I copied this message from the old forum because the original thread is GONE...
Okay, I just did a little research work and testing.
I took my novel and first deleted all the 'chapter 23' stuff, all the footers, title page, and everything except the actual novel text itself.
Next I did an MS-Word count, using Word 2000. I tried changing the fonts and styles and page margins and it always gave me the same count: 67,252.
I then saved it as a pure ascii text file, opened that file into an ascii text editing program, saved it again, and re-opened the text file into MS-Word. Count: 67,257.
So apparently the process of converting to pure ascii and re-opening as a Word file added 5 words, probably the result of hyphenated words. (I don't hyphenate words on line break, of course).
Next, on my older computer, I re-opened both these test files in Word 97 and ran a word count. 67,252 & 67,257 respectively. So, MS-Word 2000 and Word 97 agree perfectly.
Finally I re-opened the two files in Corel WordPerfect-8, and the new count was 67,206 and 67,208. So WordPerfect apparently low-counted the document by about 50 words, a disagreement of less than 1%.
And then, I took two random pages from my novel, one with lots of narrative, one with mostly dialog. I counted the actual words and then cut & pasted these pages, performed an MS-Word count on them. The physical manual count and the MS-Word count agreed exactly:
Page 51 = 302 words
Page 149 = 152 words
So here's my somewhat scientific conclusion: MS-Word performs a very accurate word count, accurate to less than 1% error.
As I see it, there is no validity to the idea that counting words or spaces and dividing or whatever is better than using the software. Those methods are only estimates, while MS-Word actually counts the words themselves.
If anyone has information to challenge this, please let me know. In the meantime, I'll stick to MS-Word's methodolgy.
Okay, I just did a little research work and testing.
I took my novel and first deleted all the 'chapter 23' stuff, all the footers, title page, and everything except the actual novel text itself.
Next I did an MS-Word count, using Word 2000. I tried changing the fonts and styles and page margins and it always gave me the same count: 67,252.
I then saved it as a pure ascii text file, opened that file into an ascii text editing program, saved it again, and re-opened the text file into MS-Word. Count: 67,257.
So apparently the process of converting to pure ascii and re-opening as a Word file added 5 words, probably the result of hyphenated words. (I don't hyphenate words on line break, of course).
Next, on my older computer, I re-opened both these test files in Word 97 and ran a word count. 67,252 & 67,257 respectively. So, MS-Word 2000 and Word 97 agree perfectly.
Finally I re-opened the two files in Corel WordPerfect-8, and the new count was 67,206 and 67,208. So WordPerfect apparently low-counted the document by about 50 words, a disagreement of less than 1%.
And then, I took two random pages from my novel, one with lots of narrative, one with mostly dialog. I counted the actual words and then cut & pasted these pages, performed an MS-Word count on them. The physical manual count and the MS-Word count agreed exactly:
Page 51 = 302 words
Page 149 = 152 words
So here's my somewhat scientific conclusion: MS-Word performs a very accurate word count, accurate to less than 1% error.
As I see it, there is no validity to the idea that counting words or spaces and dividing or whatever is better than using the software. Those methods are only estimates, while MS-Word actually counts the words themselves.
If anyone has information to challenge this, please let me know. In the meantime, I'll stick to MS-Word's methodolgy.