Wanna find typos in your resources? Search for "modem"

I found a scan error in one of my resources: "modem" instead of "modern". I figured this was a common error so I searched my library for "modem" so I could report more typos. Then I got discouraged:

This is a theological library, so the probably is that most of them are errors. Maybe someday I'll get them all reported.

I suggest Logos build a list of these common scan errors (especially words with "rn") and search for them to help auto-proofread.

Good suggestion.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/163952#Comment_163952

Is there an ancient or current city in the middle east with the name "Modem"? Just making sure...

also I'm noticing the Word Biblical Commentary carries the brunt of my mode m -> moder n errors. Is this due to it being published separately from Logos?

Thirdly, a quick search on Google yields the fact that many other people are not catching their scanning errors either!

David P. Moore

Then I got discouraged:

Goodness! You are are right--they are all over the place! Wish I could help Logos get them corrected easily.

Dave Hooton

I suggest Logos build a list of these common scan errors (especially words with "rn") and search for them to help auto-proofread.

Something to that extent was mentioned a while back. Certainly Logos are aware of the possibilities of the word list to detect typos.

TCBlack

Eeek! 796 occurrences in my library. zowie.

Douglas Stolberg

There is a town called "Modein" which was victim to the "modern" typo. I did report that one.

It appears the letter "N" is susceptible to the OCR process. So much for the digital age eliminating textual errors [:$]

I do like the typo report function.

Tom Reynolds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/164212#Comment_164212

Here we are almost two years later and I have 1403 occurrences of modem in my library. I'm actually surprised how many do refer to the computer modem but it seems no other typos have been fixed. e.g. Modein is still misspelled as modem. I wonder what percentage of typo reports are actually dealt with...in a timely manner.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/373982#Comment_373982

I wonder what percentage of typo reports are actually dealt with...in a timely manner.

Logos should have a statistic someplace.

The problem is the process: they hoard all typo reports in a place, then when they rework one of the 20' resources they take all typo reports for this resource, try to determine if the errors are in the printed copy as well, if so they communicate with the publisher, then they decide whether to resolve the typo or not (at least that's what I remember from a Logos employee explainig it).

So your modem example: if you didn't report it, it's not in the list for this resource: you lose. If you report it today and your resource was finished yesterday, you lose. If your resource is way down on the list, you lose. If the publisher made the error in the first place: game is open, but probably you lose.

I repeat: the problem is in the process. With a growing number of resources and a growing userbase, the fine people taking care of this can't possible fix the typos in a reaonable amount of time.

Some changes are discussed on the forum from time to time. I would ask them to go to the publisher only in cases that require factual clarification. I would like my Logos resources to be better than the printed copies and there can't be a reason to retain an error just because the publisher made it and not Logos. The publishers should be happy that we make the work of their downsized editing department! I would propose checking the (scan of the) paper copy only in dubious cases.

For me, the process should utilize crowd intelligence and be as much automated as possible. Proposed typo corrections should automatically be converted into a textual change in a sort of add-on layer - such as those possible with a visual filter, marking up corrected text somehow. Then I could choose to see the text with or without correction. The entries should work automatically for single correction proposals and logos should provide mass changes (like you propose) with a script. If they want to empower us even more, they could have us confirm or dispute a proposed correction and not show disputed ones.

toughski

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/373993#Comment_373993

I repeat: the problem is in the process. With a growing number of resources and a growing userbase, the fine people taking care of this can't possible fix the typos in a reaonable amount of time.

Some changes are discussed on the forum from time to time. I would ask them to go to the publisher only in cases that require factual clarification. I would like my Logos resources to be better than the printed copies and there can't be a reason to retain an error just because the publisher made it and not Logos. The publishers should be happy that we make the work of their downsized editing department! I would propose checking the (scan of the) paper copy only in dubious cases.

For me, the process should utilize crowd intelligence and be as much automated as possible. Proposed typo corrections should automatically be converted into a textual change in a sort of add-on layer - such as those possible with a visual filter, marking up corrected text somehow. Then I could choose to see the text with or without correction. The entries should work automatically for single correction proposals and logos should provide mass changes (like you propose) with a script. If they want to empower us even more, they could have us confirm or dispute a proposed correction and not show disputed ones.

[Y] good suggestion

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/373982#Comment_373982

Here we are almost two years later and I have 1403 occurrences of modem in my library. I'm actually surprised how many do refer to the computer modem but it seems no other typos have been fixed. e.g. Modein is still misspelled as modem. I wonder what percentage of typo reports are actually dealt with...in a timely manner.

Tom, curious to know what your top modem-for-modern offending resources were?

Who knew Schaeffer was so passionate about technology!

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/373993#Comment_373993

I would ask them to go to the publisher only in cases that require factual clarification.

I suspect that's impossible. It's probably a copyright issue.

The problem is the process

The main problem is that they don't get it right from the start.

Tom Reynolds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/374002#Comment_374002

Tom, curious to know what your top modem-for-modern offending resources were?

Who knew Schaeffer was so passionate about technology!

Hi Paul,

Schaeffer is number one with me as well.

The worst commentary is WBC Joshua, 22 hits in 14 articles, and another series on Jeremiah is pretty bad, 11 hits in 6 articles. I'm disappointed to see that many ICC volumes have this error as well. These were expensive and put out by Logos so they shouldn't have OCR errors.

The majority of the culprits seem to be from the Theological Journal Library which was OCRed by Galaxy. They were pretty good about fixing typos and posting new files on their own website before but now that Logos has taken over all downloads it might be more difficult.

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/374048#Comment_374048

WBC aren't produced Logos, they are 3rd party - "Thomas Nelson/Word".. mine is just as bad though I do get false positives.

I went with the overkill approach, and made a VF

I must confess Logos are getting better at fixing typos, but I also agree that you/me would not want a re-download for each typo fix, >200 in my case, so I think frustrating as it is the user experience is better as it is, but if they want to employ a typo fixer, then I may be willing to emigrate LOL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/374007#Comment_374007

I would ask them to go to the publisher only in cases that require factual clarification.

I suspect that's impossible. It's probably a copyright issue.

I'm not sure this is the case. Even if, the most beneficial contractual agreement would be to allow Logos to fix typos in the resource provided they inform the publisher so they can change them in their printed copy if they wish to do so in a future edition.

However, my proposed solution of a VF-like correction overlay wouldn't change the text of the resource, and thus not violate anyone's copyright.

The problem is the process

The main problem is that they don't get it right from the start.

Once again, they do a very good job, compared with e.g. Kindle books from renowned publishers. I believe it's virtually impossible to get it right from the start. They could do a bit better, but they can't achieve 100%.

The modem/modern issue is something that a normal spellchecker can't find and a human proofreader often can't even see. They should run some extra steps for these things (as they have been pointed out here in the forum often enough). So, they should get it right in a resource produced 2012 - don't know if they do - but right now we sit on at least 20000 resources where they didn't get it right to 100% and are running to catch the driving bus.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/374064#Comment_374064

is something that a normal spellchecker can't find

However, one could tweak the probability weighting to correspond more closely to the limited corpus of Scripture and theology texts so that modem was at least questioned.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/374260#Comment_374260

is something that a normal spellchecker can't find

However, one could tweak the probability weighting to correspond more closely to the limited corpus of Scripture and theology texts so that modem was at least questioned.

Sure. And I hope they'll do sometime this year (found this error e.g. in works from the Classic Commentaries on Genesis, (re-)published by Logos themselves in Nov 2011).

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/373993#Comment_373993

(at least that's what I remember from a Logos employee explainig it).

Highlight of typo mine: "employee explainig it" [:O] [:D] I think the process will never be perfect as long as it involves machines or humans.

There is a reason we measure OCR programs by "accuracy rates." Not one of them is perfect. I do think the output can be improved by running the scans through multiple and varied OCR programs and compare the differences of the output.

LOGOS could hire typo correction staff and have the them "telecommute." After all, the typos are distributed through the cloud......[st]

Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/374345#Comment_374345

LOGOS could hire typo correction staff and have the them "telecommute." After all, the typos are distributed through the cloud......

I'd happily give a fair amount of time to searching for, reporting, and correcting typos in exchange for Logos resources or Logos credit [:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/374516#Comment_374516

I believe I've found another high frequency OCR error word.

My pastor quoted Spurgeon comparing clowns to certain pastors and upon searching for the quote in my library, I noticed many instances of the word "down" interpreted as the word "clown"

A search of my library returns 905 results for the word "clown". In many of the older public domain works though highly comical are clearly errors.

Can anyone else confirm this?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439034#Comment_439034

I believe I've found another high frequency OCR error word.

My pastor quoted Spurgeon comparing clowns to certain pastors and upon searching for the quote in my library, I noticed many instances of the word "down" interpreted as the word "clown"

A search of my library returns 905 results for the word "clown". In many of the older public domain works though highly comical are clearly errors.

Can anyone else confirm this?

I can see how down would become clown .....[:P]

Here's some more examples:

And speaking of Clown's in case your wondering why clown ministries are never asked to make a return visit to churches, the TOP 7 Bible Humor Lists offers the following suggestions:

REASONS

CHURCHES DON’T

ASK CLOWN MINISTRIES

TO RETURN

7 They force people to smile at 10 A.M. on Sunday.

6 It’s difficult to say with a straight face: “The sermon today will be brought to you by Brother Dimples.”

5 Those balloon sculptures of the Last Supper just take too long to construct.

4 Clowns wearing blue curly wigs might be confused with the older sisters.

3 Seltzer–water baptism is not recognized by your denomination.

2 Dribble glasses may be used for communion.

1 The ushers don’t appreciate all the Monopoly money in the offering plates.

Anderson, R., & Veerman, D. 1999. Bible humor top 7 lists (electronic ed.) (222). Word Pub.: Nashville

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439058#Comment_439058

Ahhnold says: Fohhget "modem" ! Ancient technologies revealed... Fighter jets in the Bible !!! [:D]

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439058#Comment_439058

I can see how down would become clown .....

Concur about down becoming clown and modern becoming modem:

After reading about "scannos", wonder about "be" for "he", "arid" for "and", ... => https://wiki.benetech.org/display/BSO/4.2+C.+10.+Do+a+Spell+Check+to+catch+typical+scannos

Keep Smiling [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439156#Comment_439156

I once started a huge systematic check for lower-case L's that had scanned as the number 1 and upper-case letter O's that had scanned as number 0 in the first letter or two of words. (E.g., S0ren Kierkegaard; just found a bunch of them and reported them). I don't think I ever made it all the way through, but I started by typing into the Search tab a1a, a1b, a1c, etc. and seeing what matched each time. When I found what looked like it was meant to be a real word but which had a digit in place of a letter, I'd search my whole library for that "word" and then report all the instances of it as typos. There were hundreds and hundreds of these. It's the kind of thing one could spend days and days on and find tons of typos. They could probably do it faster if they wanted to automate it. But frankly, I don't think typos are that high a priority to them.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439166#Comment_439166

With the release of all the new data sets we can see why typos haven't been a priority. I don't find them a problem but report what I come across. My only concern would be incorrect hyperlinks being fixed as this effects function. Typos can on the other hand improve daily smile factor so they are less of a prority

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439188#Comment_439188

With the release of all the new data sets we can see why typos haven't been a priority. I don't find them a problem but report what I come across. My only concern would be incorrect hyperlinks being fixed as this effects function. Typos can on the other hand improve daily smile factor so they are less of a prority

Typos aren't a problem for me when I'm reading, because I know what was intended. But they're a problem when I'm searching. For example, if I were searching for Soren Kierkegaard, it wouldn't find any occurrences that were spelled S0ren Kierkegaard.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439192#Comment_439192

With the release of all the new data sets we can see why typos haven't been a priority. I don't find them a problem but report what I come across. My only concern would be incorrect hyperlinks being fixed as this effects function. Typos can on the other hand improve daily smile factor so they are less of a prority

Typos aren't a problem for me when I'm reading, because I know what was intended. But they're a problem when I'm searching. For example, if I were searching for Soren Kierkegaard, it wouldn't find any occurrences that were spelled S0ren Kierkegaard.

I think this would the greatest incentive for Logos to focus on correcting such scanning errors/inconsistencies as they are found. The percentage of error is incredibly small, yet they still cause innacuracies in searches.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439156#Comment_439156

After reading about "scannos", wonder about "be" for "he", "arid" for "and", ...

There are plenty of words that can easily become other words. The thing with modem and clown is that in Logos they're almost certain to be errors, so it shouldn't be that hard to get rid of them. And yet there's been modem's even in resources released this autumn.

Be vs he, on the other hand, requires careful reading by a real person.

I don't find them a problem (...) they are less of a prority

They should be a very high priority. Logos sells their products with the claim that the software will find "every" occurrence of the words we search for. As long as resources are full of typos, that's not true. And missing the most relevant search result because of a typo isn't fun.

The percentage of error is incredibly small,

Unfortunately, in some resources it's incredibly large.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439338#Comment_439338

After reading about "scannos", wonder about "be" for "he", "arid" for "and", ...

There are plenty of words that can easily become other words. The thing with modem and clown is that in Logos they're almost certain to be errors, so it shouldn't be that hard to get rid of them. And yet there's been modem's even in resources released this autumn.

Be vs he, on the other hand, requires careful reading by a real person.

I don't find them a problem (...) they are less of a prority

They should be a very high priority. Logos sells their products with the claim that the software will find "every" occurrence of the words we search for. As long as resources are full of typos, that's not true. And missing the most relevant search result because of a typo isn't fun.

