Report an issue: urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2042.tlg001.perseus-grc1:7.[multiple] - lots of minor OCR corrections

[sarahmccuan]

I've found a few small errors in Contra Celsum vs. the source doc. Most likely OCR issues that haven't been caught yet. Going to document in this ticket w/ the correct data. I can eventually submit a pr with fixes if that's okay with y'all.

Question for reviewers:

• what "backup" do y'all want to see supporting changes? (screenshots as below? something else? there are a lot of changes but mostly minor so I'd like to be somewhat efficient / non-annoying with the amount of backup)
• is it okay to leave this as a high-level WIP ticket & link everything in my pr(s) back to it, or do you want me to open an issue per pr? I'd prefer the former as I see most of this as the same kind of work, but not sure of guidelines on contributions.

Thanks!

---

e.g. in 7.26

... will add more refs. There are a ton of commas that are OCRed (?) as periods in this and the next few sections in particular

---

(note to future self: there's a cleaner pdf scan here than what I have above: https://archive.org/details/origeneswerke01origgoog/page/179/mode/2up)

[sarahmccuan]

Also~ apostrophes seem universally missing in the text today - is that a bug or a feature? E.g. in καθ' in the first paragraph screenshot above. (Probably a different ticket, I'm just unsure if it's worth opening or if that's the result of some previous intentional decision.)

[lcerrato]

I've found a few small errors in Contra Celsum vs. the source doc. Most likely OCR issues that haven't been caught yet. Going to document in this ticket w/ the correct data. I can eventually submit a pr with fixes if that's okay with y'all.

Question for reviewers:

• what "backup" do y'all want to see supporting changes? (screenshots as below? something else? there are a lot of changes but mostly minor so I'd like to be somewhat efficient / non-annoying with the amount of backup)
• is it okay to leave this as a high-level WIP ticket & link everything in my pr(s) back to it, or do you want me to open an issue per pr? I'd prefer the former as I see most of this as the same kind of work, but not sure of guidelines on contributions.

Thanks!

Hi @sarahmccuan

Page level links to support edits are appreciated. If the scans used as the source are working and available, those are preferred. Otherwise, a simplified format of citation "sic" > "correction" in a list is best so that I can go through and spot check as needed.
something like:
1.5 ommia > omnia
1.7 veritas > veritas

If this results in a long list of changes, I would simply fall back on the pull request.

One PR should be fine as this is one file. Let me know when it is done. If it makes more sense to split the work, you can always set some arbitrary end point (a book or half the file), ask for a review and then continue.

There is no intention to omit apostrophes. I don't see a history on the file, but depending on how and when it was entered, there could be many such errors. The early hybrid OCR work tended to be subpar with small marks and this does not appear to have any data entry component. It also has an older file header format.

Whatever can be done to clean it up is appreciated. I would not worry about screen shots for every change, though.