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.

What would really drive you nuts is the "fact checking" done by National Geographic.

I did an article for NG on the Missouri Breaks in the late 1990's. The editor loved it, and sent me a nice check really quickly, but pretty soon I was contacted by one of the 275 fact checkers then employed by the Society.

Among other things, she contested my statement about several inches of snow being on the ground in the early December in Jordan, Montana. She said the nearest weather station hadn't recorded any snow in December by that date. I had no explanation for that, but did walk around in the snow in Jordan. After two weeks of badgering me every other day or so, she finally called (ay 10:30 in the evening) and said, really quickly, "There was a snowstorm on November 29th," then hung up.

She also questioned Steve's Fork of Big Dry Creek, the name of a really dry drainage where one of the ranchers I interviewed lived. It is called Steve's Fork on the road signs in the area, and on every map in existence EXCEPT the really old USGS map--which calls it Steve Forks, an obvious typo. I told her all that, but when the article came out there was Steve Forks.

Several other people I know who've written for NG have told me similar stories. One was assigned to write up Seney, Michigan and the Fox River that flows through it, the area Hemingway wrote about in his famous short story "Big Two-Hearted River." Not only did the fact-checkers pester him continuously for three weeks, but the photographer used photos from a DIFFERENT river, because the Fox wasn't scenic enough.

I'm currently reading A Life on Safari by Geoff Broom and Craig Boddington. It's not that uncommon to find a few errors in a book, but this one has more than a few. Enough that it is noticeable. I wonder if it was too close to a deadline to really get a good proof reading.

I agree with many of the observations made so far, particularly that good proof-readers are harder to find than good writers. One additional thought, though this doesn't go to the causes behind the increase in simple grammatical and spelling errors, is that there are a wide variety of style manuals available today and not all publications have adopted a single manual, or, if they have, they may not hew to it consistently.

as i said above a good proofreader is hard to find cause its a mindset thats not often come across......the two best proofreaders i know are only so-so writers.....while their knowledge of grammar and sentence structure is outstanding their ability to write a readable story is lacking.....also in this day and age someone who is a good proofreader isnt usually working for smaller newspapers and magazines like those of Wolfe, why? cause with the internet they can work freelance for alot more money for individuals that will pay through the nose for a one time look over.....an amount i cant pay myself let alone a damn good proofreader....

This is on me.

For the past forty eight years I have made my living as a verbal communicator. I would not have passed high school English if it had not been for the New York State Regents exam. I have no college but I do have an advanced degree in dyslexia. This man is very aware of his own proclivity towards errant spelling and sometimes unintelligible sentence structure.

Many years ago my wife had the responsibility of producing the weekly church bulletin. One week she had other responsibilities away from home and as a loving husband I produced the bulletin for her with out telling her so. When she returned home I had a nice surprise ready for her. I made her favorite tea, sat her down at the dining room table, served the tea, and presented her with the bulletin. When I gave her the bulletin I actually tossed it onto the table in front of her and exclaimed "look at this Babe." The paper was still moving when she quickly stuck her finger near the center of the page and said, "you misspelled this word."

May I raise a question? Why is it that I usually see misspells and odd sentence structure when done by others yet frequently miss my own?
The above story is true and yet I know that when any proofreader reads it he will probably smack his forehead with the palm of his hand and utter the misstatement, "Oh, My God!"

Jim

I can't disagree with anything that has been said here. The blame is primarily a dependence on computer spell-check programs and cost-cutting on smaller publications. As Mule Deer said, the big magazines are very thorough. My articles in the New York Times Magazine and Reader's Digest put me and my subjects through the ringer. But, my little local newspaper -- where my career began -- is atrocious. Every issue has a list of corrections from the previous issue. For them I will add one more category of blame: LAZINESS. Just flat lazy.

I don't blame computers. They don't write anything. I blame people, and I think the biggest reason is apathy. It is absolutely rampant in society today, and not just in writing. People just do not give a rip! Just about everything I buy or have done by someone is done incorrectly. Manufacturing quality is a perfect example. I admit to being a perfectionist, and overly critical of things, but it is beyond ridiculous today! Spelling? Grammar? What's that? There are no rules any more. The online version of Merriam Webster's dictionary includes every conceivable pronunciation of every word. They actually had a video clip on their website stating that if a certain pronunciation is commonly used, it is included regardless if it is considered improper by any authority. We are on the path to illiteracy folks, and "there ain't no stoppin' it."

