Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 15, No. 93.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 12:08:21 +0100
From: "J. Randolph Radney" <email@example.com>
Subject: RE: 15.086 proof-reading standards/methods?
I believe the accuracy rates reported elsewhere, to the effect that .005
error rate gives 1000 pages of errors per 200K pages is inaccurate to the
actual rate reported to be guaranteed by the vendor. A rate of 99.995%
would allow only 5 pages of errors per 100K pages of text, or 10 pages of
errors per month. The error seems to be that a rate of .005 is actually
only 99.5% accurate, whereas the 99.995% rate would actually represent an
error of .00005 (or 5/100,000).
It would be interesting to know how this rate compares with any existing
publication standards (for example, this seems remarkably low compared to
the editorial standards for most newsprint--though I would hardly advocate
that as a standard for archival accuracy!). My impression, though, is that
such a standard is probably acceptable for a wide range of scholarly
journals in the humanities.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 09 2001 - 07:27:03 EDT