[bksvol-discuss] Re: Don't trust those spell checkers!

  • From: "Julie Morales" <inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:05:37 -0700

Hi, Mickey, and thanks for saying this. I just read a cookbook that, when
meaning to fill something, it should have read "and fill," but read
"landfill" instead. *smile* In fact, if you're not going to read the book,
just running the book through Ranked Spelling, if you have Kurzweil, might
be a better bet to get an idea of how accurate it is, but don't make any
changes without looking over the context first. Take care.
Julie Morales
Email and Windows/MSN Messenger:
If your dog is fat, you aren't getting enough exercise. --Unknown
The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his
tongue. --Anonymous
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mickey" <micka@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 7:55 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Don't trust those spell checkers!

There's been some discussion about scanning books and running them through
the spell checkers. If the book gets a high rating, we assume good scans,
and may or may not read the books.
The validator may do the same thing, leaving such interesting lines as: "I
parked my ear in the parking lot." and others that don't come to mind right

I'm validating a book which has a lot of slight changes, and the ONLY way to
catch them is to read the book. Proper names which could be Cary or Gary,
street names which need checking, and ears which drive around the city of

I guess my point is really just not to trust our scanners and scanning
programs too far. These books still need to be read before we should put
them up for public consumption.


Other related posts: