Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul
So we pay for crap and like it?
Again, we are not talking perfect, that is a strawman argument.
We are talking some human proofreading. That is a long way from perfect.
Again, if they were reprinting these as paperbacks, would you be happy to pay money for this quality?
|
There is some human proofreading... not enough but as I said earlier, if you want perfect then do not complain about backlists taking time to appear and do not complain about lack of enthusiasm for publishing backlists... proofreading costs and takes time, lots of time. Also, with the book quoted, unless the proofing was done by somebody who knows the book inside out, it's not unusual for a non-standard word (such as a name) to get through the process as the proofer doesn't know it's wrong. That's why the proofed work generally goes back to the author for a final check - names etc - and it's a bit difficult to do that with DEAD authors...
And what is it with this damn "strawman" argument that people keep raising... you said that it was crap proofing at an error per page so it's reasonable to think that you don't want errors - no errors = perfect - now your implying that some errors would be acceptable as "perfect" = "strawman" so how many errors are acceptable to your standards??? If you don't like or disagree with a statement, it doesn't make it a "strawman" when you started defining things... if you want everyone talking about precisely the same thing as you then tell us what you are talking about precisely as well...