All dictionaries are based on "common usage," not on arbitrary authority. Common usage is how words originally obtained their meanings, long before humans even had a written language. Dictionaries are just a list of the common meaning of words--"common" in this sense meaning what we mean "in common" with other people who speak the same language. That's how language evolves, and is why the English of 500 or even 100 years ago differs from what we speak today, and why we Americans and the British are separated by a common language.

When Eileen and I were hunting in Ireland five years ago, we started talking about computers and customer service with our Irish hosts. We mentioned how often our service calls were taken by somebody who didn't even speak English as a primary language.

"Oh, it's the same way here!" our friend Liam said. "Our calls go to Scotland, and you can hardly understand a sentence. All full of bloody 'ochs'!"

There, nuts!
Their nuts.
They're nuts.
___________________

In using one of those phrases you could end up with any of the three if you relied on your computer.

The governor of Ohio introduced LBJ at one of the Ohio universities with "Welcome to this venereal institution!"

My late friend Joe St Denis (Redfield) refused to return, and always cherished, the Colorado driver's license that identified him as "Joseph St Penis."

I had heard that JB had a difficult time with NG on the facts of his article. They were probably not used to writers who got it right the first time, and every time.

Steve

Steve,

Thanks very much for the words of confidence, but no writer ever existed who got everything right, all the time!

As one of the most meticulous historical writers I've known once said, "All we can try to do is to make as few mistakes as possible."

Which might be a description of the human condition, at least for most people....

There is actually a wiring in the human brain that makes it all but impossible for a writer to edit his own work. I think I came across this in one of Temple Grandin's books. Because of in-house politics in a publishing company, I once ended-up final-editing one of my novels (copy edit and style edit). It's misery. If I come across the anatomical/physiological description Grandin explained I'll post it. But of course, it has to do with a writer "seeing" what he wants to say or thinks he is saying rather than the words on the screen. The more rewrites you've done the harder it is. That's one reason why topnotch freelance copy editors charge around $80 an hour. Another problem in today's world is the transcription software some people use. I have a friend who ministers all over the world. He was using this software to send an email to a conference host in Regina, SASK. The software could not translate "Regina." You can imagine what these church leaders received instead.

a form of that is why i cannot proofread.....my brain does the "auto-correct" thing no matter if its my work or someone elses.....on a related note this very thing is why im the person on staff assigned to decipher the stuff people send in that no one else can figure out.....generally i can....

mtrancher,

That tendency is reduced the longer we go without re-reading the same stuff--one excellent reason for letting writing sit for days or even weeks before looking at it again.

Obviously, none of us can self-edit perfectly. As one of my editors (at a "really big magazine") once said, "Every writer needs an editor, even editors who write." But the better any professional writer can self-edit, the more stuff the writer will sell, because editors won't have to dink around with the copy very much. This lightens their work-load!

I grew up among writers and writing teachers, and saw how many were semi-frustrated writers. Eventually I realized most weren't good self-editors. As a result, I never wanted to be a teacher, but eventually started teaching a local adult writing class--not because it made significant money, but because it boosted my interest in the craft of writing.

Eileen was always a good teacher, so we co-teach the course--and the main point is always self-editing and rewriting. Ain't none of us good enough to write perfect copy on the first draft. But we can try!

1 of my teachers told us to; "write it, then get it right".

Write it, set it aside for at least 24-hours to let your memory clear itself, and then proof it to "get it right", in terms of grammar, prose, and spelling.

I've only had a few things published, none of which earned me as much as $0.01, so maybe his advise wasn't so good.

EDIT: Or maybe its just me.

Jeff

I have trouble with "the the", so I often copy my posts onto WORD, run the spell/grammar check, make the corrections, and paste the words back where I want to post them.

Jeff

Nope. Not baiting. That is what the editor did. Only difference is he put letters in that didn't belong in the word. I only took out letters.

