Apr 27

Link Checks

Posted: under Uncategorized.
 April 27th, 2017

Computers never cease to amaze me, not always in good ways.  This morning I found a comment on an old post in this blog (so old, that comments to it won’t be posted)  and pulled up the post to check its original date.  It was on horsemanship with respect to fighting on horseback.  While reading back through it, I checked the links…one of which led not to a slow-motion video of a horse doing a flying a change of leads, but to a steamy sex site.  OOPS.  That link has been removed.  I checked the other links.  One was dead as concrete, so I hunted up another example of what needed to be shown, just in case anyone else stumbled across that post.

You’ve heard the saying, that nothing ever on the Internet really disappears…your worst errors can always be pulled up to haunt you…but clearly links can turn into links to somewhere else, or just go 404-page-not-found on you.

If any of you find bad links, defined as “not showing what I intended the link to show” please let me know so I can remove or replace them.

Comments (3)

Apr 25

Found Bloopers in Deed of Paksenarrion?

Posted: under Editing, Errata.
Tags:  April 25th, 2017

Richard Simpkin asked over on the Universes blog if it would be possible to fix the various typos, etc. in the first-original mass market paperbacks of the Deed.   He could think of one off the top of his head.  So could I (but I don’t know yet if we had the same one in mind.)   So I’m opening up a topic where you can post the ones you’ve noticed, and meanwhile I’ll ask Baen Books if they’re prepared to fix a few things that slid through.  Please reference the mistakes to the title (since the anniversary edition will be in three separate ones) and if possible the page 3 of the original paperback.   At this point I don’t know how many, if any, of the errors they’re going to have time to fix.  My guess is that they’ll be willing to fix typos & misspellings, but not change the places where it was my research or analysis that went wrong, because that would falsify the “new edition” thing.  Or maybe not.  We’ll see.

 

 

Comments (17)