Are Vyrso resources proofread at all?

It seems that Vyrso books are mostly auto-converted from documents provided by the publisher.

Yes, that's right.

Surely Vyrso resources deserve to be given a quick once-over by a human proofreader, to at least catch the particularly bad errors?

I agree with that, but that's the responsibility of the publisher, not Vyrso. The error is almost certainly in the ePub source files, not the conversion process. Vyrso is just the bookseller.

<edit>To demonstrate the point, the same problem appears to occur on the B&N preview.</edit>

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513472#Comment_513472

I agree with that, but that's the responsibility of the publisher, not Vyrso.

Naturally, if Vyrso is marketed as bargain-basement stuff, that would be okay. But Vyrso is not marketed as such. Anyway, do customers really care whose "responsibility" and whose "fault" it is when there are loads of really basic errors? Are they likely to be satisfied with something like "the Kindle version has the same errors" or "the Nook version has the same errors"?

Depending on the marketing and pricing, maybe. Or maybe not.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513590#Comment_513590

I agree with that, but that's the responsibility of the publisher, not Vyrso.

Naturally, if Vyrso is marketed as bargain-basement stuff, that would be okay. But Vyrso is not marketed as such. Anyway, do customers really care whose "responsibility" and whose "fault" it is when there are loads of really basic errors? Are they likely to be satisfied with something like "the Kindle version has the same errors" or "the Nook version has the same errors"?

Depending on the marketing and pricing, maybe. Or maybe not.

I'm not satisfied with errors in either Vyrso or Kindle, but I don't hold Logos responsible. I wish the publishers had a higher view of ebooks and took more care with them. If Logos did their own editorial pass on Vyrso books, they would be much more expensive and wouldn't compete pricewise with Kindle. That's why Logos and Vyrso are separate brands. One for quality and one for bulk. Can you imagine the manpower required to proofread the 12,000 books added to Vyrso in the past 2 years? Logos would either have to hire many more editors or else slow down the output to a trickle.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513590#Comment_513590

Naturally, if Vyrso is marketed as bargain-basement stuff, that would be okay. But Vyrso is not marketed as such. Anyway, do customers really care whose "responsibility" and whose "fault" it is when there are loads of really basic errors? Are they likely to be satisfied with something like "the Kindle version has the same errors" or "the Nook version has the same errors"?

I'm not suggesting you should be satisfied with error, and if you're unhappy with the book then the retailer is responsible for refunding your purchase, and perhaps even withdrawing the resource from sale. All I was suggesting was that it is the responsibility of the publisher, not the retailer, to proofread the books they publish.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513590#Comment_513590

in The Meeting of the Waters nearly all the footnotes are defectively formatted.

In a quick glance, I did not see this. Can you give a screen shot & description?

if Vyrso is marketed as bargain-basement stuff, that would be okay. But Vyrso is not marketed as such.

Vyrso resources ARE "bare bones" ebooks. What makes you think they are being marketed otherwise?

do customers really care whose "responsibility" and whose "fault" it is when there are loads of really basic errors? Are they likely to be satisfied with something like "the Kindle version has the same errors" or "the Nook version has the same errors"?

Sure. I want most of my ebooks in Logos. I would rather have the book in Logos with the typo than in Kindle with the typo any day.

If we take physical books or physical goods as an analogy, I would think that no matter how the responsibility is apportioned internally, the retailer should really take note of these quality issues.

Do you really think Barnes & Noble inspects their paper books for typos?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513591#Comment_513591

Considering the pricing and marketing position between Vyrso and other ebook brands, I'm not sure Vyrso should pass all responsibility to the publisher.

And if we take physical books or physical goods as an analogy, I would think that no matter how the responsibility is apportioned internally, the retailer should really take note of these quality issues.

To take matters to the extreme, supposing readers catch the really horrendous, systematic errors and submit typo reports, can, or should, Vyrso say "that's the way we got them, and we won't fix it until the publishers bother to"?

[That's assuming that the errors originate from publisher files. Frankly, there are some errors which I am pretty certain can't be from publisher files.]

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513607#Comment_513607

To take matters to the extreme, supposing readers catch the really horrendous, systematic errors and submit typo reports, can, or should, Vyrso say "that's the way we got them, and we won't fix it until the publishers bother to"?

Yes, unfortunately that is the way the contracts with the publishers are. Logos is not even allowed to fix blatant typos. The publisher has complete control over the content, so it's their fault if something is wrong.

Perhaps Logos needs to be clearer about this in the marketing of Vyrso books. (Some disclaimer such as "Not responsible for errors in book content.")

It's the same with Kindle books too, though I don't think Amazon goes out of its way to explain that in its marketing materials. I guess enough people have been using Kindle books by now that they've grown to expect typos and just shrug it off as a fallout of the digital era.

