I'm encouraging e-book publishing Out There.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Not so with the HP's I'm rereading now.

Yeah, I'm not fond of oversized paperbacks, either. Some of the last SF books I've bought have been just plain massive, hard to keep open, heavy to hold... who needs it? The bigger those books get, the more I'm convinced that we'd all be better off with e-books!

I've heard recently that publishers like thicker books, so they have room to put a picture on the spine that is displayed at the store. (Also, so they can justify charging more.) Here's a better idea: Interactive search kiosks that allow you to search by author, title, genre, sub-genre, theme/idea, and shows entire covers. Heck, I'd love a bookstore where I come in, sit at a kiosk, and scan about for books to download, instead of doing the crooked-head walk through shelves and shelves of identical-looking book-spines.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yeah, I'm not fond of oversized paperbacks, either. Some of the last SF books I've bought have been just plain massive, hard to keep open, heavy to hold... who needs it? The bigger those books get, the more I'm convinced that we'd all be better off with e-books!

I've heard recently that publishers like thicker books, so they have room to put a picture on the spine that is displayed at the store. (Also, so they can justify charging more.) Here's a better idea: Interactive search kiosks that allow you to search by author, title, genre, sub-genre, theme/idea, and shows entire covers. Heck, I'd love a bookstore where I come in, sit at a kiosk, and scan about for books to download, instead of doing the crooked-head walk through shelves and shelves of identical-looking book-spines.

Yeah! Just slip in an SD and your credit card and voilà!

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Anais9000

Yes, I'm saying that Sony is not proofing or formatting their books.

<snip>

Notice that they explicitly disavow any responsibility for publishing what THEY THEMSELVES are publishing.

Well ... Sony isn't publishing them, are they? They're selling them.

I occasionally find a typo in a paper book (seems to be more frequent the last ten years or so, actually), I don't blame Barnes & Noble for it.

I'm not saying that it's okay or that we should ignore it, don't misunderstand me. I'm just pointing out that errors in the copy-editing and layout are not going to be corrected by complaining to the clerk at the bookstore, you have to go to the publishing house for that.

[Anais9000]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Well ... Sony isn't publishing them, are they? They're selling them.

Sony is publishing them. That's why they're called Sony Classics. Or CONNECT eBooks CLASSICS.

I'm not talking about an occasional typo. I'm talking about the fact that there are hundreds of typos in most Gutenberg texts, sometimes thousands.

Even one typo can spoil a book. When Hester Prynne says, in the Gutenberg version: "So far as concerns the overthrow or preservation of his fair fame and his earthly state, and perchance his life, he is in my hands." ... she sounds like someone planning to blackmail a former lover. The most humble character in fiction becomes a suspect, because someone typed "my hands" instead of "thy hands" -- and nobody bothered to check.

OK, so that's an extreme example, but it spoils a book for me altogether when there are say, 500+ errors in it, averaging about one per page -- like the Dracula posted here recently by JSWolf. What makes it really sickening is that now they're appearing on Google Books with names like "The Authoritative Text" (just check the spelling of "Ordance [sic] Survey Maps" on page 2 of any edition to see if it's the Gutenberg version). And they're even appearing in bookstores! -- plain label-type publishers are taking these texts and selling them between covers for big money in Barnes & Noble.

In the olden days maybe there was an excuse for this -- not for publishers, but maybe for the amateurs like those in this forum. Who wants to go out and buy a copy of every book you post, and check it? But now practically eveything's available on Google books or Microsoft's http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=&scope=books

So all it would cost MobileRead members would be a little time to check the text. Instead, they format and upload crap copies. Like counterfeit money driving out good money, crap books are driving out the real thing.

[yvanleterrible]

I think that could be the result of older OCR but they still should have proof read texts before publishing, others do it!

[slayda]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

I'm a professional woodworker. I love woods and what I can do with them. The work I do will give that wood years of existence because of its beauty and value, probably longer than those tree's life times! I'm a dead tree lover for that reason but not for paper. And there are papers made from other vegetals than trees!
That's why I'd call'em paperheads instead.

