Writing Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for the craft of professional writing, including fiction, non-fiction, technical, scholarly, and commercial writing. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I hired a proofreader (typos, commonly confused words, minor grammar issues etc) to look at my work, which I plan to self publish.
She found most typos, but from a 66,000 word novel, missed about 10. Things like using 'its' instead of 'it's', 'you' for 'your' etc. I found these on my own last read.
Now I realise nobody is perfect, but if I'm hiring a professional proofreader, how many errors are acceptable?
Ten out of 66,000 words would be acceptable to me, particularly if the proofreader has only gone through it once. You always catch more on the second round because on the first you're reading for both structure and sense, and the second time is primarily for structure.
This is a difficult question to answer because an awful lot depends on your own personal expectations of what you expect a proofreader to achieve.
Having said that, a good proofreader should find all mistakes in a proofed draft, no mistakes should be acceptable; otherwise, what are you paying them for?
On the other hand, in my experience (and in my opinion) proofreaders are asked to do too much. If you want someone to check your grammar, correct word use, sense and consistency etc., hire a copy-editor, that's not the job of a proofreader.
I accept that the dividing line between what a copy editor does and a proofreader does is blurred but it's important to understand the distinction between the two to get the best results from both disciplines.
If you ask a proofreader to take on part of the role of a copy editor as well as proofreader they will make mistakes.
I wouldn't even allow one mistake. I am a proofreader and I do not rest until every error is corrected... No matter how many words. He obviously didnt do what you asked for. Find another proofreader.
You're working with a human so you'll usually be disappointed if you expect perfection. But as the author you are right to have high standards.
There are proofreading techniques, such as breaking up chapters and long paragraphs so errors stand out. Perhaps your proofreader is early in their career, perhaps not.
Instinctively I'd suggest a few rounds of proofreading. Two or three.
Perfection is a very difficult standard to achieve.
I think the more practical standards are:
At what point does the number of errors in the text become distracting to the reader? Ten typos or grammar errors in a 66,000 word novel doesn't sound to me like something that would be really annoying.
What is typical in the industry? What's the average number of errors per 1000 words or whatever in the average published book? Does anybody have any statistics on this?
Bear in mind that if a proofreader misses an error, it's likely that many readers will not notice it either.
From the information you have provided, the issue here is not the number of errors missed but the type of error.
Proofreading is an iterative process. The industry standard for a professional proofreader is that they should identify 95% of indisputable errors. Therefore, a process of two rounds of proofreading should eliminate AT LEAST 99.75% of errors.
This implies that the number of rounds required depends on the number of errors present in the copy immediately prior to proofreading.
That said, errors such as you/yours and its/it's should ALWAYS be spotted by a proofreader working in electronic formats, as they are basic errors that are easily identified by application of standard macros. Even a straightforward search for such errors will identify 100%, provided the proofreader is applying due diligence and clicking through.
I'm a bit late on this answer, but my experience with a proofreader at an academic publisher is that they can do much better. My proofreader made one mistake, changing a technical term into a more common homynym, but I only found two or three things she missed, and these weren't misspellings but rather inconsistencies in punctuation. (I should say that the manuscript--85,000 words--was very clean copy to start with.) I'd have been bothered if things like you're/your had been missed, though. That's what one is paying for: to appear literate. :-)