The percentage of error is incredibly small,

Unfortunately, in some resources it's incredibly large.

Not suggesting they shouldn't be a priority just if I had to make a choice I'd much rather see hyperlinks fixed, but do take others view in terms of searching being a significant problem seriously. For the way I use Logos this comes in a very close second.

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439498#Comment_439498

This has of course been discussed in the past. The only way to really eliminate it long term IMHO is to develop an automated process where the user community can be involved in actually updating with the fixes - kind of like a wiki, or an open source process. It would have to be rigorous and secure, maybe users have to be authorized for permission to supply updates, maybe users can opt in to accept the typo updates or not...but I think expecting Logos to invest in fixing the .001% of characters that are typos is very unrealistic. The problem should be addressed though, it's one of those things where the aggravation factor for customers is greater than the benefit to investing in fixing them by Logos - the dollars to fix them comes away from something likely more important.

Hapax Legomena

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439628#Comment_439628

I tried to find some of these errors, but what is it about Catholic theologians and clowns?

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439639#Comment_439639

Another common OCR error I have found in producing PB's is "m" for "in". I try to search for in in Word before releasing it them to the public. Harder to do this search within Logos.

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439639#Comment_439639

I have almost 200 PBs, and about 20 of them had the modem for modern error. I corrected those! Check your own PBs...

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440026#Comment_440026

After much deliberation, I have concluded that the word "modem" should be thrown out of the English language. Before long, analog carrier signals will become obsolete. Un-naming the "modem" will hasten the process, which is in everyone's best interest---both for increased network bandwidth and for OCR accuracy.

[8-|]

JC54

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439034#Comment_439034

I have 543 clowns, but looking them over, most of them seem to be real clowns.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440415#Comment_440415

After much deliberation, I have concluded that the word "modem" should be thrown out of the English language. Before long, analog carrier signals will become obsolete. Un-naming the "modem" will hasten the process, which is in everyone's best interest---both for increased network bandwidth and for OCR accuracy.

Throwing the word modem out of the dictionary won't solve the OCR accuracy problem. I encounter tons of OCR errors in creating my PBs where the "words" are not anything recognized in any dictionary. Mixtures of letters and numbers, etc.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440479#Comment_440479

After much deliberation, I have concluded that the word "modem" should be thrown out of the English language. Before long, analog carrier signals will become obsolete. Un-naming the "modem" will hasten the process, which is in everyone's best interest---both for increased network bandwidth and for OCR accuracy.

Throwing the word modem out of the dictionary won't solve the OCR accuracy problem. I encounter tons of OCR errors in creating my PBs where the "words" are not anything recognized in any dictionary. Mixtures of letters and numbers, etc.

I didn't say it would solve all OCR problems. It would just solve the Modem problem...every little bit of accuracy counts.

(You do realize I was being tongue-in-cheek?) [:P]

Eric Ruhnow

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440481#Comment_440481

The infamous internet transpose "teh" makes it in a few times as well. Once you weed out the use of it in pronunciations, there are several in the Perseus collection.

Even have it in one of the Bibles (NCV). Thankfully the error is NOT in the Bible text, but the introduction:

What Is the Bible About?

The Bible cannot be considered just a “crutch” that you can turn to when the pressures of life overwhelm you. It is a supernatural book that has survivied and thrived through centuries of being scoffed at, ridiculed, and banned. Kings have branded it as illegal, and countless lives have been martyred because they had teh courage to stand by its truths. For the millions and millions of peole who have tested its answers to life’s questions and found them true, there is only one conclusion—the Bible is God’s book. Every word is inspired by him and reveals something very important about him. From these pages we hear the voice of God.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440481#Comment_440481

After much deliberation, I have concluded that the word "modem" should be thrown out of the English language. Before long, analog carrier signals will become obsolete. Un-naming the "modem" will hasten the process, which is in everyone's best interest---both for increased network bandwidth and for OCR accuracy.

Throwing the word modem out of the dictionary won't solve the OCR accuracy problem. I encounter tons of OCR errors in creating my PBs where the "words" are not anything recognized in any dictionary. Mixtures of letters and numbers, etc.

I didn't say it would solve all OCR problems. It would just solve the Modem problem...every little bit of accuracy counts.

(You do realize I was being tongue-in-cheek?)

I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but I like being pedantic about imprecision even with tongue-in-cheek posts. You see, it wouldn't even solve the Modem problem. My point was that OCR doesn't care if something is in the dictionary or not (it seems to have no problem with S0ren Kierkegaard for example; the o in Soren being a zero). If Modem isn't in the dictionary, it could still show up instead of Modern in an OCR'ed text. So there!

