[bksvol-discuss] Re: Adventures in Proofreading

  • From: "Roger Loran Bailey" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
  • To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:50:04 -0500

I did have some pages bleed onto the opposite page when I first started scanning, but that is another example of having to perfect one's technique. It's a matter of keeping the book wide open and applying the greatest pressure to the spine. I rarely get that bleed over anymore, but if I did I would catch it in my preproofing and for a mistake like that I would delete the two pages and do them over right on the spot. That is another matter that one learns. A lot of the mistakes can be caught in the preproof and the ones that are not will likely get caught in the spell check which I follow every preproofing with, but after doing this so many times one gets a feel for what is worth correcting that way and what will be easier to just delete and rescan. By the way, a lot of things do still get past me, so it is not like my scans can do without proofreading. In fact, when I upload the book I get to the page that tells me how many unique misspellings are in my book and I always click the link to skim through the list of them and often I see scannos that I really wonder how they got past me. By that time, though, I consider it to be too late. The proofreader has to take care of those. Also, I use Open Book for both scanning and editing, so there is not as much that I could do if I was using a full fledged word processor. That means that I leave font size adjustments up to the proofreader too. However, whatever jobs the proofreader has to do with my scans I am sure that they are considerably better than my first scans.

On 12/10/2014 9:34 PM, Cindy Rosenthal wrote:
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 <mailto: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
        <mailto: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
    <mailto: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: