I don't know if any such software exists or if there's even a need for it. Know the editing marks you were taught to use in grade school for proofreading papers...Is there any kind of software you can use to do that? I'm thinking it would be of use for proofreaders and editors who proof work for other people.
Software Used Specifically For Proofreading
- Thread starter latoya
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 39,307
- Reaction score
- 17,490
- Location
- Non carborundum illegitimi
- Website
- www.aliceloweecey.net
I've been a proofer for 24 years. I'm of the mule-headed school that says nothing beats a good set of eyes. We've all seen that poem "checked" with spellcheck that uses homonyms for most of the word so it's "correct" but makes no sense.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,652
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Homonyms and misspelled words (but still have the correct spelling) are the hardest to catch. I second that you just need a thorough editor.
Proofing
I don't think there is such a thing as actual proofing software, and I wouldn't begin to trust such, anyway. The best way to proof, by far, is the old way, with your eyes and a pencil.
But many are experimenting with electronic proofreaders' marks, and I can see such coming in very handy, if agreed upon standards are ever set. This is one such attempt: http://www.writersservices.com/services/s_electronic_proof_marks.htm
Some favor HTML or similar mark-up so that any suggested/needed changes can actually be implemented with a browser. This does not seem to be catching on.
I don't think there is such a thing as actual proofing software, and I wouldn't begin to trust such, anyway. The best way to proof, by far, is the old way, with your eyes and a pencil.
But many are experimenting with electronic proofreaders' marks, and I can see such coming in very handy, if agreed upon standards are ever set. This is one such attempt: http://www.writersservices.com/services/s_electronic_proof_marks.htm
Some favor HTML or similar mark-up so that any suggested/needed changes can actually be implemented with a browser. This does not seem to be catching on.
Thanks for the responses guys. 
I don't necessarily want a software that "thinks" it's smart enough to do it for me. Rather, I want to read the a document and use the software to put proofreading marks on it, so the original writer knows what needs to be corrected. The ideal software, if it exists, would allow me to use marks like these http://www.m-w.com/mw/table/proofrea.htm when editing papers.
I don't necessarily want a software that "thinks" it's smart enough to do it for me. Rather, I want to read the a document and use the software to put proofreading marks on it, so the original writer knows what needs to be corrected. The ideal software, if it exists, would allow me to use marks like these http://www.m-w.com/mw/table/proofrea.htm when editing papers.
I would probably just go with a hard copy and a red pencil. My reasoning is that reading from a screen is hard on my eyes and sitting on a stool overlooking my laptop is not conducive to getting lots of work done. I would rather sit down with my hard copy on my couch with a red pencil so that I will be reading in somewhat more comfort than I do when using my computer.
As for software, I'm sure there's some kind out there that does what you're asking about, but I don't know where you would find it. I've never really had any need to use it, so I couldn't be of much help there.
Even so, I hope this helps you out a bit.
As for software, I'm sure there's some kind out there that does what you're asking about, but I don't know where you would find it. I've never really had any need to use it, so I couldn't be of much help there.
Even so, I hope this helps you out a bit.
Thanks for the responses guys.
I don't necessarily want a software that "thinks" it's smart enough to do it for me. Rather, I want to read the a document and use the software to put proofreading marks on it, so the original writer knows what needs to be corrected. The ideal software, if it exists, would allow me to use marks like these http://www.m-w.com/mw/table/proofrea.htm when editing papers.
As far as I know, it doesn't exist, which is why the electronic mark-up substitutes are being implemented. I not even sure it's feasible to use the handwritten proofreaders' marks in an electronic manner. Better, I think, to use ones designed for an electronic environment.
It means learning a new set of proofreaders' marks, but how tough is this?
You may want to take a look at www.autocrit.com
I used it when it was a free service and I found it excellent. I believe they charge something like $15 a year now. The program was written by a writer in British Columbia.
I used it when it was a free service and I found it excellent. I believe they charge something like $15 a year now. The program was written by a writer in British Columbia.
Autocrit
I've seen this, and, honestly, I think it's the worst possible thing any writer can do. Just a horrible, horrible, horrible idea.
And it wouldn't help when proofing work for others. At least no ethical person would use a service such as this, and they say they had proofed the work themselves.
And, really, if you can't do the work yourself, you have no clue whether autocrit gets it right or not, and it often gets things wrong.
I've seen this, and, honestly, I think it's the worst possible thing any writer can do. Just a horrible, horrible, horrible idea.
And it wouldn't help when proofing work for others. At least no ethical person would use a service such as this, and they say they had proofed the work themselves.
And, really, if you can't do the work yourself, you have no clue whether autocrit gets it right or not, and it often gets things wrong.
I think being able to add the traditional proofreading marks to an electronic document is an interesting idea. But I have to agree that proofing a printed document is probably much more conducive to catching errors. I always find stuff on printouts I missed completely on screen.
I tried out the 'free' version of autocrit last night. While I found the 'overused' words tool not that helpful, I rather enjoyed it's 'sentence length' graph. Basically, if you feed it an 800-word block of text, it spits out a graph showing you how long each sentence was (in terms of words). Of course, it treats all words equally, so just because one sentence is five words does not mean you have length diversity with the sentence after it comprised of ten words....merely because the sentence with five words is filled with multi-syllabec words and the one with ten is not.
While I wouldn't put my whole manuscript through autocrit, it's a neat little tool you could use on the first page of your novel.
While I wouldn't put my whole manuscript through autocrit, it's a neat little tool you could use on the first page of your novel.
- Status