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/439639#Comment_439639

I tried to find some of these errors, but what is it about Catholic theologians and clowns?

Clearly I have to take back my claim above: clown is not almost certain to be an error in Logos.

I should have known.[:)][:$]

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440534#Comment_440534

I didn't say it would solve all OCR problems. It would just solve the Modem problem...every little bit of accuracy counts.

(You do realize I was being tongue-in-cheek?)

I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but I like being pedantic about imprecision even with tongue-in-cheek posts. You see, it wouldn't even solve the Modem problem. My point was that OCR doesn't care if something is in the dictionary or not (it seems to have no problem with S0ren Kierkegaard for example; the o in Soren being a zero). If Modem isn't in the dictionary, it could still show up instead of Modern in an OCR'ed text. So there!

Well, I was including spellcheck (and replacement) as an integral part of the OCR process. Without it, lhis santenCe looke 1iko giloberish. After an image is scanned and converted to text, a spell check step is necessary to mark or replace all words not in the dictionary. That would get modem converted to the correct word---and S0ren would get converted to Søren.

P.S. I've always thought modem was an ugly word. That's my real focus here. [;)]

elnwood

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440771#Comment_440771

I've ran some searches on the most common misspellings according to the Oxford English Corpus, and almost all of them show up in my library.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/common-misspellings

Here are some results from my library:

"occurence" appears 579 times, 456 of them in the NASB Update.

"posession" appears 261 times, 172 times in The Old Testament Greek According to the Septuagint, and 64 times in the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint.

"foward" shows up 249 times, 228 of them in the Dictionary of Latin Forms.

"millenium" shows up 193 times in 92 resources.

"pharoah" shows up 164 times, including 18 times in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, and 13 times in the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, which I recall was recently revised.

"persistant" appears 147 times, 145 times in the Dictionary of Latin Forms.

"seige" appears 112 times in 57 resources.

"occuring" occurs 81 times, 32 times in "Life and Epistles of St. Paul."

"ecstacy" shows up 67 times, "familar" 40 times, "calender" 38 times,

"publically" appears 58 times, 15 of which are in the Faithlife Study Bible.

"threshhold" appears 43 times in 40 resources.

"seperate" appears 42 times, 21 in the Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible.

Also, it seems like ISBE: Revised Edition had the most typos overall, containing some of several different typos.

It suffices to say that I did not "report typo" for all of these typos!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/440856#Comment_440856

I've ran some searches on the most common misspellings according to the Oxford English Corpus, and almost all of them show up in my library.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/common-misspellings

Here are some results from my library:

"occurrence" appears 579 times, 456 of them in the NASB Update.

"posession" appears 261 times, 172 times in The Old Testament Greek According to the Septuagint, and 64 times in the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint.

"foward" shows up 249 times, 228 of them in the Dictionary of Latin Forms.

"millenium" shows up 193 times in 92 resources.

"pharoah" shows up 164 times, including 18 times in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, and 13 times in the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, which I recall was recently revised.

"persistant" appears 147 times, 145 times in the Dictionary of Latin Forms.

"seige" appears 112 times in 57 resources.

"occuring" occurs 81 times, 32 times in "Life and Epistles of St. Paul."

"ecstacy" shows up 67 times, "familar" 40 times, "calender" 38 times,

"publically" appears 58 times, 15 of which are in the Faithlife Study Bible.

"threshhold" appears 43 times in 40 resources.

"seperate" appears 42 times, 21 in the Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible.

Also, it seems like ISBE: Revised Edition had the most typos overall, containing some of several different typos.

It suffices to say that I did not report typo" for all of these typos!

Someone should report all of these, or email Logos to let them know about all of them.

Seems like a check against this list of common misspellings should be built into the process of releasing all new resources. In fact, I'm really surprised they didn't run a basic spell check on everything they've released thus far, as it would have found all of these. None of them are actual words. Spell check would of course miss things that are misspelled but are real words nonetheless (their/there, etc.)

EDIT: Incidentally, part of the problem is that Logos usually prefers not to fix typos when they were in the original they are working from -- i.e., it was the print publisher's error. So if they're working with OCRed texts that came from some print publisher who reprinted an old work, they won't fix them. They might notify the print publisher about the problem, but they don't see it as their right to fix it. And if it's a contemporary work that has a misspelling in the print edition, they won't fix that either.

I just found two typos in a row in Religious and Theological Abstracts, which I'm guessing were in the original: "resiliancy and spontananeity." Reported them dutifully but don't expect anything to be done about it.