In the process of publishing my first book myself, I realized that with the 650,000 symbols (letters, numbers, punctuation, etc.) in addition to the thousands of literary elements (characters, settings, conflicts, arcs, plots, sub-plots, emotions, ...) that even if I got 99.9% of it all perfect, it would still leave about a thousand errors. And with each error comes the possibility of kicking a reader out of the story (there might also be some that luckily add charm, which one runs the risk of removing through the editing process). In addition to this, my brain is able to compensate for errors far too easily, making it harder to see what problems exist in the book (which I hear is why even the best copy editors will probably only get about 80% of the grammar and spelling errors).

So I understand much better why even publishing companies with there teams of editors still leave a fair number of errors in books.

A few minor (and, really, not on topic, so apologies) points.

1) Grammar "errors." This is such a fuzzy, nebulous issue; "grammar" is not a monolithic, absolute, by-the-numbers thing. First, there's the fact that only the most academic register adheres with total fidelity to the "rules" (i.e., follows the top style guides with rigid insistence)—every other register is increasingly relaxed by comparison, following typical usage instead of external rules. Second, beyond that, any point of view that is not utterly detached from every character is at least somewhat flavored by the idiolect of one or more particular characters, so the grammar in the text necessarily becomes less "correct."

2) Non-grammatical issues. These are fuzzier and therefore less easy to pin down as errors except when blatant; even consistency, ostensibly the easiest issue to identify, does not necessarily apply if the narrator is even slightly unreliable (i.e., human and well portrayed as such). Furthermore, many "errors" of this sort are less mistakes than points of preference; for example, a choice to steer a plot in direction X, while not to the tastes of some readers, is not an error but, well, a choice.

2) "80%." Hmm. Now I'm wondering where that figure came from, because it certainly doesn't apply to every book I can recall reading; I'd estimate the typical percentage at mid to upper 90s. When it comes to the "particulate matter" level of editing (the simplest, least arguable questions such as spelling, much of the punctuation, syntax, etc.), any copyeditor who reached only a level of 80% accuracy would never work again, at least for that client. One of my fairly recent copyedits, for example, was observed by a thoughtful reviewer to have had, quote, "an error about every 100–150 pages," which comes to a foul-up every 25,000 to 40,000 words or so, an accuracy rate of at least 99.996%.

In short, if you're seeing inarguable mistakes (i.e., not questions of choice, appropriate register, etc.) much more often than that, someone really dropped the ball.

Sorry for the sidetrack; carry on.

Bumping FGJ.

Can't stop the signal, Mal!

If the sexbot wants to donate as well, I'm sure Helen wouldn't object.

I see someone has already snagged the Skin Game ARC. Oh, and someone's already claimed my full copyedit!

Signal boosts are just as good, folks! Spread the word!

Not sure who remembers Helen, former stalwart of these boards (and insufficiently frequent visitor of late, DAMMIT, HELEN  ), but she has a little light at the end of the tunnel and could use some help getting there. Spread the word!

http://www.gofundme.com/7xmk64

Slipped in a link to her profile.  ^-Serack

Salt ... Wounds ... thanks bud!   

I can't go either, man.

The anecdotal evidence I have from people doing editing for non-traditional publishers is that it drives them crazy to be in a position where they're not given time to edit properly or where authors without even a basic grasp of grammar get to overrule them, fwiw.

As a freelance copyeditor who has done work for the entire spectrum of the trad-to-self-pubbed, I can attest that it's usually the traditional publishers that leave less time to do the work. Also, the self-pubbers who actually look for professional-level editing are both more aware of the basic mechanics and more likely to accept both corrections and suggestions. It's an expensive proposition, paying for the full gamut of editing services yourself up front, but the ones I've worked with all view it as a sound investment. This, of course, doesn't address the ones who don't look for editing services or don't want to pay for them, which is why there's been talk of offering a "Professionally Edited" tag for self-pubbers who bite the bullet and choose the full-editing route, so that potential readers can at least know that it won't be a grammatical or storyline nightmare (story may still suck, but this happens along that entire aforementioned spectrum ).