I have reported this typo to Logos but I could not resist posting it here! No offence intended..
Made me smile. If it was in the print document then I doubt that Logos will change it.
According to Google Books, it is not. To be honest, that would be caught by most print editors.
http://books.google.ca/books?ei=o32mUs7dE8ngrQH6kIDoCQ&id=lXAlAQAAIAAJ&dq=lincoln+ephesians&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22from+the+second+half+of%22
And all this time, I thought Jesus was a Honda guy...
Why? Because his disciples were in one Accord? [:)]
I hope they fix serious typos, whether Logos or Vyrso editions.
his disciples were in one Accord
Nailed it.
Notice the author of the volume is Lincoln!
For the record I found it in TableTalk Magazine as well:
I've reported it.
TableTalk could have received the bad copy from Logos... OR... the publisher could have updated their copy.
I found it in several other places: The Assurance of Faith by Louis Berkhof, and a couple of Spurgeon's Sermons. Have reported all. Whenever I find a typo of this nature (wrong word substituted, obvious scanning/OCR error), I do a complete search in my library for other occurrences and often come up with several more.
For the record, that is not the funniest typo I've ever seen. This one comes up frequently, as a typo for "fact", "far", "art", "part", and so forth. They appear to have fixed most of the occurrences I'd reported in the past, but I just found a few more today.
Logos should correct these typos ASAP.[Y]
Logos should correct these typos ASAP.
Logos should correct these typos ASAP. I fully agree IF they aren't in the original. Logos should NEVER change what was in the original, unless corrected by the publisher/author.
I think they should correct them even if they are in the original. The human eye will read over errors in printed copies, but the Logos search engine will miss picking up a valid search hit (or report false positives). Some people may be really looking for what an author wrote about "modern" times, there was a serious discussion (including papal bulls) about modernism etc. And research into this shouldn't be put at risk due to an OCR reading "modem" in these cases.
For publishers, a printed edition usually is a "fire and forget" situation. Unless they provide an "errata" sheet (which would mean they have a number of serious errors, not just misspellings), they won't ever touch it until the next edition.
To avoid "tampering" with the original, something like a correction overlay (like a visual filter) would be best - keeping the old, users can turn it on/off - and it could be made to accept proposed corrections from the crowd. Now they only need to tell the index to give the search results...
For what it's worth there are lots of surfers in some of my books (most of them Catholic, who would have guessed?).
"I wish to surfer, because Thou, O Lord, hast suffered; do Thou in every way fulfil Thy will in me, and may it never be the pleasure of Thy Majesty that a gift of so high a price as that of Thy love, be given to people who serve Thee only because of the sweetness they find thereby."
Haha.
I do wish that the Logos architecture could change in a way so as to enable seamless book updates to fix small changes such as this (without restarting and so on.) I feel they wait for a scheduled software release to fix typos since otherwise people would be steamed having to restart Logos for every typo fix.
I feel they wait for a scheduled software release to fix typos since otherwise people would be steamed having to restart Logos for every typo fix.
I haven't seen any real relationship between software releases and minor updates (sometimes major releases do require significant updates to core resources but that's a separate issue). Often resource updates are shipped outside of any software release.
You are right that incorporating these updates does require a restart
Knew what was coming when I saw this part, but the quoted text still cracked me up. (Having spent 20+ years in the US Navy may have given me a different perspective on crude language than some others in these forums have [8-|])
(wrong word substituted, obvious scanning/OCR error)
Logos has said that resources are double typed, not scanned. But that doesn't seem to fit with the number of this type of error that we see.
Logos has said that resources are double typed, not scanned.
Can someone explain exactly what "double typed" means?
Logos has said that resources are double typed, not scanned. Can someone explain exactly what "double typed" means?
My understanding is that it means that two people type it out and then you check for any differences between the two. In theory, it should be unlikely that the two typists will make the same mistakes.
Some books are scanned. https://www.logos.com/features/bookscanner
For the record, that is not the funniest typo I've ever seen. This one comes up frequently, as a typo for "fact", "far", "art", "part", and so forth. They appear to have fixed most of the occurrences I'd reported in the past, but I just found a few more today. Knew what was coming when I saw this part, but the quoted text still cracked me up. (Having spent 20+ years in the US Navy may have given me a different perspective on crude language than some others in these forums have )
Knew what was coming when I saw this part, but the quoted text still cracked me up. (Having spent 20+ years in the US Navy may have given me a different perspective on crude language than some others in these forums have )
I'm now disappointed that I only ever find boring typos to report. I did a search of my library for occurrences of the word above, and actually found a whole lot of legitimate occurrences, but no typos (that I could see, anyway).
legitimate uses??? Now I am intrigued
Logos has said that resources are double typed, not scanned. Can someone explain exactly what "double typed" means? My understanding is that it means that two people type it out and then you check for any differences between the two. In theory, it should be unlikely that the two typists will make the same mistakes.