It bothers me too, but with the volume of books the publishers are able to pump out these days, there is no way each title is going to get the kind of careful editorial attention that books used to in the good old days.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513607#Comment_513607

To take matters to the extreme, supposing readers catch the really horrendous, systematic errors and submit typo reports, can, or should, Vyrso say "that's the way we got them, and we won't fix it until the publishers bother to"?

Yes. A reseller cannot "fix it." That is the responsibility and purview of the publisher alone.

That's assuming that the errors originate from publisher files. Frankly, there are some errors which I am pretty certain can't be from publisher files

If the errors are on Logos side, they would be responsible for fixing them.

Again, can you give a screen shot and description of the problem? I couldn't find what you were concerned about.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513610#Comment_513610

Perhaps Logos needs to be clearer about this in the marketing of Vyrso books. (Some disclaimer such as "Not responsible for errors in book content.")

Nope. Not unless EVERY other reseller needed to do the same thing.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513614#Comment_513614

In a quick glance, I did not see this. Can you give a screen shot & description?

Do a search for "regarded as strict" to see what I mean.

Do you really think Barnes & Noble inspects their paper books for typos?

No, but if there are consistent fundamental errors, B&N would fully give a refund. I've had books with pages bound upside-down and pages missing, and returned them with full cash refunds and shipping.

But I would invite you to look at the analogy this way:

1. The retailer is not just passing along what the publishers give, but putting it through some kind of customization process, i.e. the retailer is also a participant in the process.

2. The fundamental errors afflict every single copy of the book sold (taking upside-down binding or missing pages as an example).

I am submitting that the retailer, in our case Vyrso, should not take a position that it is entirely the responsibility of the publisher if this kind of issue crops up.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513617#Comment_513617

No, but if there are consistent fundamental errors, B&N would fully give a refund.

So will Logos. Generously.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513617#Comment_513617

Do a search for "regarded as strict" to see what I mean.

I don't see what you mean. Here are the screenshots:

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513617#Comment_513617

I am submitting that the retailer, in our case Vyrso, should not take a position that it is entirely the responsibility of the publisher if this kind of issue crops up.

Nobody, least of all Vyrso, is saying that "it is entirely the responsibility of the publisher". We're saying that:

It is entirely the responsibility of the publisher to proofread the books
It is entirely the responsibility of the publisher to correct errors in the original files
It is entirely the responsibility of the retailer to correct errors caused by the conversion process
It is entirely the responsibility of the retailer to ensure customer satisfaction and to offer refunds if he/she is not satisfied (and in extreme cases to remove a book from sale)

We sympathise with your dissatisfaction, we just disagree about who should be doing the proofreading.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513623#Comment_513623

Look to the right of "regarded as strict". See the footnote? They're almost all like that: not superscript, and not tagged as footnote.

For an example of a correctly formatted footnote, search for "iniquity, travail, and turmoil" in the book.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513634#Comment_513634

Look to the right of "regarded as strict". See the footnote? They're almost all like that: not superscript, and not tagged as footnote.

That is what you are complaining about? Really?

For future reference, Logos/Vyrso makes no claims that such notes will be "footnoted" rather than the use of "endnotes," as is the case here.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513635#Comment_513635

This is an example of the sort of stuff that crops up, yes. It is especially wrong if read on a mobile.

You got a problem with my "complaint", Alabama?

You are Logos-starred. You really want to "make the claim" that Vyrso "makes no claims" about quality and typos and formatting, and therefore nobody should "complain" about that"? You really, really, really want to extend your view of marketing, and contract, to your other retail and economic activities?

I ask that certain Logos-starred people consider how reasoned and nuanced Rosie's reply is, instead of reacting like some kind of PR squad.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513636#Comment_513636

This is an example of it, yes. You got a problem with that?

It is pretty petty. Vyrso resources are "bare bones" ebooks, presented in a format compatible with the Logos system. Vyrso is competitive with other resellers, and has a slim profit margin on these resources. There are a few resources which, during the conversion process, turned out pretty bad. This isn't one of them.

Tom Reynolds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513636#Comment_513636

I read The Meeting of the Waters half in Kindle and half in Logos and in Kindle the footnotes work fine. I don't know why and I don't know whose responsibility it is but there you go.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513640#Comment_513640

@alabama24

I find your kind of condescending reply unhelpful. Even worse, you say things about Logos marketing that is not on their marketing. Do have some kind of inside knowledge a regular user doesn't?

This is exactly the kind of defensive, knee-jerk reaction that has turned some people with legitimate feedback away from these forums.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513635#Comment_513635

Look to the right of "regarded as strict". See the footnote? They're almost all like that: not superscript, and not tagged as footnote.