If you come across the stuff from Grandin I'd appreciate it if you'd post it. Her insights into animal behavior (especially cattle) are way cool and interesting.

Just checking everyone's pruf reeding skills. I was wondering how long it would take for a response

I've always said that good writing is 80% re-writing, and that's what I have said in the writing classes I've taught. Few have the stomach for that much re-writing. Then, there's the issue of knowing when to stop re-writing.

Steve.

Yep!

Eileen got her MFA in creative writing from the University of Montana in the early 1980's. One of the guys who'd gotten his MFA a few years before was still working on the SAME SHORT STORY, and reading it at gatherings in Missoula when we moved away in 1986. The story definitely hadn't been improved with all that rewriting....

The absolutely worst thing that any writer (or editor) can have happen is the acquisition of a thesaurus.

+1. There is something to be said for elegant variation, but excessive use of synonyms where the writer is expressing the same point multiple times tends to obscure the point rather than emphasize it.

I disagree with the thesaurus statement.

I did a good deal of writing for a local daily in the early 80's. I used the thesaurus key a good bit. I often couldn't find just the word that seemed appropriate. The thesaurus often didn't give me what I wanted - but it made me think of something I did want that worked better: maybe with a bit of rewriting.

Don't want anything to do with any pubic affairs in public.

My kids were taught math estimation. When I confronted the teacher concerning this concept, she explained that it is hard for kids to gain the rudimentary skills of actual mathematics. As long as the students gain the "general concept" of math they will do fine.

These kids today can't even give me change for a dollar without a register or calculator.

Such inanity!

The acquisition of a thesaurus is no worse than the acquisition of a gun, for the same reasons. Foolish, careless, improper use is the culprit that a good writer avoids very carefully.

I have several, and have had at least one handy since 1953. They're dang useful when the only word that I can think-of right then is too top-heavy for what I want to say, and at the moment I can't think-of the simpler word that I'm thumping my forehead for.

And the older I get, with the tread wear that comes with the years, I find 'em more and more useful to remind me of the simpler words. Hardly a post here gets on-line without the help of a thesaurus � but never to find a fancy word to replace a country-boy word that does what I want it to do.

Synonyms are not all precisely equivalent. Very often, I can think-of the almost right word but need a thesaurus to remind me of the right word.

Mark Twain said it best � "The difference between the almost right word and the right word is a large matter � 'tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."

I don't think we can blame it completely on computers. A couple of the textbooks that I am using right now are in 5th or 6th editions. I find wrong or misspelled words on every other page; many of the words are not even words! Pathetic!

As has been stated, computers are just a tool. Even when they mess up it is the writer's responsibility to get things right.
The really good editors, in my opinion, are really left-brained technical people. I am severely right-brained. Almost dysfunctionally so. There is nothing I value more than a good editor. I got a great one at 17 when I went to work for a man who had been managing editor of the Denver Post and went from private to captain on a battlefield commission and promotion in Europe during WWII. He would not tolerate mistakes, sloppiness, or a lack of attention to detail. My most successful article was made so by the editors. I owe them for the fact that it went world-wide and appeared in two editions of a collegiate textbook. My best novel was largely the result of the editor. She was terrific and I've yet to find another like her. But many writers don't want an editor. They think everything they write is divinely inspired and shouldn't be touched. This is especially true in Christian publishing where I have done about half my work.
But, I still say that at the core, technology is most to blame. People are impatient. Some schools are no longer even teaching cursive because they say there is no need for it. We're sacrificing beauty and discipline for the instantaneous.

My first novel, "Sniper's Eyes" was a mess until Mule Deer made magic and edited it. As good a writer as he is his editorial skills shine. I can never repay him for his kindnss as well as his inspired expertise.

Terry

Im a time served printer having completed a 4 year apprenticeship (20 years ago).
Things have come along a bit from the old days of "comps" putting together every sentence, one letter at a time, now anybody can string a few words together put it through spell checker and call them selves what ever title they wish. I remember when I first started, the comps and proofreaders were very much revered (and also very highly paid) and things like grammar? were of the utmost importance. I think its just one of the many signs of the time and the importance has been lost to "productivity" and has also been pointed out the educational system has alot to answer for

Some grammar rules make no sense to me. Two examples come to mind.

