SUGGESTION: Use AI for typo elimination
Since we get so many AI features, how about using AI to get rid of typos? Some resources still have a lot of them. Vote here:
Comments
-
It's a good idea, but I don't know if we have the right to unilaterally make changes to third-party content without the permission of the publisher or author. (And it could be problematic for those who need/want the electronic version to exactly match a print edition.) Maybe some kind of display-time-only visual filter...?
0 -
Bradley Grainger (Logos) said:
It's a good idea, but I don't know if we have the right to unilaterally make changes to third-party content without the permission of the publisher or author. (And it could be problematic for those who need/want the electronic version to exactly match a print edition.) Maybe some kind of display-time-only visual filter...?
Yeah, I don't think that would be the best thing to do about typos.
But it does suggest an AWESOME idea: how about using AI to find and create the thousands (millions?) of missing links in Logos resources?
0 -
Bradley Grainger (Logos) said:
It's a good idea, but I don't know if we have the right to unilaterally make changes to third-party content without the permission of the publisher or author. (And it could be problematic for those who need/want the electronic version to exactly match a print edition.) Maybe some kind of display-time-only visual filter...?
How about starting with work in the public domain? No permission needed for those, and many of them seem to have been created by OCR, as evidenced by frequent typos of mixing up f and s for example.
0 -
Jan Krohn said:
How about starting with work in the public domain?
But late enough to have standardized spelling and distinguishing between English, American, and other dialectic differences in spelling ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Bradley Grainger (Logos) said:
It's a good idea, but I don't know if we have the right to unilaterally make changes to third-party content without the permission of the publisher or author.
The Chicago Manual of Style (on which the SBL Manual of Style is based) provides: "Obvious typographical errors may be corrected silently (without comment or sic; see 11.69 [sic is used 'only where it is relevant to call attention to such matters']) unless the passage quoted is from [a] source where idiosyncrasies of spelling are generally preserved."
This provision is in the section about permissible changes in quotations (11.8 in the 15th ed.). The same concept appears in the definition of "reprint" (and I consider Logos editions to be digital reprints): "A reprint may include corrections." (p. 835 in 15th ed.)
The idea is that it is a professional courtesy for one publisher not to perpetuate or call attention to obvious typos in works of another. I expect the same principle is included in most, if not all, other style manuals.
The many obvious typos preserved in Logos resources (despite having been reported by users) are a pet peeve of mine. We're so used to spellcheck that we no longer remember how common and inevitable typos were in the older print publications that form such a large part of the Logos catalogue.
I have seen Logos users complain in these forums about all the typos, especially those that a simple spellcheck would uncover. They then deduce that Logos resources are produced without even this simple review for accuracy, and so cannot be trusted for accuracy overall. This distrust unfairly tarnishes Logos' reputation as a tool for scholarly research.
If Logos would pass along to the print publishers all the typos that Logos users have reported, I expect those publishers would welcome the corrections and incorporate them into future printings.
Dell XPS 8930/Intel Core i7-8700@3.20GHz/32GB RAM/Win10 Pro
Surface Pro 7/Intel Core i7-1065 G7@1.30GHz/16 GB RAM/Win10 Home
iPad Air/Pixel/Faithlife Connect
0
