lines, which he generously gave to me to save me time -- and he likely made some corrections after that act, plus the whitewashers might've fixed some errors. so i'm going to now test my diff-resolved version against the file that was actually posted up at p.g. what i _can_ say now, after resolving the diffs, is that gardner's o.c.r. program didn't do very well. ("very well" sounds so stilted; i prefer "very good".) whether this is because the scans weren't good, i cannot say... gardner, what app/version is it? in particular, there was a problem with he/be diffs, and other h/b glitches, as well as with punctuation (in general). so i'd want to track down that aspect... and gardner, next time you might want to hold off on the rewrapping until later in your workflow, as that'll make it easier to compare against the scans. i should have a final report by tomorrow or friday. -bowerbird