That is what you are complaining about? Really?

If the footnote isn't superscripted, I would consider that to be trivial. But if the footnote isn't hyperlinked (which I think is what Lee is saying), then that is pretty annoying.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513649#Comment_513649

If the footnote isn't superscripted, I would consider that to be trivial. But if the footnote isn't hyperlinked (which I think is what Lee is saying), then that is pretty annoying.

I agree with Mark on both counts.

I wonder whether this is a problem of the automated conversion process. Logos ought to be able to figure out what numbers are supposed to be endnote reference marks and automatically link them up. But perhaps they don't do that at all, or perhaps it doesn't work when the footnote marks aren't superscripted in the source files.

Anyway, there's a problem with the book. Lee is well within bounds to have called Logos out on it. Logos might very well turn up its hands and say "there's nothing we can do about it" but it isn't really our role to keep speculating about that and hammering it home. Someone from Logos ought to step in at this point to reply to this, instead of all of us offering our paltry attempts to placate Lee.

Hopefully the Vyrso product manager (Brian Williams) will notice this thread and respond.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513652#Comment_513652

Someone from Logos ought to step in at this point to reply to this, instead of all of us offering our paltry attempts to placate Lee.

Nobody needs to placate me, Rosie... [:)] It's just the rather strange, demagogic, condescending, PR-like responses of certain non-Logos employees that get me worked up. Throwing a lasso on this or that particular example is not helpful. I wanted to highlight possible deficiencies in a process which allows resources to be put out in a bad state.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513647#Comment_513647

Do have some kind of inside knowledge a regular user doesn't?

I spend quite a bit of time in this forum. I am reiterating what Bob and other Logos employees have said.

I agree that having the footnotes hyperlinked would be nice. As Mark said, I agree that it is "annoying" to not have them hyperlinked. As I tried to convey, these resources are automatically converted. My intention was not to be "condescending." You are entitled to your opinion… but I will voice mine as well. The choice is between Logos carrying these resources, at a good (but not necessarily great) quality, with relatively competitive pricing… or to not have them in Logos at all. I prefer to have them as is.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513660#Comment_513660

I will just say that I think regular posters in this forum (especially if they are red-starred) have a particular responsibility to come across as helpful, knowledgeable and impartial. Sometimes by implication, or even by statements imprecisely crafted, such posters come across as representing Logos or championing the Logos cause.

That is my reaction. But I have also observed the same reaction in other threads, with other users.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513663#Comment_513663

I think regular posters in this forum (especially if they are red-starred) have a particular responsibility to come across as helpful, knowledgeable and impartial.

I know that we disagree over this issue. I'm sorry if I upset you. I have a few thoughts:

Please read over my posts in this thread again. I hope that I was both helpful and knowledgeable in most of my posts. I told you that you could get your money back. I spent time hunting down the issue that wasn't clear in your first post and posted screen shots to help clarify the issue. I explained that Logos can't change publisher typos. I reiterated what Bob and other Logos employees have stated so that you would have the advantage of their perspective. In each of those comments my desire was to be both helpful and knowledgeable.
I have no desire to be impartial, nor do I think I have an obligation to do so. I am not impartial… I state MY opinion because it benefits me. I have a vested interest to see Vyrso thrive. I speak my mind and that comes across to some as "pro Logos" or "anti Logos," sometimes in the same thread… sometimes to the same people. [:P]

Brian Williams

It seems that Vyrso books are mostly auto-converted from documents provided by the publisher.

Sometimes that works, but sometimes it doesn't work so well.

For example, in The Meeting of the Waters nearly all the footnotes are defectively formatted.

I'm not talking about subtle errors that can only be picked up by a experienced proofreader. I'm referring to errors that would be obvious to any reader of English.

Lee, I apologize that you've experienced in-adequate footnotes in the resource you were referencing. We'd be more than happy to refund your purchase if you would like your money back. As many of the various forum members mentioned, we do our best to provide quality content, but sometimes errors pop-up. Whether the errors are our responsibility or the responsibility of the publisher we do our best to remedy such errors by tweaking our processor or notifying the publishers.

Surely Vyrso resources deserve to be given a quick once-over by a human proofreader, to at least catch the particularly bad errors?

As some of the previous forum members mentioned, this would not be a profitable venture for Vyrso to pursue.

Again, I apologize for the problems you have experienced. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to alleviate your frustration.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513685#Comment_513685

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to alleviate your frustration.

1. My "frustration", if any, stems from a minority of people who speak as if they are representing Logos, and feel compelled to throw in all kinds of irrelevant and off-putting observations. This is not a substantive issue.

