Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Proof reading

In recent years the art of proof reading seems to have lost its importance to publishers, or at least the number of confusing sentences and paragraphs has increased substantially.

So writers, why is there a slip in standards?

I believe you mean, "Or at least the number (singular) of confusing sentences and paragraphs has increased substantially."

Sorry, couldn't help myself. It is a proof reading thread.

probably because good proofreaders are extremely hard to find, atleast from what ive seen in the newspaper world.....especially really good ones.....takes a certain mind set to be good at it combined with an interest in the English language and you dont come across the combination to often.....as much as i dislike my mother in law she is a decent proofreader, my wife is an excellent editor but a so-so proofreader.....i cant proofread to save my life....we used to have an outstanding one but she moved away

It's mostly due to spell- and grammar-checking programs on computers. Most people assume if they run their writing through the program, everything will be corrected, but that isn't so. Words that sound the same but are spelled differently won't be caught, and grammar mistakes can be inserted. I know this because of my own computer programs.

Also, as everything becomes computerized, more publishers have down-sized their staffs. Fewer people actually read each story or book, and those who do are often over-worked--or never learned to write correctly in the first place, because they've always depended on a computer to catch their mistakes.

Please correct your sentence fragment so that it is a proper sentence and re-submit your post for our consideration and further abuse.

John

I knew I was going to be abused - thank you Mule Deer your answer makes a lot of sense.

Proofreading's overrated...

I think that should have been Klinton's book.

That school seems like it would be a lot more interesting than any of the ones I attended.

I've found that for catching spelling errors, reading a sentence backwards is the best way. It makes you look a littel harder at each word

Hmmmmmm.....

A real typo, or bait?

John

Mule Deer explained what I always believed to be true. Too much dependence on computers.

In the USAF our performance reports were read by several people before getting approved, so bad grammer and mispelled words were always caught. Reading them backwards was a way to catch problems before sending it on. Mine came back a lot.

"Guns" magazine had several complaints about what the OP wrote. The edtor dismssd the crticsm basiclly saying if you can red it quit bothring us.

Now come on -- that has to be considered baiting on a thread like this!

John

Reliance on computer programs and calculators has also contributed to an inability of many people to do simple math.

It goes far further than just spelling, it's a widespread ignorance of proper English. A lot of it goes back to the lowering of standards in the pubic (sic) education system. That not only affects the writers and editors but also the readers. Why bother spending money on a qualified proofreader if your readership lacks the discernment to tell the difference?

Newspapers are notoriously inept when it comes to proofreading -- for a couple of reasons. One is that they are slash-and-burn artists. Another is that they generally know better than they do because pressure to meet daily deadlines allows little time for proofing. Also, small local dailies generally have limited staff and low wages because journalists with better educations often migrate to larger cities and larger newspapers. (Our local daily seems to be an exception to that -- it has more than its share of good people compared to other small local dailies I've seen. Evidence of that is that its writers regularly win awards for their work.) Consequently, in situations with limited staff, the people who write the stories do their own proofing, and it's harder to see your own mistakes when you're overly familiar with the writing. Our brains tend to make us see what we know we're supposed to be seeing.

Back when I wrote direct mail, we proofed in several ways. One was to have the writer read aloud to another writer, pronouncing every word with little inflection, and actually naming case, punctuation, while the other writer meticulously marked for corrections. So, I would say, "Capital B Back when I wrote direct mail comma we proofed in several ways period". We produced thousands of brochures every year, and on average made only one or two mistakes each year.

On the subject of proofing by reading backwards, one new writer came along and she learned that technique in college and she thought it was the greatest thing since moveable type. But we quickly found what to be as unreliable as spellcheck. The mistake in the preceding sentence could not be found if we proofed by reading backwards: "spellcheck as unreliable as be to what found quickly we But."

I would say there are several reasons good proofreaders don't exist. Among them:

1. Many publishers don't hire proofreaders anymore. That job has been eliminated and its responsibilities absorbed by the writers.
2. A corollary of that reason is the pressure to make profits -- by cutting a job that is viewed as low-skilled, that salary can be added to the bottom line.
3. We have fewer people who know good writing, good reading, good usage, etc. It's a function of our educational system in general.

Steve.

I'd like to further comment on rattler's observation--which is spot on.

A lot of people CLAIM to be proofreaders, but many are really frustrated writers or editors. As a result they spend more time changing the prose rather than looking for typos or other errors. Real proofreading is a skill almost totally different than writing or copy editing, and not many people have the mindset to do it right, since it can be pretty darn boring. Which is probably why there's always more demand for GOOD proofreaders than for writers! The pay can be pretty good if you have the skills. I know a woman who makes a very good living proofreading scientific articles.

That has to be colossally boring!

Proofreading research level mathematics can be tough. I published a few papers, and getting them just right was a lot of work.