proofreading

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Having done a lot of proof reading in my time, I have found that the only
satisfactory method is to print it out and go through the hard copy with a
fine tooth comb - but I suppose you mean 'read it out' in which case see
http://www.gmayor.com/word_text_to_speech.htm

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
 
Word's spell-checker helps tell you whether or not you have a recognized
word. It doesn't tell you if it is the right word (or if there might be a
better word).

Word's grammar checking misses major gramatical errors and yet gives many
false positives. I usually keep it turned off.

Those are the available tools.

I find that I spot many more errors reading a paper copy than I do online.

--
Charles Kenyon

Word New User FAQ & Web Directory: http://addbalance.com/word

Intermediate User's Guide to Microsoft Word (supplemented version of
Microsoft's Legal Users' Guide) http://addbalance.com/usersguide


--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
This message is posted to a newsgroup. Please post replies
and questions to the newsgroup so that others can learn
from my ignorance and your wisdom.
 
An interesting discovery I made lately: I had a manuscript, given to me in
electronic form, that I had copyedited and formatted. It was then reprinted
and returned to the author for proofreading. Then I proceeded to turn it
into a book. This process, which included changing the font and the page
size, resulted in line breaks at different places. As I was working my way
through the document, tweaking line and page breaks, I found many errors
that had not been caught on the first pass.

I don't know whether to attribute this to the difference in line breaks
(which placed phrases in a different position in the line) or the change in
font (which perhaps made unwanted spaces next to quotation marks more
obvious) or to preoccupation with formatting when I made the first pass, but
it is certainly the case that I caught a lot of previously unseen errors on
the second pass.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.
 
Suzanne said:
I don't know whether to attribute this to the difference in line
breaks... or to preoccupation with formatting when I made the first
pass, but it is certainly the case that I caught a lot of previously
unseen errors on the second pass.
Click to expand...

I don't know if things have changed in the past <cough>ty years, but in
my salad days when I had a job at a publishing house proofreading there
were cycles of proofing/copyediting, and several levels of proofers.
And when one of the 'upper' levels caught a typo, the whole thing went
alllllll the way back to us at the bottom to begin again. It was not
uncommon to proof the same galley 7, 8, even 9 or more times.

Even today when I have a document, I proof it, let it sit for a day or
two and come back to it. Read it, catch more and then read it backwards
and find still more.

B/
 
Indeed. If only this method worked for proofreading one's own work. <sigh>

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.
 
Back
Top