There's enough vitriol here to run some cars for millenia.
Look, there are a variety of processes to get text into ebook form. There seems to be a confusion of the methods in this thread.
- A new book is being produced; the author has provided a Word (or other) file, and the book is being created in both print and ebook form by a publisher or producer;
- A new book is being produced, in print only; and some time after that, the publisher/author decides to create an ebook therefrom;
- A new book is being brought to life as an ebook only--and the source material is Word or PDF; and/or
- A book exists in backlist, in print only, and the book has to be OCR'd to be brought to digital life, before being made into an ebook.
- There are other scenarios, but these are the main; no point in digressing into painstaking minutiae, here.
In theory, when you look at #1, the number of proofing errors should be identical, from print to ebook. It rarely works this way, because as elcreative pointed out, I believe, the print layout process creates a massive file unsuited to e-production. Most print layout companies use InDesign or something similar (which outputs seriously crap ePUB files, don't let them kid you)...and
the laid-out book is what is sent out, in galleys, to the author/editors for proofing, not the source material. This is where the process diverges, and you end up with two differing sources; the marked-up INDD file, and the original source material. Generally, what happens is that the INDD file gets polished, sent to the printers...and the Word file (or OO, or whatever) gets sent to someone like Aptara, to be spat out as the ebook. So: that's process/item #1.
#2: See #1. I get a ton of Word files that have to be edited to match the original print book; or I get the PDF of the final print book, and we have to have the author proof it for any conversion errors, which of course, do happen, although fewer nowadays than, say, 2-3 years ago;
#3: that's on whomever is the publisher. I'd bore you all to tears with the stories of the crap we get; but suffice it to say that no matter that I make our clients SWEAR that they're giving us the "final" proof--it is never so.
I cannot remember the last time we had a book go through without copyedits. Literally. And we add 1 client/day, and most of our clients are multi-book authors; in general, we're putting out +/-1500 books/year.
#4: And here is where the OCR scenario, replete with Abbyy Fine Reader, usually, comes into play. This has ZIP bearing on 1-3. At this point, yes, you have to pay someone to proof for OCR errors. In general, just for scanning errors, at a pro scanning firm, it's $1/page (just for the proofing). You'll still get code errors (like random paragraph breaks that are invisible until the thing is exploded, soft-hyphens running rampant, etc.), but a good conversion house {ahem} will regex (search and replace) those things. But still...now the author or publisher is into it for roughly $1.50 a page,
without an actual line editor-style proof; the scan proof really is searching for ligature errors, and that type of thing. From a
competent scanning house, and I cannot emphasize that word enough, that knows what is needed to push print to eventual ebook, you can get a file that a good convo house can make into a decent ebook with nominal errors. Ergo, a 300-page typical fiction title starts its conversion to ebook--
before it ever gets to someone like me--at $450.00. That's BEFORE it gets to a convo house; and this is for an author (or indy publisher, or backlist pubber, whatever) that's going to sell for $0.99, more than likely; maybe $2.99).
So, if we're all going to sling mud here, let's make sure we squean about the right cranial smoke. If we're gonna talk big publishers--generally, they're either doing 1 or they're sending an unread Word file to the Aptaras of the world--no edits, no proofing. If we're talking scans, let's talk scans, and let's not mix it all up.
Reamde certainly wasn't made from a scan or OCR. It's apples and oranges.
BTW: the "beta reader" idea--I have authors that would
kill for reliable beta readers. Beta readers are, Keryl, one of those generally-accepted, vaguely conceptualized ideas of "things that exist" that, quite bluntly, don't. Sure, if you're Dan Brown or Laurell K. Hamilton or one of those people with troos, it's
easy to find beta readers; but for the average mid-lister (and that's who makes up the vast majority of publishing, folks), it's nearly impossible. Again, that's like the infamous pretty teenage girl who will come over and exercise and take care of your horse just for the love of it--they don't exist, either. And, btw: most of the beta readers are fine for plotline development, but they're not proofers. Not the same thing at all. Like test screenings--they're only looking for audience reaction, not line-by-line "edits." Beta readers tell the authors (like Charlaine Harris) that they like this plotline, don't like this development, etc.--but they don't proof.
(And farm out proofing to India? No. Trust me on this.) And lastly--for those of you that think that proofing is easy, I'd recommend
you try it. Particularly, try it with a book you hate. Or a writer who sucks--not somebody whose book you can't wait to put your hands on.
HTH, from the sausage factory,
Hitch