@Anais9000:
I was curious about the problems you spotted in the copy of 'Castle Richmond' that's up at PG, so I asked my sister (who is one of the PtB at DP). Here's what she said in response (slightly edited by me -- square brackets and ... are mine):
Quote:
Yup, that is a DP text but it is a very early one. It was posted to PG in Sept. 2002 as far as I can tell, which is well before slashdot, and certainly well before we had developed the tools we use now, much less splitting into the four rounds.
I don't think we have access to the scans from that book to check the "errors" against. The way to get errors corrected is to submit them to errata@pglaf.org. Some of those are clear errors, but some could be the result of slightly different editions of the book. It's only an error if the text doesn't match what the book had. Since we weren't including publication info at that point, and since I don't know whether we have the scans (some of the earliest ones appear to have been irretriavably lost) it's hard to verify one way or another. But changes like
Sir Thomas is very ill, and so also is Lady Fitzgerald
Sir Thomas is very well, and so also is Lady Fitzgerald ---- yikes!!!
had not done so through absolute fear
had not done so through any absolute fear
are entirely likely to be variations in the edition, rather than errors from the text.
[SNIP]
[Folks] who criticize DP for leaving errors, ... usually pick on early books like this.
Please ask that person to find similar errors in a text with a PG number over 10,000. By then most of our tools were in place and our quality was much higher.
I hope that helps explain things...
|
So... What do you think of the quality of books that have come through DP more recently? And have you submitted those errors to PG? (Note that DP doesn't have any special control after the point where they submit the book to PG.)
Xenophon