Do you like it when someone shows you something, or teaches you a little trick to make things go smoothly.
I wanted to share with you a trick I learned many years ago and it still works on everything we do today. When you are proof reading something; read it, no look at it backwards. It is amazing how you can find numbers that are in the wrong order, or words that just don’t seem quite right.
Here are some websites that I found that will help even more with the proof reading, so that you can look good when you post your article.
Descriptions of What Different Types of Proof Reading Types there areWikipedia, can be a great source to hear what other people say about a topic. In this subject they compare different kinds of proof reading. Like the traditional kind:
“A proof is a typeset version of copy or a manuscript page. They often contain typos introduced through human error. Traditionally, a proof reader looks at an increment of text on the copy and then compares it to the corresponding typeset increment, and then marks any errors (sometimes called line edits) using standard proofreaders’ marks. Thus, unlike copy editing, proof reading’s defining procedure is to work directly with two sets of information at the same time. Proofs are then returned to the typesetter or graphic artist for correction”
They share alternatives, like Double reading, Scanning and making checklists. Here is prime example of why proof reading it yourself can have its flaws:
Primary examples include job seekers’ own resumes and student term-papers. Proofreading this kind of material presents a special challenge, first because the proof reader/editor is usually the author; second because such authors are usually unaware of the inevitability of errors and the effort required to find them; and third, as finding any final errors often occurs just when stress levels are highest and time shortest, readers’ minds resist identifying them as errors. Under these conditions, proofreaders tend to see only what they want to see.
There are numerous websites and blogs offering detailed advice on how authors should check their own material. The context is that of a one-time effort,