Serene Vannoy wrote:
> ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>> However, I'd also place blame on the (human) proofreader in this case -
>> I mean nobody's perfect, but this turned out to be a rather expensive
>> and highly embarrassing mistake for the publisher concerned. Have a
>> feeling this particular proofreader got lazy and only proofread the
>> method/instructions of the recipes, because (s)he thought (wrongly)
>> that the ingredients lists could not possibly have any mistakes (or it
>> didn't really matter if they did)...
>
> As a professional copy editor and proofreader, I'd also say that *every*
> project goes to press with some mistakes, no matter how many people
> proof it. It's just the nature of the beast that some errors (especially
> words and phrases we see all the time and are expecting to be a certain
> way, like "black pepper") are hard to spot in a large work.
>
> I'd bet a hundred dollars that there's at least one other typo in the
> book, but it's just not something incendiary. If it had said "black
> peepers" or something, it wouldn't even be a news story.
>
> (Also, I don't know when the book was edited/proofed, but it's a fact
> that in recent years, budget cuts have meant that every publisher I know
> of has slashed its editing/proofing staff, and proofers are overworked
> if they're there at all. See
> http://www.columbiamissourian.com/st...2/dear-reader/ )
>
> ObFood: Broccoli and zucchini in the farm box means tonight's dinner
> will be simple spaghetti with lots of veggies.
>
> Serene
>

I bet you are wrong....

--
Jean B.