Some perspective on why ebooks are so filled with errors.

[Hitch]

Man, you could feel the condescension just dripping in that article, couldn't you?

I actually wrote about this, in our most recent newsletter, mostly due to the Stephenson Reamde debacle. We've had two authors that received notes from Amazon, telling them to clean up their books; in one, Amazon (wrongly) said that his errors were typical of OCR (book wasn't OCR'd, and they identified a single error) and the other was written deliberately in an incoherent fashion. I did, absolutely and strenuously, warn the author before we converted it that I thought he'd run into trouble, although I actually thought it would be bad reviews. I presume reader complaints about the incoherent chapters (yes...chapters) prompted Amazon to take the action they did, which was to literally yank the book until he rewrote those sections.

Which takes you to a whole new topic, which isn't curation inasmuch as it is editorial interference, but that could be a discussion for another day.

It's absurd, and wrong, to say that "ebooks cost nothing to produce." Sure, if an author formats his document exactly correctly, and does the entire production himself, his cost is only his time, but that has value. If he pays someone--like us--to produce the book, he's out that money. If he pays someone to proof his ms before he submits it, he's paid that money. There seems to be a general idea (which is particularly surprising here, of all places) that ebooks manifest magically, like Pegasus and Chrysaor springing, full-blown, from the head of Medusa.

Sure, if you're making a print book, and simultaneously making the ebook, the additional costs are extremely low; but they're still not free. Even if made from the print files, the books have to be produced (and anyone here who thinks that there are $5/book workers out there, in WHATEVER country--try to find one.); they have to be proofed, separate and apart from whatever is going on with the DT version; etc. Many people don't know this, but some of the largest ebook producers in the world will not accept edits, at all, post-production. None. Ergo, GIGO, not to mention any conversion errors. I've been approached by most of them, but the "no edits after the epub is produced" attitude put me off using them for our overflow. Our authors would go grawlixes. I have authors that have cared so much about their titles that they've rewritten chunks and actually had us re-produce the titles, rather than have a title out there with errors, mistakes, what-have-you.

But on a super-large scale, like one of the big houses (say Random House), I can't imagine how they'd proof all those titles. I really don't. It's easy to say "oh, they're lazy," but putting out really good ebooks isn't significantly easier than putting out a good print title; and proofing one doesn't replace proofing the other--and as someone else pointed out, a good proofing can run $750-$3500 or more.

I'm not actually taking a side in the argument...just thinking aloud...and while I have seen some really painful errors in Big Publishing titles, I do lean toward the idea that the surfeit of self-publishing DIY titles, widely distributed through whatever sources (SW, Amazon, Nook) are adding to the notion that eBooks are "all" badly formatted. I know ours aren't; but I don't wear the author's typos, either...and the distinction between "bad formatting" and "bad editing" is often confused in reviews, which I've seen myself.

At our place, the publisher is responsible, period, for proofing his/her own work, whether they're an imprint or a self-pub. We recommend proofers to them if they want them--but a lot don't. People, like everything else in the universe, obey the laws of physics...greatest amount of randomness and the least amount of energy...so it's often easier to NOT proof the book. At the end of the day, I think the only force in play that will make publishers respect the readers as much as they ought is for angry readers to RETURN THE BOOKS to the vendors and force the issue.

MHO, FWIW.

Hitch

[JDK1962]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

As a sometime Distributed Proofreaders volunteer, I hope you're not seeing that sort of typos, and not at those rates in the PG texts from the last 5-8 years or so, especially when the text was contributed by DP. The DP books get looked at by about 7-8 pairs of eyes, and shouldn't have that sort of gross errors.

Sorry if it sounded like I was throwing stones at PG, I most definitely was not (and if anyone took it that way, sincere apologies).

My one and only point was that typos would be tolerable in a book one was getting for free, and by the grace of others. When you have major publishers charging $10-$20 (and still giving the author an appalling low royalty rate, but that's another matter) for a poor-quality product, it's inexcusable.

[elcreative]

What Hitch says above... +10

[Kevin8or]

Originally Posted by Hitch

But on a super-large scale, like one of the big houses (say Random House), I can't imagine how they'd proof all those titles. I really don't.

There's an army of unemployed college grads who'd be happy to earn money correcting typos and/or grammar. Lots of college-educated waiters and waitresses who'd like to supplement their income. It's not as if Random House has to physically expand, to buy new office space, to get the job done. This is tele-commuting work, for independent contractors paid on a piece-work scheme. (I'd prefer that they be hired as employees, but the economy I'd like isn't the economy we have.)

Originally Posted by Hitch

putting out really good ebooks isn't significantly easier than putting out a good print title; and proofing one doesn't replace proofing the other--and as someone else pointed out, a good proofing can run $750-$3500 or more.

