[bksvol-discuss] Re: Adventures in Proofreading
- From: Cindy Rosenthal <grandcyn77@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:34:44 -0800
I no longer scan (sadly, because I really liked providing books for people
and finding books and authors I'd never have known about if they hadn't
been requested) but when I did it had to be a page at at a time me because
of the kind of scanner I had
Bit as proofer I've had scans that had been done 2 pages at a time have
the second page bleed over onto the first page; disconnecting them is like
untying a shoelace knot (none of hese were yours, Roger) soi f you try
that, be careful
God luck; as Roger says it's probably a good idea to have another scanner
Cindy
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Roger Loran Bailey <
dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Kim, you learn scanning pretty much the same way you learned proofreading.
> You just go ahead and do it and if you have specific questions as you go
> along you ask here. Your first attempts are likely not to be so good, but
> you adjust your settings and techniques as you go along until you get an
> acceptable scan. Then it is the same as proofreading. You try to get as
> perfect a copy as possible before sending it to be proofread and then the
> formal proofreading is just to check up on you to be sure that you didn't
> miss anything. Personally, I scan in two page mode and scan two pages at a
> time and preproof those two pages before going on to the next two. That way
> if I make a mess of things I can just rescan the two pages on the spot. If
> you try that yourself you might perfect your technique with just two pages.
> That is, just rescan the same two pages until you get it right and then you
> have a technique. Bear in mind that when you get to the next book you may
> have to adjust your technique a bit, but eventually you will learn the
> likely variations and that will become a technique itself. By the way,
> proofreaders considerably outnumber submitters right now and it keeps the
> checkout list depleted. If you can get over your scanning phobia it would
> help balance things out a bit.
>
> On 12/10/2014 11:21 AM, Kim Friedman wrote:
>
>> Behold: innocent proofreader is reading through a nice little document
>> until
>> coming across something strange. What is that thing? It's a surname with
>> two
>> parts with a single letter, then a space and the second part of the name.
>> Both parts are capitalized. I have never encountered such a phenomenon
>> dear
>> reader. Imagine my surprise. So I naturally make a nice little copy of
>> said
>> phenomenon and the fun begins! I send a message to the submitter who
>> replies. Back and forth the messages fly until we've established that the
>> single letter is supposed to be accented. But what sort of accent I ask?
>> Being told how it looks doesn't mean a thing to me since I've always read
>> Braille. I write back. Is it a tilde, a circumflex, an umlaut, an accent
>> grave, or an acute accent? The response comes: the accent is not a tilde,
>> umlaut, circumflex, or a grave accent. It's like the word déja vu.
>> Fortunately for me, I had taken a course in French so I had a pretty good
>> idea of what was wanted. Light goes off in my head and I write back: Is
>> what
>> we're looking for an acute accent? I am requested to show an example of
>> the
>> acute accent. Bingo! I am informed that is the very accent. Now the
>> question
>> arises: is said accent supposed to be for a capital letter or for a small
>> letter. I end up writing again showing an acute accent with a capital and
>> one without. Through much persistence, we have finally settled on the
>> definitive answer: said accent should be capitalized. Sometimes
>> proofreading
>> requires a bit of detective work, especially if you come across a word
>> you've never encountered or something like what I've just mentioned. I
>> know
>> there are those who would rather suffer the torture of a thousand cuts
>> than
>> doing any sort of proofreading. They'd prefer to scan documents which is
>> great for me since I'm a scanophobe (or to be more precise, intimidated by
>> the whole idea of scanning). (I would be willing to give it a try if there
>> was someone there who would show me how to go about it, to know the sorts
>> of
>> settings I should use, and if I had a scanner which could be used with
>> whatever book I might use. (The one I've got would probably do great for a
>> paperback book but not for something larger. (It's a Cannon LIDE-90. (I
>> have
>> no idea how this one rates with submitters, but should like to know.) So I
>> am perfectly contented to let others do the submitting while I do my bit
>> to
>> make sure those files are proofread the best way I know how so the file
>> will
>> be a pleasure to read. (I get to read the file before anyone else does and
>> when I send it up, I can deliver my honest opinion about the perfidy of
>> publishers leaving in typos, the great scan by the submitter, and anything
>> else that needs remarking upon. (I've yet to just send something up
>> without
>> commenting on it.) So all of you who are starting out proofreading, I wish
>> you much success in your endeavor to make the submitter's file look great.
>> As you continue, you'll get more and more proficient, and if you're a
>> deranged perfectionist, then you are the best type of proofreader in my
>> opinion. You will read every single word. You will be particular about how
>> many pages are actually in the file and what text belongs on what page.
>> You'll want everything to look nice, and you will probably be bugged by
>> publishers leaving in errors because it will offend you because you'd love
>> to get rid of it if you were only allowed. You will no doubt leave
>> comments
>> and you will have a sense of accomplishment that the file is finished,
>> sent
>> up, and approved. So here is to deranged perfectionists of every stripe,
>> whether they are submitters, proofreaders or those who could do both
>> scanning and proofreading. Regards, Kim Friedman.
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
>> bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list
>> of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line.
>>
>>
> To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
> bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list
> of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line.
>
>
Other related posts:
