Some perspective on why ebooks are so filled with errors.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by 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 !

The proofing should really be done before it goes anywhere near a layout artist for either print or ebook, then you would have perfect copy for both. The fact that it doesn't is more a failing of management than anything else.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by 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.

Why do you always do that... what has gumption to do with anything... and I used to make a living doing design and proofing... but I gave up the proofing because it's a cr***y job that destroys any enjoyment in the reading material and is totally undervalued by everyone especially know-it-alls like you. As far as electronic files are concerned, again you show the vast range of your ignorance... files for print are MARK-UP files that include a huge quantity of formatting, layout and image placement commands - they don't convert well to any ebook format (and in some cases give worse results than OCRing) and YES, ebooks are still a secondary line as far as publishers are concerned and thus do get different treatment, not that indies seem to do any better either...still, just wait and see what you get if the prices do drop to next to nothing as many want...

[Quexos]

Ok you cannot be that stupid, I refuse to believe it, you either flaming or just arguing for the sake of argument itself.
Read again what I said, and also read the post that just comes right before yours from Mr Ploppy !
Again, OBVIOUSLY they should proof-read FIRST then work the files to anything specific like print or ebook. What they do now is proof-read further down the line of production when the file is specified for print and no longer compatible for ebook production.
Now if you still don't get it then I don't know how else to explain it anymore. I think everybody else understood in this thread.

And how on earth is proof-reading undervalued ? What are you talking about ???
If anything the issue here is the opposite, we do value proof-reading because it allows for books to be readable and with a minimum of errors like print books usually are.

Originally Posted by elcreative

Why do you always do that... what has gumption to do with anything... and I used to make a living doing design and proofing... but I gave up the proofing because it's a cr***y job that destroys any enjoyment in the reading material and is totally undervalued by everyone especially know-it-alls like you. As far as electronic files are concerned, again you show the vast range of your ignorance... files for print are MARK-UP files that include a huge quantity of formatting, layout and image placement commands - they don't convert well to any ebook format (and in some cases give worse results than OCRing) and YES, ebooks are still a secondary line as far as publishers are concerned and thus do get different treatment, not that indies seem to do any better either...still, just wait and see what you get if the prices do drop to next to nothing as many want...

[Quexos]

Exactly !
The issue being that they do it AFTER and then say that at that point in the process the result is no longer compatible with ebooks and that they don't want to invest in proof-reading AGAIN the text for the ebooks so they just publish it as it is and without further care. Thus the very low quality error-riddled ebook texts.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The proofing should really be done before it goes anywhere near a layout artist for either print or ebook, then you would have perfect copy for both. The fact that it doesn't is more a failing of management than anything else.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Ok you cannot be that stupid, I refuse to believe it, you either flaming or just arguing for the sake of argument itself.
Read again what I said, and also read the post that just comes right before yours from Mr Ploppy !
Again, OBVIOUSLY they should proof-read FIRST then work the files to anything specific like print or ebook. What they do now is proof-read further down the line of production when the file is specified for print and no longer compatible for ebook production.
Now if you still don't get it then I don't know how else to explain it anymore. I think everybody else understood in this thread.

And how on earth is proof-reading undervalued ? What are you talking about ???
If anything the issue here is the opposite, we do value proof-reading because it allows for books to be readable and with a minimum of errors like print books usually are.

Insults again and again... thank god for ignore... and as for proofing being undervalued, how dense are you??? People are not prepared to pay a decent amount to get it done... it's no good people like you (and others of greater intelligence) saying how they value proofing if they are not prepared to put their money where their mouth is...

[NightGeometry]

I have the English early release version of Reamde, and I hadn't even noticed it was littered with errors and atrocious formatting problems. Yeah, there are a couple of/off issues, but apart from that it doesn't seem bad. So... unless it gets a lot worse after about 1/3 of the way in I suspect people are exaggerating wildly.

I hadn't realised the early release was a mistake - I thought it was just progressive thinking

[Quexos]

You're making less and less sense with each post.
Why did you reply if you put "ignore" on ?
And what insults ? The only insults are the ones you throw at me. If I'm no good at least I make sense. I was discussing the issue and you had to start attacking me (as well as attacking others) for a reason that is beyond me.
Proof-reading and corrections are done but for printed books which is why those have a much better text. (or did you think printed books have a much more error free text by magic, now who's being dense?)
Do me a favor, actually activate the "ignore" function on me and be on your way. This is becoming pointless.