You tell 'em yvan!!!

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Anais,
"Ignorance" and "prejudice" might be overly hard-sounding, but comments like "nothing but bad and unaccomplished authors," "can't hack it in real publishing," "I can't read on a computer screen," and "it'll just get corrupted or deleted," are the kind of comments I regularly hear about e-books (outside of this forum, obviously). Those are not the comments from well-informed people... those are people who are mis-informed, or behind the state of the industry, and are making subjective judgements as gospel.
[SNIP]

I particularly like the "nothing but bad and unaccomplished authors," "can't hack it in real publishing" comments. Let's see... that would be authors like Lois McMaster Bujold (currently tied for most Best-Novel Hugo awards ever, and frequent NYT bestseller (extended list)). Or David Weber (no Hugos, but has hit the top of the NYT bestseller list more than once). Or, via Project Gutenberg, such timeless greats as William Shakespear, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, and on, and on, and on.

It should be perfectly clear that there's "nothing but bad and unaccomplished authors," to be found in eBooks. Yup. And none of those folks could "hack it in real publishing." Riiiiiiiiiigggght.

Methinks I detect some sour grapes.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Anais9000

Sony is publishing them. That's why they're called Sony Classics. Or CONNECT eBooks CLASSICS.

I'm not talking about an occasional typo. I'm talking about the fact that there are hundreds of typos in most Gutenberg texts, sometimes thousands.

Even one typo can spoil a book. When Hester Prynne says, in the Gutenberg version: "So far as concerns the overthrow or preservation of his fair fame and his earthly state, and perchance his life, he is in my hands." ... she sounds like someone planning to blackmail a former lover. The most humble character in fiction becomes a suspect, because someone typed "my hands" instead of "thy hands" -- and nobody bothered to check.

OK, so that's an extreme example, but it spoils a book for me altogether when there are say, 500+ errors in it, averaging about one per page -- like the Dracula posted here recently by JSWolf. What makes it really sickening is that now they're appearing on Google Books with names like "The Authoritative Text" (just check the spelling of "Ordance [sic] Survey Maps" on page 2 of any edition to see if it's the Gutenberg version). And they're even appearing in bookstores! -- plain label-type publishers are taking these texts and selling them between covers for big money in Barnes & Noble.

In the olden days maybe there was an excuse for this -- not for publishers, but maybe for the amateurs like those in this forum. Who wants to go out and buy a copy of every book you post, and check it? But now practically eveything's available on Google books or Microsoft's http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=&scope=books

So all it would cost MobileRead members would be a little time to check the text. Instead, they format and upload crap copies. Like counterfeit money driving out good money, crap books are driving out the real thing.

Project Gutenberg is supposed to have proofreaders to do the proofing. I'm planning on becoming a proofreader. I did join the site. Just have to figure out how to do it. I want to work on the ORCed copy from the graphic pages so I can correct the errors in the OCRing process. So how do so many errors slip past the proofreaders?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Anais9000

I'm not talking about an occasional typo. I'm talking about the fact that there are hundreds of typos in most Gutenberg texts, sometimes thousands...

In the olden days maybe there was an excuse for this -- not for publishers, but maybe for the amateurs like those in this forum...

Anais, don't confuse MobileRead with Project Gutenberg. Some of us may contribute, but we are not the only ones who do.

That said, your point that these works should be better proofread is a good one, and I agree. There may be those who overlook proofing out of laziness, or out of some desire to rack up a lot of postings... and obviously, they should be doing better by their work. But this is a group effort, not one done by some glass-walled institution somewhere. The best we can do as a group is to point out what flaws we find, so that they can be corrected. Because until a deep-pocketed organization takes up the mantle, the only ones available to do it right is us.

I wish there was a way to prevent Sony from grabbing unproofed Gutenberg texts and publishing them. Perhaps no one's told them how rife with errors those texts are... again, it's our job to make sure they know that. And now that we are aware, we (including you) need to send Sony some letters, and include specific texts known to be wrong, so they can take appropriate action.

