Book needs another set of eyes

[shotokan1955]

Hello, I am knew so I hope I am doing this right. I published a book on smashwords.com and it has not been edited professionally. I have worked on it extensively but it needs another pair of eyes or what I thought might be solution use software. I downloaded software to proof read it from Serenity Software and I have been having problems all day trying to get it to work (no help from them thus far). The issue is that it keeps saying that auto save feature of Word is still on when it is not so it will not load the document. Has anyone used this software before and if so ran into this problem? Fix?

[gmw]

I don't have Word installed here, so I can't really help. You are probably best advised to contact the developers and ask them. But I have been looking at the "Editor" program from Serenity Software. It's interesting - so thanks for mentioning it.

Since I don't have Word I am forced to try and use their "Editor" program directly - and the interface is pretty appalling. It still looks like a Windows v3 program, and the windows are constrained so that you can't take advantage of a large screen, nor can you easily keep a view of the "draft" in sync with the list of errors/suggestions. But, with that gripe aside, the list of things that it finds is pretty impressive.

The list is obviously not intended to be taken directly, many are simple word combinations that may or may not be what you intended. For example, since I am writing with British rules, it suggests that when I write "make out" I may want to use "snog" - which can be pretty funny when I'm using it to mean "decipher" or "discern".

The biggest part of its output (against my draft) appeared to mainly a (very long) list of things I might want to take a second look at, and to that extent I think it works quite well. If their Editor interface made it easier to filter and synchronise with the list it could actually be useful even outside Word. As it is I've had to save their output out so I can view them in external editor windows that I can actually move and size etc.

The list of usage issues puts me in mind of the output of a lint processor over a large C source code library - set at maximum verbosity. Lots of hints, the majority of which are irrelevant because the software can't understand the context, but useful anyway to draw your attention to things worth double-checking. And, like a lint processor, some of the hints are damned if you do and damned if you don't. For example some word combinations (eg: "set up") will give you a hint if there is a hyphen, and if there isn't.

If the Editor was a proper IDE and better filtering capabilities it could be very good, as it is I'm thinking the output is simple enough that I might be able to write my own.

So sorry I can't answer your question, but the software is interesting.

[shotokan1955]

I have an update. I tried to get help form John Thiesmeyer and the customer service was appalling. The email response time when asking for help is the worst I have ever experienced with an internet company. Finally when he did respond hours later here are his responses to me.
John Thiesmeyer:
"We provide customer service but not hand-holding for customers who do not read instructions."
" Then see if you can bring yourself to bother following instructions, the way thousands of our satisfied customers--many of whom have published books and articles, stories and novels edited by our software--have done."
"You are correct that we spend minimal time leading customers through careful steps and procedures that they are too impatient to spend time with. We are not a group of computer geeks."
I have the entire email chain but I am not sure that I can post it or not. I spent hours alone trying to get it installed and I read his convoluted manual that has way too much info to grasp and solve installation issues. He will not give me back my money so I am stuck with the software.
After I managed to get it installed, I found the program very cumbersome to use and if you are looking for a modern high tech flashy look and feel, you will not get it. Another issue is that it will not do large Word documents. If you have a 214-page book like I do you will need to break up the file into 5 or 6 little files of twenty pages each or the program will not work. Once you run the long process, you have to paste it back into your original document.
The only positive is, it is through. That is a good point but the only one I can say about it.
Recommendation: Don't buy it!

[gmw]

You say "hours later"? That seems pretty good to me. This is obviously a small outfit, it would not be unreasonable for a response to take a day or two. I know one much larger company that regularly takes a week.

I won't comment about the tactfulness of the email response you received (it wouldn't be fair to either side without knowing the full details), however I can understand why they would not refund. Their website offers a 10 day free trial, and while 10 days is pretty short as these things go, it is enough time to discover whether it will install and what you think of it. This free trial is also mentioned on their "buy now" page. So it appears that a potential buyer has opportunity to make an informed choice before parting with their money.

Like you, I am not impressed with their documentation. It may be all there, but it's not well presented and not easy to find specific items. Both the documentation and the main executable (as noted above, I can't try the plug-in) give the impression of something written a lot time ago and has not seen much work since (perhaps the underlying parsing has, but the interface and documentation are far from modern).

But ignoring those usage problems and taking a look at what it's supposed to do. Their website says:

Extensive comparative tests show that even the best performers among other editing programs correct fewer than 35% of the grammatical errors that a good human editor would find in the test documents. Editor corrects more than 70%.
(Computer programs cannot find errors that depend not on writers' words but on their meanings.) Typically, more than 40% of other editing programs’ comments on a text are miscorrections or mistakes. Editor is wrong less than 10% of the time.

I find these figures interesting. In particular the claim that "Editor is wrong less than 10% of the time." In my testing here, as a percentage, I would guess that its reported usage items were less than 1% real issues. Perhaps they are speaking of some particular subset of grammar rules.

That's not to say it's not a potentially useful program, identifying those few items that really are mistakes is not easy and it can be educational to have items pointed out. It's never going to replace a real human editor, but as a "lint" program for English prose I do still find it interesting - maybe that's just the software developer in me.

[shotokan1955]

A problem I am finding with the software is that the numbering from the Usage and Mechanics Problems does not match the number in the Word document causing me to spend more time searching through sentences looking for the location of the usage comment.

[mr ploppy]

I use one called Stylewriter, it looks like a similar thing. It's okay as far as it goes, highlighting what it thinks might be wrong, but it's no substitute for a real person. You might be better off saying what your book is about and ask if anyone wants to have a look through it.

[Lazer]

I use Grammarian embedded in Scrivener. Once the document has passed muster, I run it through Word's Spelling/Grammar tool. Then, I send the hard copy off to my editor and it comes back red-pen heavy.

I've tried subscription based online software with the same results; nothing beats a human being when it comes to editing the English language. I just don't think writing in our inane English is ever going to be successfully edited with software, it's just too... what's the word I'm looking for... GOOFY. (I'm sure my editor could/would beat the sh!t outa that paragraph.)

But, if you ever get your software working well, please let me know.

p.s. I ran this note through Grammarian –found and fixed several problems– it is a good tool.