If I type, "...the cartridge which I selected...," the Microsoft Word grammar check wants me to change it to "...the cartridge that I selected..."

Second, why do we have the rule about not ending a sentence with a proposition?

"Never end a sentence with a preposition unless you have to!"

We can't change anything but we can list our pet peeves in the changing of the language. Mine are simple and commonly seen or heard:

1 - "your" when it should be "you're"
2 - "I seen" rather than "I saw"

That's not a grammar rule and never was.

It comes from the old-time rhetoricians' advice against "wasting" the last word's strong position on a weak word.

Ending a sentence with a preposition has always been a legitimate practice in English. I like to quote what is probably the record � a tad's sentence that ends with no less than five prepositions with completely correct grammar. The boy's father had brought the wrong book upstairs to the boy's bed room, and the boy asked �

"What did you bring the book that I don't want to be read-to out of up for?"

Could've been said somewhat more elegantly, perhaps, but perfectly legitimate grammatical construction.



Which and that have to do with meaning and punctuation.

"The cartridge that I selected" refers to the cartridge in a significantly different sense from "the cartridge, which I selected" (notice the comma). The technical terms are "restrictive clause" for that and "nonrestrictive clause" for which.

I'm too tired tonight to explain fully, and I doubt that many here would care to hear the full explanation. But there's the crux of the matter � distinguishing between two different meanings.

I'm not sure that fulltime proofreaders even exist today. They certainly don't at smaller publications. Years ago a proofreader was a proofreader and nothing more. They didn't edit and they certainly didn't write.
The proofreader was eventually replaced by technology and editors.
But, in book publication, the editor position is now replaced by the writer's agent. This isn't true yet with all publishers, but basically speaking publishers now want the writer's agent to do the proofreading and editing. The in-house editors are now called "packagers."
(There is a dilemma here, of course, because you can hardly get an agent unless you've been published and you can hardly publish unless you have an agent.)
Electronic publishing changes everything again as "packaging" is not as difficult.
The blurring of roles hasn't helped writing standards in my opinion. True editors love to edit. They don't want to be packagers and the best ones don't want to be writers. Many young college English grads seek editing positions dreaming of working with good writers only to find themselves the slaves of packaging schedules.
True writers want to write. They can edit to some degree, but basically they want to write, they want to create.
In my experience in the book world, editors who want to be writers usually make for poor editors.
In the magazine world, where articles may run from only 500 to 3000 words, it is easier for a writer to be an editor or for an editor to also write.
Years ago the fulltime proofreader carried a lot of weight. He or she was a staunch perfectionist and writers and editors quaked when the proofreader left the back shop and entered the newsroom.

During my stint at Wolfe Publishing, the "proof-readers" (all women) were the secretaries, book-keeper, type-setter, and make-up assistants whose secondary job was "proofing" galleys while they watched their soap operas on the TV that the boss had provided in the common room for them.

So at night, I spent several hours reproofing the "finished, camera-ready" boards. The next morning, the gals'd have to redo every "camera-ready" board to eliminate the dozens of typos that I'd found. One result was that I was decidedly unpopular among those gals � all of whom were divorc�es with an indelible dislike for men, anyway.

that is pretty well what i have seen in the newspaper world......you have editors, writers and proofreaders and being good at one doesnt make you good at another......we have tried to hire a dedicated proofreader that would do nothing else we even found one semi-locally that was computer literate enough we could have made it work with the internet.....however she wanted more money than i think even the Gazette could have paid.....she prolly would have been worth every penny but we couldnt have afforded it.....

my wife is a good enough editor that she picked up some attention from one of the big national dailies but we had zero interest in moving to the east coast.....while she is a real good editor she is only a decent writer and while better than most these days at proofreading she does not consider herself a proofreader cause she has seen real good proofreaders and she knows she doesnt come close to ranking in their group.....

Think I got if figured out now. "Proof Reading" isn't the same as Poop Reading is it? Or Poof Reading, depending on diet.

This is a thundering epiphany!