Page 1 of 1 (5 items)
This post has 4 Replies | 0 Followers

Posts 21
Randy | Forum Activity | Posted: Thu, Jul 15 2021 5:41 AM

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.

Posts 1942
Robert M. Warren | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 15 2021 6:56 AM

Hi Randy:

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

Windows 10 (L9 Beta) | Android 9 (phone - L9 Beta) | Fire OS 7 (tablet - L9 Stable)

Posts 5552
SineNomine | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 15 2021 6:22 PM

Randy:
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.

Randy:
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

Randy:
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?

Posts 5419
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 15 2021 10:49 PM

SineNomine:
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.

ASROCK x570 Creator, AMD R9 3950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, Asus Strix RTX 2080 ti, 2tb m.2 Seagate Firecuda SSD (x2) ...and other mechano-digital happiness.

"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not."

Posts 5552
SineNomine | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jul 16 2021 12:22 PM

David Paul:
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.

Page 1 of 1 (5 items) | RSS