If you're going to charge customers as much for e-books as you do for paperbacks, then you'd better damn well pay for proper proofing.

Publishers have zero sympathy from me on this. They're taking money hand-over-fist for e-books, without living up to their end of the bargain.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

There's an army of unemployed college grads who'd be happy to earn money correcting typos and/or grammar. Lots of college-educated waiters and waitresses who'd like to supplement their income. It's not as if Random House has to physically expand, to buy new office space, to get the job done. This is tele-commuting work, for independent contractors paid on a piece-work scheme. (I'd prefer that they be hired as employees, but the economy I'd like isn't the economy we have.)

Y'know, Kevin8or: honestly, there aren't. I know everyone thinks that there are affordable college grads up for grabs on every corner--but not at any type of piece-rate that is remotely affordable. I'm not being pissy about this, but as someone who does hiring moderately often, and just went through a spate of bodies for an admin ass't., it ain't as easy and affordable as it sounds. Most of the grads I interviewed wanted more money per hour (essentially) than my production crew leaders get; the latter of which are line, so earning me money, not staff, which don't. Nor will I make you roll your eyes by regaling you with my not one, not two, but myriad debacles with hiring new proofers and epub-editors, vis-a-vis your earlier comments about "outsourc[ing] the file to a low-wage proof-reader or two" and sending it back to "someone" in-house who makes the changes. That person in-house? Has to be paid. There's no magic wand that makes those changes. We find we can make about 30, maybe 45 edits to an epub in an hour, tops. We get some epubs with over 200 copyedits. I have to pay "someone" for those hours. That ain't free, and as I already said, the "low-wage proof-reader" is fantasy right up there with the belief that when you stealth-fart, no one smells anything, and no one knows it's you.

If you're going to charge customers as much for e-books as you do for paperbacks, then you'd better damn well pay for proper proofing.

Publishers have zero sympathy from me on this. They're taking money hand-over-fist for e-books, without living up to their end of the bargain.

Well, I'm not sure that the last statement is quite true; I suspect that like most folks, they are subsidizing their print costs with the ephemeral ebooks. Nonetheless, I concur with you that they shouldn't get away with egregious formatting/editing errors, and I stand by my last statement--SEND THEM BACK, and post nasty reviews. It rocked Harper Collins' world, which not only replaced every instance of Reamde on every Kindle and device out there (which had a purchased copy on it), but actually pulled the book while they fixed it--while the book was #4 in print, #6 in SciFi/Kindle and #36 in books overall. So...being adamantine WORKS. You guys are certainly vociferous enough here; now be vociferous where it will do some good.

P.S. - I also volunteer at DP, and everyone here bitching about proofing should, as well. I don't get there as much as I should, but it's a seriously worthwhile thing to do.

Again...just my $.02 for the day.

Hitch

[Kevin8or]

I'll accept what you say about the publishing industry. It's interesting to learn, and I know little about the business. Let's say, then, that the proofing costs continue to be "$750-$3500 or more." It doesn't change the most important point, which we seem to agree on: if a business sells an e-book for $7.99 or more, that e-book should get the same proof-reading treatment that its paper counterpart receives. Thanks, Hitch, for an inside look at the sausage-making operation.

[Rob Lister]

I kinda get where Hitch is coming from.

I doubt a publisher of any repute is going to risk allowing a low-wage proof reader with little or no culpability to be what amounts to the final say of a published work.

From their point of view, if they have some demand for the ebook version and they just take a straight OCR conversion (mistakes be damned) then they know pretty much what the output is going to look like. They can accept the reality of OCR-type errors without worrying that some idealist proof-reader decides to make actual editorial changes to the actual book...or worse.

So the reality is that the now-proofed work is going to have to be thoroughly reviewed by at least one and maybe more higher level full-fledged editors just to ensure that nothing untoward was 'proofed into' the work. How much does that cost?

But all that aside, lets say they go that route, trust the low-wage proofer, and just output that product directly. If a publisher takes a low-level backlist book from some obscure author with a minor following and spends $1000 to get it proofed, they need to sell at least 100 just to break even (gross, not net). That might take 20 years, if ever. Their business model likely requires the return in no more than 5 years.

In a perfect world, the publisher would/should stand on principle and not release the non-perfect ebook work. The world isn't perfect so they decide to make the quickest buck with the lowest risk. Thus, your crappy e-book.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Hitch

It rocked Harper Collins' world, which not only replaced every instance of Reamde on every Kindle and device out there (which had a purchased copy on it), but actually pulled the book while they fixed it--while the book was #4 in print, #6 in SciFi/Kindle and #36 in books overall. So...being adamantine WORKS. You guys are certainly vociferous enough here; now be vociferous where it will do some good.

