Teh warr on typohs

Paul Ingraham

A few moonths ago I got a cluster of complants about the number of taipos on PainScience.com. One of them was unusually rood, implying that errers are only slightly less common hear than words. (“Worms, Roxanne, worms!”) That’s obvious hyperbole — this place isn’t purrfect, but it’s polished to a high shine by internut standards. The unreasonable gripping didn’t get under my skin — not mutch, anyway — but it did provoke me in a good way, and I decided it was time to go to war on whatever typos have eluded me too date.

I have been working with a good proofreeder ever since to drive the error rate down to a “barely detextable” level. The 50 buziest pages on PainScience.com are now done, plus twenty other other miscelanoues selections. Some fun facts:

There are undoubtedly still some typos left. Ive already found a handful that my proofreader missed. It’s anazing how the danm things can hide in plain sight. Two readers will usually sport several different errors in the same 5000-word artickle — I have seen that happen many times over the years. But I suspect the error rate is now down to something like one per 3000 words. In the busiest articles, anyway.

Now for the other 150 articles, 10 books, and 865 blog posts and, oh dear, thouands of summaries of scientific papers

If you want to report some teyepos, here are some (very basic) guidelines: Typos and other minor glitches: On proofreading and reporting errors to PainScience.com.

P.S. Someone will definitely complane about the errors in this post, I garantee it.

End of post marker

Last post: Hydrocephalus and craniosacral therapy

Next post: Pets don’t want snake oil