Again, when no one in authority is policing around here, we have to do our own policing.

[JSWolf]

The problem we have is even if we were to read the book before we posted it here, how would we know what is incorrect other then obvious errors such as typos? I mean when the error changes the meaning, how are we to know that it's not the way it's meant to be?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Project Gutenberg is supposed to have proofreaders to do the proofing. I'm planning on becoming a proofreader. I did join the site. Just have to figure out how to do it. I want to work on the ORCed copy from the graphic pages so I can correct the errors in the OCRing process. So how do so many errors slip past the proofreaders?

I don't know what's going on with PG's proofers, but perhaps they need a better (or more standardized, perhaps) OCR process in the first place, to minimize errors.

We've discussed this elsewhere on this forum. My personal recommendation has always been to photocopy pages to a larger size, as close to paper size as possible, and OCR from that... the larger the text, the fewer the errors. Without knowing how PG does it, though, I can't make a definitive statement, only suggestions.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The problem we have is even if we were to read the book before we posted it here, how would we know what is incorrect other then obvious errors such as typos? I mean when the error changes the meaning, how are we to know that it's not the way it's meant to be?

Only someone who has an original text (assuming they know that it's free of errors!) can check that... which means it's really up to the people who do the OCR to check against the text. Barring that, anyone else who has a clean text, or can borrow the original text, can check. If you don't have the original text, there's not much you can do.

[JSWolf]

On PG's proofing site, there are the scans for the given book to be proofed against are there for round one. So I really don't see how people can get it wrong unless they can't read properly and thus should not be proofing.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I don't know what's going on with PG's proofers, but perhaps they need a better (or more standardized, perhaps) OCR process in the first place, to minimize errors.

We've discussed this elsewhere on this forum. My personal recommendation has always been to photocopy pages to a larger size, as close to paper size as possible, and OCR from that... the larger the text, the fewer the errors. Without knowing how PG does it, though, I can't make a definitive statement, only suggestions.

If you want to know 'how PG does it' -- now, that is -- go visit www.pgdp.net. They have a very organized and effective method for proofing books that results in the cleanest available text. But Distributed Proofreaders has only been going since 2000, while PG got going nearly 20 years ago. At this point DP has produced (that is to say, scanned and proofed) a bit more than 50% of the total content at PG, and they're producing something like 95+% of what's getting added. That said, there's still the ~50% that didn't go through DP and which has a much higher frequency of typos, scanos, and OCR goofs.
I'm sure that there is some way of knowing which books arrived which way, but I don't know what it is.

[Anais9000]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

They have a very organized and effective method for proofing books that results in the cleanest available text.

That would be lovely if it were true, but it's not. Here for example are text errors (never mind punctuation) from Gutenberg's version of Castle Richmond by Trollope.

It has passed all levels of Distributed Proofreaders tests and been posted back to Gutenberg.org. BTW, these are just the errors in Chapters I and II.

I choose this particular example because the errors are so cut-and-dried; they're not the kind you can argue about (like toward/towards, etc.) Apparently, once they decide a text is perfect (sic) like this one, they no longer accept corrections. (I would be delighted to be shown to be wrong about this.)
--------------------------------------------

three--volumed manuscript which I held
three-volumed manuscript which I held

nor was he an absentee Castle Richmond had no
nor was he an absentee. Castle Richmond had no

slice of land, either out from the large
slice of land, either cut from the large

Thre is too much wine drunk
There is too much wine drunk

so well known in the country as was his cousin
so well known in the county as was his cousin

talk of the Hay House orgies
talk of the Hap House orgies

no fear as to he daughter had ever crossed
no fear as to her daughter had ever crossed

how very kind you are are!
how very kind you are to him!

than with her daughter On the last of these
than with her daughter. On the last of these

he had gone over respective a hunter
he had gone over respecting a hunter

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

She's got some some sort of a jointure
She's got some sort of a jointure