I agree completely with the idea of returning sub-par products... and I applaud HC for pulling REAMDE and fixing and replacing purchased copies. But having been able to compare the original and the revised version of that title, I just hope the early U.S. REAMDE version isn't truly considered an example of "atrocious, shameful formatting" by a "publisher that just doesn't care." Because in my opinion... the glitches were pretty trivial (no OCR errors that I know of); for all the outrage they seemed to produce. The outcry was disproportionate to the number of mistakes (IMO, again). Not that customers didn't deserve a new, fixed copy, but there are/were certainly more egregious examples of consumers being charged a premium for sub-par products out there that could serve to rally the troops

There's a "potato-pile!" effect when it comes to this sort of thing, and while it can be effective and produce results... I just don't like to see it used on titles that people wouldn't think twice about had they paid for the physical book and run into the same errors. Because honestly... I'm getting the impression that ebooks are being held to a higher standard, due exactly to the "you're making money hand-over-fist when ebooks cost nothing to produce" mentality).

So definitely rage against, and return, the "atrociously formatted" book (be it paper or electronic), but at the same time, let's keep the rage proportional to the actual atrocity. Keep in mind that there are mistakes in physical books that are corrected in later printings too. Those mistakes sometimes made those earlier "atrociously formatted" books more valuable to collectors.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Many people don't know this, but some of the largest ebook producers in the world will not accept edits, at all, post-production.

I can understand that. When I did design for print it used to send me barmy when they would want to change the copy just before it was ready to go to film. The final proof is what it says it is, not an excuse to re-write everything.

[Quexos]

Doesn't take cleverness to realize that if they can properly make print books which are electronic files before being printed, it stands to reason that they should be able to create at least the same level of error-free texts for ebooks. But there are always those like you who lack the basic gumption to realize this.

Originally Posted by elcreative

What a bunch of extremely clever people... how come you're not all producing perfectly proofed, edited and beautifully laid out books if it's so easy...

Quexos and RainingLemur have always known better regarding production than those who do it and howyoudoin is obviously reading a different article when he's talking about "OCR," where did that creep in...

As resident experts, let me know when your perfect publishing enterprises get off the ground and we can all bow down in awe and admiration...

[Quexos]

Proof-reading for ebooks should cost zero. Because there is no extra proof-reading effort to do, just use the file proof-read for print books and apply to ebooks.
Obviously obvious !

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

I'll accept what you say about the publishing industry. It's interesting to learn, and I know little about the business. Let's say, then, that the proofing costs continue to be "$750-$3500 or more." It doesn't change the most important point, which we seem to agree on: if a business sells an e-book for $7.99 or more, that e-book should get the same proof-reading treatment that its paper counterpart receives. Thanks, Hitch, for an inside look at the sausage-making operation.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

In a perfect world, the publisher would/should stand on principle and not release the non-perfect ebook work. The world isn't perfect so they decide to make the quickest buck with the lowest risk. Thus, your crappy e-book.

And in doing so they poison their own well.
How many people who buy one of these books and are put off by all the errors will assume that eBooks are just as bad, and stay away.
Trying to sell both high and low quality products, without any brand differentiation or warning of the difference, reduces the perceived value of your high value products.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by jupstin

Are you saying that publishers would hire more editors to produce acceptable ebooks if only there were qualified people available for the job?

No, he is basically saying the publisher do NOT want to hire more editors to produce good ebooks since that would eat into their profit.

And since most publishers would rather not have ebooks anyway since they take money away from their hardcover profits they just toss the ebooks out there without any editing and charge premium prices to make up for it.

[scubayak]

There is a false alternative being described by some here, as if the only two options are perfection and the situation we have now. While it is true that professional proofreading to eliminate nearly every typo is virtually a lost art, the errors I see in ebooks are not due to a failure to proofread but simply a failure to read at all. I have seen ebooks with as many as 200 typos and commonly see them with about 50. Most of them are egregious and easy to spot. In fact, all it would take to eliminate 90% of the typos I see in ebooks is to have someone, anyone, read the book on a Kindle or Nook before release; not proofread it, just read it. Or, for crying out loud, at least run it through a spellchecker, which would catch some of them.

I worked in book publishing for many years, and the reality is that the publishers truly don't care about typos. The idea of taking pride in one's work, while still existent among many individuals, is not really a part of corporate culture in America, certainly not in the book publishing industry today.

[Serpentine]

Originally Posted by Hitch

the books have to be produced (and anyone here who thinks that there are $5/book workers out there, in WHATEVER country--try to find one.); they have to be proofed, separate and apart from whatever is going on with the DT version; etc.

If that's in reply to my '$5' - I wrote that more in the cost of getting back catalog to e-market, OCR and formatting (There are a number of places that offer <$10 pricing). A few books I've purchased, especially hard sci-fi have not even been glanced over. Some where spell-checking has been applied moving words completely out of context, prologues and preambles merged into opening paragraphs

Anyway, I agree completely with your post!