Originally Posted by elcreative

Insults again and again... thank god for ignore... and as for proofing being undervalued, how dense are you??? People are not prepared to pay a decent amount to get it done... it's no good people like you (and others of greater intelligence) saying how they value proofing if they are not prepared to put their money where their mouth is...

[Keryl Raist]

Originally Posted by 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.

You know, for popular authors this would be insanely easy to do. Video games have lists of people in line to be beta players. How hard would it be to get people to do that for books? Sure you'd have some spoilers creeping out, but you'd also get cleaner books for minimal costs.

Movie studios do this. They don't pay test markets to go see movies and let them know what needed work. Why not have test readers?

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Insults again and again... thank god for ignore... and as for proofing being undervalued, how dense are you??? People are not prepared to pay a decent amount to get it done... it's no good people like you (and others of greater intelligence) saying how they value proofing if they are not prepared to put their money where their mouth is...

Are you even aware of how nonsensical the argument you make is?
People have jobs, you know? How about the people whose job it is to actually bring out these books do their work properly and instead of blaming the readers? Talk about short-changing your customers.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Are you even aware of how nonsensical the argument you make is?
People have jobs, you know? How about the people whose job it is to actually bring out these books do their work properly and instead of blaming the readers? Talk about short-changing your customers.

Are you even aware how stupid your comment is... yes, people have jobs but there are NOT ENOUGH people, to proof all the hundreds of thousands of backlist and new books coming out, of a high enough standard... many of them are doing what they think of as a bit of temporary work until they can get a proper job with decent pay... the properly proofed stuff is coming via those who do get a decent income and take pride in their work but there are NOT ENOUGH of them... the alternative is to not bother at all doing ebooks except those that can be proofed in this way which would be fine because then all you could moan about was how slow ebooks were in appearing...

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Are you even aware how stupid your comment is... yes, people have jobs but there are NOT ENOUGH people, to proof all the hundreds of thousands of backlist and new books coming out, of a high enough standard... many of them are doing what they think of as a bit of temporary work until they can get a proper job with decent pay... the properly proofed stuff is coming via those who do get a decent income and take pride in their work but there are NOT ENOUGH of them... the alternative is to not bother at all doing ebooks except those that can be proofed in this way which would be fine because then all you could moan about was how slow ebooks were in appearing...

You can't quite seem to decide what the excuse of the day is. It is either that proofing costs too much, so they couldn't make any money if they had to produce a quality product. Or that it is that they want to produce a quality product, but there aren't enough staff to do it.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Are you even aware how stupid your comment is... yes, people have jobs but there are NOT ENOUGH people, to proof all the hundreds of thousands of backlist and new books coming out, of a high enough standard... many of them are doing what they think of as a bit of temporary work until they can get a proper job with decent pay... the properly proofed stuff is coming via those who do get a decent income and take pride in their work but there are NOT ENOUGH of them... the alternative is to not bother at all doing ebooks except those that can be proofed in this way which would be fine because then all you could moan about was how slow ebooks were in appearing...

Bollocks. You don't get enough people good enough to proof read well because you don't want to pay them well.

If you're going to charge the same for an ebook as you do for a paperback, you've got to ensure that the same quality is provided. Its as simple as that. Don't try to blame the a lack of workforce for your stinginess and eagerness to make as much money as you can by bringing out a shoddy ebook version.

[CommonReader]

The impression I get from this argument is that the workflow has never been properly adapted to cater for both paper and ebooks. In that case I wonder why we should be expected to pay so much for ebooks if they are being created so sloppily. Couldn't proof-reading of backlist titles be farmed out to India?

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

All they have to do is to proof-read the OCR'd output that serves as the source for the e-book. This isn't rocket science.

Yup, just simply rubbish proof-reading, surely.

[vxf]

I teach at one of the top-fifty research universities in the US, mostly to undergraduate business students - but occasionally to graduate ones as well (MBAs). While I should refrain from commenting on the skills and capabilities of my own students in any extensive manner, let me just say this - I doubt the great majority would be capable of successfully proofreading a comic book. 'Subtle' distinctions between "it's" and "its" or "lose" and "loose" are completely lost on many of them. If graduate students at a research university are unable to spell, where are proofreaders supposed to come from?