Attention proofreaders!

cattywampus said:

I dislike proofreader's marks as they are so awkward to use.

Click to expand...

Just like with any job, proofreading needs a standard. If the same notation is not used across the board, other people will be unable to interpret the issues.

The notation's are also a shorthand of sorts. It is a lot easier to mark up a paper with one or two strokes than write out a whole story at every error.

You will learn them and get used to them soon enough! Good luck on the potential job!

10000

cattywampus said:

I believe I read here that some of you have jobs as proofreaders. I am applying for such a job and need to know what is the best source for proofreader's marks online? When applying for a proofreading job did you have to take a test, and if so, did you use proofreading marks on it? My potential employer did not say what to use. I dislike proofreader's marks as they are so awkward to use.

Click to expand...

Most dictionaries include proofreading marks.

Sorry you dislike them. That will probably be a real problem if you want to be a proofreader!

proofreaders' marks

cattywampus said:

I believe I read here that some of you have jobs as proofreaders. I am applying for such a job and need to know what is the best source for proofreader's marks online? When applying for a proofreading job did you have to take a test, and if so, did you use proofreading marks on it? My potential employer did not say what to use. I dislike proofreader's marks as they are so awkward to use.

Click to expand...

First, despite hwatyou see on many websites that should know better, it's "proofreaders' marks," not "proofreader's marks." What's awkward about proofreaders' marks? They been used for a lot of years, and the reason they've been used is because they're both simple to use and easy to understand. If there's a better method for proofing text, I've never seen it. If there's any other method at all that works nearly well, I've never seen it.

If you find them awkward, it's because you haven't used them anywhere near enough, and it's like trying to speak a foreign language. But if you want to be a proofreader, there is no other way. The entire point of proofreaders' marks is to make certain anyone and everyone who sees the page knows what it is you want done, and how you want it done.

A proofreader not only needs to use proofreaders' marks, he needs to know them.

Now, it may well be that your potential employee doesn't care how you do the job, as long as it gets done well, but trying to be a proofreader without knowing and using proofreaders' mark is like trying to pass as a Spanish citizen when you can't speak Spanish. It just won't work. You must be fluent in the language, and teh language of a proofreder is proofreaders' marks. They're used everywhere by everyone, and if you can't speak the language, you won't have a clue how to do your job.

As for a source, well, there are thousands. Just type "proofreaders' marks" into Google, and you'll get more than you could ever want. Or open pretty much any style guide, or any good grammar book. My seventh grade English book had a list of proofreaders' marks.

The one thing I wills ay about proofreaders' marks is that using them will make you understand why editor's prefer Courier over Times New Roman. Times is so cramped it does make proofreaders' marks more dificult to use.

But you do need to know them, and you will needs to use them, and once you actually learn them well enough not to need a list, you shouldn't find them the least bit awkward. It's not using them that's extremely awkward.

The more I think about this thread, I've got to assume we're being punk'd.

CattyWampus: are you joking with us?

Sassenach said:

The more I think about this thread, I've got to assume we're being punk'd.

CattyWampus: are you joking with us?

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Maybe. You never know, do you?

I must say, I've been a documentation editor, and have been using proofreaders' marks, for more than 10 years, and I wouldn't be able to edit hardcopy without using them. Once you use them a lot and know them well, they become so natural, you use them without realizing it.

I use them when I mark up the stories for my critique group. I assume they know what the marks mean. I've never had anyone say they don't.

It's someone playing an elaborate joke.

Who's going to hire a proofreader who doesn't know how to proofread? Is it not implicit that a proofreading test would use proofreaders' marks?

They're used all over the world, and have been for decades. They're fundamental to proofreading. They're also easy to use and simple to master.




http://www.m-w.com/mw/table/proofrea.htm

http://www.prenhall.com/author_guide/proofing.html [fyi, Prentice Hall calls them 'proofreader's marks]

http://www.utexas.edu/visualguidelines/proofreaders.html

cattywampus said:

Sassenach, what makes you think I'm joking? I asked a legitimate question and expected a serious answer - I don't know what "punked" is and I'm rather glad I don't, so please don't enlighten me.

James, I think you are wrong about "it's being" proofreaders' marks alone. Surely the marks are for each proofreader as well as all proofreaders. I say "proofreader's" marks is also correct. If you have a definitive source, I would like to look at it.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not wrong, unless the AP Stylebook, the Chicago Manual of Style, and all my newspaper editors and college professors have also been wrong.

But it's a common error, and even one that's made a couple of dictionaries.

But I, too, think you're joking. Wanting to be a proofreader without using proofreaders' marks makes no sense at all.

cattywampus said:

When applying for a proofreading job did you have to take a test, and if so, did you use proofreading marks on it?

Click to expand...

Yes, unless you have an extensive background in editing and proofreading (as demonstrated in your resume), you will have to take a test that proves you know how to mark text for grammar, consistency, redundancy, punctuation, etc. You have to demonstrate knowledge of the correct way to mark text. However, if the job is an entry level proofreader position, they might be willing to train you.

cattywampus said:

Sassenach, what makes you think I'm joking? I asked a legitimate question and expected a serious answer - I don't know what "punked" is and I'm rather glad I don't, so please don't enlighten me.

James, I think you are wrong about "it's being" proofreaders' marks alone. Surely the marks are for each proofreader as well as all proofreaders. I say "proofreader's" marks is also correct. If you have a definitive source, I would like to look at it.

Click to expand...

You asked a question and got serious answers.

Try handling it in a mature fashion.