Typo Reporting

When you report a typo in the full PC version of Logos, it should let you know a typo report has been submitted.

It would also be nice if we could have some kind of tracking system for reported typos, that keeps track of how many typos you report, and what the status is of the typo.

People who contribute a lot of valid typo corrections should get purchase credit on Logos.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Robert M. Warren

Hi Randy:

Once upon a time, we received a confirmation email after a typo report, but that ended a few years ago.

SineNomine

When you report a typo in the full PC version of Logos, it should let you know a typo report has been submitted.

When you report a typo, a typo report is submitted.

It would also be nice if we could have some kind of tracking system for reported typos, that keeps track of how many typos you report, and what the status is of the typo.

Cf. https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-com-website/posts/typo-reporting-dashboard

People who contribute a lot of valid typo corrections should get purchase credit on Logos.

What is "a lot"? One hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand? Fifty thousand? If you and I both read the same lengthy typo-ridden text and submit the same five hundred typos, who gets 'credit' for them? If I report a systematic typo in a single typo report, the systematic correction might fix over a thousand typos. Should I get more or less credit than someone else who goes through the resource and separately reports seven hundred of them? If I submit a thousand valid typos and four thousand invalid ones while you submit nine hundred valid ones and five invalid ones, who should get more credit? What constitutes "valid", given that Faithlife can't correct source texts that it doesn't have a copyright for without permission of the publisher?

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1174195#Comment_1174195

What constitutes "valid", given that Faithlife can't correct source texts that it doesn't have a copyright for without permission of the publisher?

Twenty to twenty-five years ago, typos were quite common as a result of OCR dubiousness. It's hard to say how often typos found in published resources today are only found in the digital version, but I suspect it's not nearly as common as it once was. That said, if many of the typos Logos users encounter are in the hardcopy version as well, it would be helpful if such errors could be acknowledged and indicated. That way, users could procede without wasting time making fruitless reports and comfortably quote a resource using "sic" without fear that it is a digital-only mistake.

In some cases, such as with TWOT, the hardcopy is so riddled with errors that I finally just went ahead and purchased a hard copy of the text so I could check for myself whether the typos were on the page or solely digital artifacts. There's plenty of both kinds. Years back, Bob said he would push TWOT to the head of the line for a full text check, but I'm not sure what the current status is.

I suggest that FL's Typo Resolvers include a notation within the text of [sic] or even [sic--FL] for any typos that are in the published hardcopy manuscript. Because that is standard protocol for responding to typos, I don't see how publishers could complain. At the very least, these notations could be turned on & off like those annoying little megaphones that supposedly help to alert dullards to the fact that someone is actually speaking in the text.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1174224#Comment_1174224

I suggest that FL's Typo Resolvers include a notation within the text of [sic] or even [sic--FL] for any typos that are in the published hardcopy manuscript. Because that is standard protocol for responding to typos, I don't see how publishers could complain. At the very least, these notations could be turned on & off like those annoying little megaphones that supposedly help to alert dullards to the fact that someone is actually speaking in the text.

Something of that sort could potentially be helpful, I agree.

Thomas Glen Leo

I have never gotten any confirmation of receipt of any typos I've reported. Many are mis-linked links.

But one typo I reported - the first I reported - would, I would think, have drawn attention. There's a punctuation mark - an open single-quote mark (') - missing from a verse in the NASB 95 paragraph version. The single quote mark is correctly present in the NASB95 resource on Logos (the verse-by-verse version), and it's also present in the printed Bible produced by the Lockman Foundation, which owns the copyright in the NASB 95, so you'd think their own publications to be authoritative - and I referenced both of these in my typo report. Plus, the mark is obviously missing, given the context.

But this has yet to be fixed. I wonder how often Bible texts get updated.