Quote:
Originally Posted by marytg
Eisengoth,
I hadn't thought of that! Maybe that is how the errors get in. I agree completely about errors taking the reader out of the story. It would be a shame if readers get used to errors.
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it almost feels like the big publishers do a poor or no job of proofing on purpose. It is very hard to believe that they do an excellent job of proofing a print book and a very bad job of proofing an e-book accidentally.
Could it be they want to give e-books a black eye in general? A desperate attempt to keep print books alive? Hmmmmmm....
Check out this story about ebook errors.
He offers some interesting ideas about error-free certification. |
Thanks for the link... a very interesting article, indeed!
I'm not sure that it's malicious intent, although I allow for the possibility that there's a luddite editor out there somewhere sending the unedited proofs out to make the ebook, and then finalizing the proofreading for the print copy, but it's probably unlikely. I think it's more likely to be a general lack of caring.
For instance, with
Warchild, the typos and general language weirdness were all things which were close to their intent, but not all the way there. Having a lot of experience with optical character recognition (OCR) scanning, it seems to get about 80% correct. The other 20% has to be done manually... and it looked to me like
Warchild's editors just didn't do the 20%. Not malicious; just lazy.
It's an interesting point that we're more sensitive to errors in ebooks. I postulate that we might be even
more sensitive to errors in independent ebooks... almost because we're expecting to see them, so we look for them. Then, when we do find one, we roll our eyes and go "Yep, there's the problem with indie authors" - where if it were a trade book, we'd just gloss over it and accept that it was something that just slipped through the cracks.