That's what I guessed it meant but that must be expensive.
Logos should correct these typos ASAP. I fully agree IF they aren't in the original. Logos should NEVER change what was in the original, unless corrected by the publisher/author. I think they should correct them even if they are in the original. The human eye will read over errors in printed copies, but the Logos search engine will miss picking up a valid search hit (or report false positives). Some people may be really looking for what an author wrote about "modern" times, there was a serious discussion (including papal bulls) about modernism etc. And research into this shouldn't be put at risk due to an OCR reading "modem" in these cases. For publishers, a printed edition usually is a "fire and forget" situation. Unless they provide an "errata" sheet (which would mean they have a number of serious errors, not just misspellings), they won't ever touch it until the next edition. To avoid "tampering" with the original, something like a correction overlay (like a visual filter) would be best - keeping the old, users can turn it on/off - and it could be made to accept proposed corrections from the crowd. Now they only need to tell the index to give the search results...
You guys should check out this old thread where even funnier typos were found. Trust me and don't read it while drinking anything.
And here's one I found in WBC's commentary on Daniel 3:1
[...] as Nebuchadnezzar’s falling prostate before Daniel (2:46—the same words) implied acknowledgment of Daniel’s God.
(should be prostrate)
If it is an obvious error, why not fix it?
Because it isn't proper, nor likely legal. The only one with the right (and responsibility) to change the work is the author/publisher.
Anyone who has scanned a large old documents that had a handset typeface will have come across words that often get miss-recognised in that document. One I did some time ago insisted in putting 'bath' instead of 'hath'. At least I could use the 'find' facility in word to check out all the usage of 'bath' to see if each should be 'hath' once I had recognised the regularity of the miss-recognition.
I have a GREAT respect for the guys at Logos after my experiences.
And here's one I found in WBC's commentary on Daniel 3:1 [...] as Nebuchadnezzar’s falling prostate before Daniel (2:46—the same words) implied acknowledgment of Daniel’s God.
I hate those exams!
I found the same as in OP in WBC vol 42: comment on Ephesians 5.15
Yes the WBC was my initial source ...
And here's one I found in WBC's commentary on Daniel 3:1 [...] as Nebuchadnezzar’s falling prostate before Daniel (2:46—the same words) implied acknowledgment of Daniel’s God. I hate those exams! I found the same as in OP in WBC vol 42: comment on Ephesians 5.15
[:$]
If I had seen a dog in such agony as mine I would have pitied and helped the dumb beast; yet Cod spat upon me and cast me out as an offence,Vernon Grounds, “Counseling the Bereaved,” ed. Ralph G. Turnbull, Baker’s Dictionary of Practical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967), 228.Spiritual guidance which reveals the Christian obligation to serve Cod here and now as well as later, may be a profitable prescription.William L. Hiemstra, “The Hospital Ministry,” ed. Ralph G. Turnbull, Baker’s Dictionary of Practical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967), 232.No minister of the gospel should hesitate to summon professing Christians to a consecration of their money, their time, and their lives to Cod. It is an obligation but it involves more than duty. It is the way to victorious living.G. Ernest Thomas, “The Minister in Giving and Benevolences,” ed. Ralph G. Turnbull, Baker’s Dictionary of Practical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967), 334.
Precisely. These typos are probably OCR errors. And I doubt they would have made it to the print edition, uncorrected.
Can permission be sought from publishers to correct obvious errors?
For what it's worth there are lots of surfers in some of my books (most of them Catholic, who would have guessed?). "I wish to surfer, because Thou, O Lord, hast suffered; do Thou in every way fulfil Thy will in me, and may it never be the pleasure of Thy Majesty that a gift of so high a price as that of Thy love, be given to people who serve Thee only because of the sweetness they find thereby."
Good one. I just did a search for "to surfer" (which would never be the intended text) and found 17 occurrences.
Logos should really compile a list of errors like these that have been found in the past, which they can know beyond a shadow of doubt are not correct, and do an automated search for all of them every time they produce a new book from an old print source, to flush out these kinds of easy typos and save us all time reporting them later. And it would boost up their perceived accuracy level which would make customers happy.
I feel they wait for a scheduled software release to fix typos since otherwise people would be steamed having to restart Logos for every typo fix. I haven't seen any real relationship between software releases and minor updates (sometimes major releases do require significant updates to core resources but that's a separate issue). Often resource updates are shipped outside of any software release.
