jim said:
You might do better by putting a colored transparent text overlay over a colored text base, such that one can spot the color change where the (additive please not subtractive) colors "don't mix."
For example a green base text layer with an additive red transparent text OCR overlay layer give you a yellow letter where the colors mix -- "hit", but green or red where there is a "miss".
big kudos to jim for his improvement upon the well-known standard suggestion of this tactic... it's very clever. the problem is that it's _too_ clever, by half... you guys are treating this task as if it is some visual-discrimination type of chore, which is the mistake someone would make if they had rarely -- or perhaps _never_ -- done the job... but for anyone who has actually _tracked_ the type of errors that are common in o.c.r. today, a visual approach to this task is the last resort. once again, the _most_ common type of error is spacey punctuation. you don't need some fancy "color overlay" to find spacey punctuation, folks! indeed, you don't even need to _look_ for it at all! you can merely instruct your text-editor to find it. when d.p. started, a decade ago, maybe then you needed to verify every line, word-for-word -- but today that's a ridiculous waste of time and energy. unless/until y'all get that through your thick skulls, you are chasing your tails around the wrong bush... and your efforts will never begin to scale as needed. -bowerbird p.s. the smartest digitizers, like nicholas hodson, have known for _years_ that text-to-speech is the _best_ strategy for finding well-disguised errors... your computers and ipads can _speak_! use that!
You know, I try not to respond to BB bs, but, its not like the rest of us are stupid. I "norm" the data before I work on it, I know that many DP input files are half-assed and make extra work for people, but that's not how I do it. BUT, BB's claim that norming the data is going to remove "all" the work of proofing, and will mean that people can just SR the files and be done with it is simply certainly NOT true for the authors that I typically work with. I grant you that there are probably some books out there somewhere that are simple enough that it might more-or-less work. But in the books I look at there is enough weird stuff going on that the only way you are going to "get it right" is to actually look at the original, and look at the transcription, note the difference, and fix it. BB can keep repeating his claims, shouting, and calling people names all he likes, but doing so doesn't change the reality -- one way or another. BB -- its very simple -- you've been claiming for many years that you can do it, now go and do it and stop wasting the rest of our time, and stop vacuously insulting everyone. Just Go Do It. When you CLAIM you've actually done it, the rest of us -- or at least that subset of us willing to spend time on your tools -- will tell you if you in fact knew all these years what you were talking about, or you were in fact just wholly clueless. Just Go Do It.
participants (2)
-
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
Jim Adcock