2. Other than that, there is no frustration. I have said what I needed to say. If you could so kindly promptly attend to the errors pointed out in this thread, as well as the typo reports that I (and other users) have been submitting in general, that would be excellent. [Looking at this particular example I have raised, another user has reported that the same book in Kindle has properly linked notes. You could rectify this.]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513668#Comment_513668

I'm sorry if I upset you.

Apology accepted. You could review your posts again, at a later time. (This is something I tend to do with some of my controversial / critical emails.) There are things inside which you may, on later reflection, find in need of revision.

I spent time hunting down the issue that wasn't clear in your first post and posted screen shots to help clarify the issue.

Thanks. I'll just say that at least three other users who posted on this thread, understood what I was getting at with my example. I was not trying to be obtuse.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513730#Comment_513730

a minority of people who speak as if they are representing Logos

Lee, the MVPs do in a way represent Logos. Logos has asked them to be the first line of defense for answering users' questions, because there are too many questions for Logos to keep up with themselves. If necessary, MVPs can escalate the questions to someone within Logos.

They've been instructed not to badmouth Logos, though not necessarily to defend any shortcomings of Logos. They can have their own opinions and express those. They've been honored with the role of MVP because of being long-time Logos users who know the product well and generally have demonstrated helpfulness on the forums. They are all human, though, and sometimes fall into defensiveness or whatever. As does everyone. MVP's are not "above the law" in any sense, but they've usually been chosen because of their gift of diplomacy in addition to knowledge of the software. However it doesn't always come across that way to readers of their posts, because we all bring to the forums our own preconceptions of what is right when we read what others have posted.

Anyway, we are all, together, part of an online community of sinful human beings who desire to learn better how to use Logos to improve our effectiveness at studying God's word, but who sometimes misconstrue what each other are intending in our online communications. We all, MVPs and others alike, need to give each other the benefit of the doubt to keep things from getting unpleasant on these forums.

I was an MVP for a couple of years but stepped down due to time constraints, and because of this perception that MVPs somehow have to be super-human and never offend anyone and never see things from Logos's perspective or be blamed for being fan-boys and the like. It became hard for me to always be tarnished with that brush, whether I was a bumbling communicator myself or was just being lumped in together with a category of people who were perceived as such. Nevertheless, I maintain my deep respect for the amount of time the MVPs put into these forums, and I know what pressure they are under to be always helpful and gracious; and they don't get paid for what they do. So give them a bit of slack, please, OK?

Thanks for your understanding.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513737#Comment_513737

Rosie, you are a beacon of maturity.

Yes, I understand that we all have our off-days. I have those quite regularly. [:)]

May I suggest to MVPs: a little more diffidence, a little less officiousness, and a dose of "sorry" and "thank you" where appropriate. The last two, I find, are oft-forgotten words in the adult vocabulary. When those words are used properly, what a world of difference it makes!

they don't get paid for what they do.

That is what amazes me. Red-starred people can just write as regular users, I think, and most folks can understand. Or they could write as "experienced users". That species is liberally found in many other forums. But when red-starred (or otherwise) users start to write with "we are such and such" and "this is such a petty complaint" tone of voice, well they had better be (1) correct in their assessment; or (2) the official voice of Logos.

There is a way of replying which turns people off, in that it immediately suggests that someone could be, as you say, a "fanboy".

[Off-topic: maybe red-starred folks could be re-designated power-user, it would help newer participants appreciate the context]

Oh well, what a storm in a teacup! A good week ahead to all you!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513738#Comment_513738

May I suggest to MVPs: a little more diffidence, a little less officiousness

I'm sorry if it came across that way. The question of fixing errors in Vyrso books has come up often in the forums, and Logos' position is clear: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/33752/253166.aspx#253166 and http://community.logos.com/forums/p/56892/408198.aspx#408198. My comments reflected that certainty (although I wish I'd linked to those posts earlier in the discussion).

But when red-starred (or otherwise) users start to write with "we are such and such"

I'm not sure if that was directed at me or not, but the "we" in my phrase "We're saying that" meant "we, the people in this thread, are saying". It didn't mean "we MVPs are saying", and certainly not "me and Logos are saying". I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. We all speak independently of Logos, and independently of each other. You've been around long enough to know that if you put five MVPs in a room, we'd probably spend most of the time arguing about something or other (nicely, of course!) [:)].

"this is such a petty complaint" tone of voice

For what it's worth, I don't think alabama should have said that your complaint was petty (and I don't agree with him). Apart from my first post, I've tried to make clear that I believe you have a legitimate complaint, my only disagreement was about your proposed solution (not because it's a silly suggestion, but because Logos have already made clear that Vyrso can't work like that).

Oh well, what a storm in a teacup! A good week ahead to all you!

[:)]