Do you have a logical way of checking content for errors?

Typos, spelling, grammar and the like?

[Mark_A]

I just launched a new site based on an old one and I checked the contents of every page by reading all the content. I found and corrected a number of errors but three weeks after going live I noticed an error in the footer, so on every page, which I had missed! Grr ..

Do any of you have a clever way of checking for typos, spelling, grammar and the like?

[engine]

I don't know if it's a clever way: I use the following procedure and sequence, and much of it is obvious...
1. Standard word processor spell check.
2. Read aloud, or have the system read it back aloud (you'll be surprised how it looks fine until you read it aloud).
3. Pass to a colleague/client to read and review.
4. Once returned and corrected, go to 2.
5. Once uploaded, have it read out aloud by the system online (errors can be introduced).
6. Update at each stage.

[lucy24]

on every page, which I had missed

Please say this is done via some type of include, rather than the identical text being manually entered in each page separately.

My particular problem spot is ebooks. The text is proofread, spell-checked, run through a battery of tests (for example, looking for small words being duplicated before and after a line break--a surprisingly common typo in printed books), and then proofread again. But my commentary is typed from scratch, and every ### time I happen to look at it anew, I spot some embarrassing error. It's why I let everything marinade for a few weeks before uploading, to give the gremlins time to do their stuff.

Reading by some outside party--or by yourself after enough elapsed time that you’ve forgotten what you wrote--is really essential. Be especially alert for “ghosts”, where you’ve reworded some passage but neglected to delete one or more words from the old version. No mechanical test will find them, but they’ll jump right up at human eyeballs.

[piatkow]

I spent 10 years as a magazine editor and found the most effective way to check content was to find a good human proof reader.

[Mark_A]

Thanks, useful @lucy24 it is a footer in a WP CMS I am glad to report :) and I like the idea of elapsed time .. @engine I had forgotten about reading aloud and getting it read aloud, thanks, @piatkow yes a human proof reader would be great, I did pass things by a busy colleague but they are a busy person.

[tangor]

My check is having someone other than me read it. OUT LOUD.

If it sounds funny it needs to be worked on.

YMMV

[tangor]

Other method is let it lay for a bit, take a nap, and come back (sober) and read it again. :)

[lucy24]

take a nap

Clearly your naps are longer than mine. Ramsay’s Reminiscences provides the useful verb wamble:

:: shuffling papers ::

Ye see I first read a’ the pleadings, and then, after letting them wamble in my wame wi’ the toddy twa or three days, I gie my ain interlocutor.

In my case I prefer to let things wamble for twa or three weeks. Toddy optional.

[TorontoBoy]

A human proof reader who speaks the native language of your text. Computers and software are dumb.

[Jonesy]

It's always been the case here: I work diligently on writing a formal
letter or report -- checking and rechecking for mis-spellings, typos,
"you/your" mistakes, etc.
Then, as I'm pulling the piece of paper out of the printer, I will spot a
most obvious error as if it was in 48pt type.
Every time.

[buckworks]

>> A human proof reader who speaks the native language

Make that at least two human proofreaders if you can. Ideally, people who hadn't worked on the document previously. There is no substitute for a fresh pair of eyes.

Our brains have such a tendency to "see" what is "supposed" to be there rather than what "is" there that it really takes more than one set of eyes to proofread effectively.