Egregious typo! Could we have a "common typos" list for Logos to check new titles against?

Ten Epochs of Church History just shipped. One of the volumes has this clunker on the title page:

Whenever I find a typo that is easily explained by tangled fingers or OCR errors, I search my entire library for other instances of it. In this case, chruch shows up 122 times in my library. Ugh! I'll try to go through and "Report Typo" for all of them, but that's going to be time consuming. There should be a way to add such things to a list of "common typos" that the Book Development team could regularly scan all of the Logos catalog for, particularly whenever a new title is being given its final proofing before release.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

David Paul

Whenever I find a typo that is easily explained by tangled fingers or OCR errors, I search my entire library for other instances of it. In this case, chruch shows up 122 times in my library. Ugh!

Wow! That's not just embarrassing. It's humiliating.

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/586364#Comment_586364

I have 198 occurrences of the word "Chruch" in my library. I would still rather see the investment dollars in resource (different skillset) go to making Cited By work better though :-)

fgh

I can understand why they don't try it in a case like this:

but in general: why on earth can't they do a common spellcheck before they release?! Yes, they'd get a lot of false hits for foreign names and the like, but clicking their way through those should be much faster, and therefore cheaper, than going back to correct errors later. And they'd get a lot happier customers.

(And, yes, they should keep a list as well, as a normal spellcheck wouldn't catch things like 'modem'.

Paul N

So do the presence of typos cause Logos to index these 'extra' words for searching, thus technically enlarging the indexing process?

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/586458#Comment_586458

Not only is this annoying, I imagine it also creates false negatives when searching. This is true for all typos, theoretically. It isn't a "no big deal" issue, just slap a "sic" on it and move along. We are getting degraded functionality when these things occur and are allowed to linger.

Thomas Ball

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/586469#Comment_586469

I'll put in a case to fix some of these miss-spellings. I doubt a "mass" or "common" misspellings tool will be created though. In our defense I did a search for "chruch" and "chrurch" and got a combined 211 results across 141 resources. Many of these are going to be publisher errors and the accuracy rate when compared to 4.6 million results for "church" is very good.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/586536#Comment_586536

Many of these are going to be publisher errors...

I'm not a betting man, but even assuming the typos came in publisher-submitted files, they would almost never correspond with the print versions.

I doubt a "mass" or "common" misspellings tool will be created though.

Then the text department is not using technology maximally. AFAIK it was only not long ago that errors like Cod (for God) were weeded out. If you don't have a list of egregious typos (L.E.T.) these errors will slip through again in new titles.

Milkman

According to some Baptists this is not a typo. First Baptist Church of Trenton Florida would beg to differ.

Maybe some discipline is needed toward Logos.

[:D]

mm.