They usually save up resource updates for a couple of months or more and do a big batch of them all at once so that we don't have to be getting them in dribs and drabs and having to reindex every day. They used to pre-announce large batch resources updates on the forum (after we complained about the periodic surprises of enormous updates), but they seem to have trailed off in keeping up that practice, especially now that they've implemented the feature where the Home Page tells you what resources have been updated recently (also requested by users).
Logos has said that resources are double typed, not scanned. Can someone explain exactly what "double typed" means? My understanding is that it means that two people type it out and then you check for any differences between the two. In theory, it should be unlikely that the two typists will make the same mistakes. That's what I guessed it meant but that must be expensive.
My understanding is they outsource the typing to non-native English speakers in some foreign country where labor is cheaper. Skilled typists should be reasonably able to type in what they see accurately even if they don't know English, but if they both hit a word that is not very readable in the original, they could make the same mistake and wouldn't know that the word they've typed is not a real English word or is definitely the wrong word for the context. So it is quite possible that mistakes would make it into the final resources this way.
Also, Logos definitely does scan some resources, as Lynden pointed out. And sometimes they acquire digital texts from elsewhere which were already input by a scanning/OCR process. So the errors might be already in the texts they receive.
Jack wrote Knew what was coming when I saw this part, but the quoted text still cracked me up. (Having spent 20+ years in the US Navy may have given me a different perspective on crude language than some others in these forums have Geeked) Jack it might be that we are just good old North Carolina people that this is funny.
Oh Jack and Armwood. F*rt jokes are funny to pretty much anyone who has ever been a little child before. Some people outgrow them, or their Christian sensibilities make them squelch any hint of delight in that humor. But even the Dalai Lama finds this particular bodily function worthy of giggling about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEJI1lLCMbg
Thanks Rosie. I learn something new every day and this is one of them for today.
I did a search of my library for occurrences of the word above, and actually found a whole lot of legitimate occurrences,
Dictionary entries, for one.
But also Martin Luther used that word quite a bit in his writings. And it appears in the Babylonian Talmud, and Erasmus's works, and others. Here are a few examples:
See this thread (six posts in a row back and forth between me and Mark Barnes) for when Mark first discovered this through a serendipitous search for something else.
See this thread
See this thread Rosie, that led me to read the posts (back in 2010) related to LCV, BWS and basic search (serendipitous discovery in an opposite direction). Here's my thread-hijacking-question: how much, do you think, we are better off now (with LCV) than >3 years ago?
Depends on how many more resources we've acquired in those three years. My library has grown exponentially, so even with LCV being rolled out in many references resources, it can't keep up with the growth of my library, and I still find many of my searches give me way too many results. I spend hours tagging and creating collections to limit my searches, which helps some. But with a library as big as mine (nearly 12,000 titles now) it's just not possible for me to keep up with the labor required to curate it properly. I'm personally not getting as much out of my library as I could. But I don't have the time to invest to be able to get more out of it.
Peace, Jack! Did you not -- I seem to remember that you did? -- have some of your navy experiences in Lake Michigan during the 1950's?? Just curious, eh???!!!
Actually, it was on the western shore of Lake Michigan from June 55 until May 56—That was Boot Camp and rather extensive training.
Oh Jack and Armwood. F*rt jokes are funny to pretty much anyone who has ever been a little child before.
Quite a few people seem to suppress the memory of that period of their lives—I was once one of those poor, deluded souls.
HI JACK! *smile* That's sort of what I thought!
I was a student at Concordia College, Milwaukee from 1954 through 1957 ... Some of us used to drive down to Lake Michigan at night and keep our eyes spotted in case there were any enemy submarines off the Milwaukee shores that needed watching .......... Submarine watching was not that uncommon ...... *smile*
See this thread Rosie, that led me to read the posts (back in 2010) related to LCV, BWS and basic search (serendipitous discovery in an opposite direction). Here's my thread-hijacking-question: how much, do you think, we are better off now (with LCV) than >3 years ago? Depends on how many more resources we've acquired in those three years. My library has grown exponentially, so even with LCV being rolled out in many references resources, it can't keep up with the growth of my library, and I still find many of my searches give me way too many results. I spend hours tagging and creating collections to limit my searches, which helps some. But with a library as big as mine (nearly 12,000 titles now) it's just not possible for me to keep up with the labor required to curate it properly. I'm personally not getting as much out of my library as I could. But I don't have the time to invest to be able to get more out of it.
Deleted
Not sure this is funny… I reported it a long time ago:
Immorality (Heb. ˒al-māweṯ; Gk. athanasía, aphtharsía, áphthartos).†
I. God
In the Old Testament, the God of Israel is the “Everlasting God” (Heb. ˒ēl˓ôlām, Gen. 21:33; cf. Ps. 90:2), enthroned as Lord forever (9:7 [MT 8];
--appears in Eerdman's Bible Dictionary.
