I help editing a new edition of the Gacs-Lovasz: Complexity of Algorithms book. What is the best way to find some experienced people who would proofread some parts of it? E.g. is there a way to post ads here, for let's say reputation points?? Is this question already an ad??? Why are there more question marks at the end of each sentence????
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
14
-
$\begingroup$ Shouldn't this be on meta ????? $\endgroup$– Suresh VenkatDec 23, 2012 at 20:38
-
$\begingroup$ The second question probably yes, but my main question is the first one, which probably fits the soft-question category, doesn't it?????? :) Nevertheless, I am happy to move it there, if you think it is more appropriate there. $\endgroup$– domotorpDec 23, 2012 at 21:36
-
$\begingroup$ I think Academia is more suitable for the question in the title. However questions about the site should be on [meta]. $\endgroup$– KavehDec 23, 2012 at 22:07
-
2$\begingroup$ Another possibility, if you're so inclined, is the new Google+ TCS community $\endgroup$– Suresh VenkatDec 23, 2012 at 22:31
-
2$\begingroup$ or you can start a blog and ask there :) $\endgroup$– Alessandro CosentinoDec 24, 2012 at 4:39
-
$\begingroup$ There should be a wiki or forum where readers can submit line-by-line comments/edits on a TCS draft. I would like to see the following features: -authors can submit their pdfs to be proofread/commented on, and all such work should have the authors' consent; -edits are typically named to show volunteer contributions; -chapter-by-chapter, section-by-section divisions to make the contributions easier to use and to avoid reduplication of effort. $\endgroup$– Andy DruckerDec 24, 2012 at 17:54
-
$\begingroup$ Hi domotorp, I've done some basic proofreading of Chaps. 1-4. Will send to you. $\endgroup$– Andy DruckerDec 24, 2012 at 17:56
-
$\begingroup$ Now looking at the comments, I think it is best to move the question to meta - can anyone help me to do this? $\endgroup$– domotorpDec 24, 2012 at 18:02
-
$\begingroup$ I migrated it to meta as you requested. However I agree with Andy. A site for reviewing combining something like arxiv with conference review software with some SE like features would be interesting. $\endgroup$– KavehDec 24, 2012 at 20:33
-
$\begingroup$ Thx! So let me know if anyone knows about such a site... $\endgroup$– domotorpDec 24, 2012 at 22:41
-
$\begingroup$ strongly support the idea of a community/cyberspace review system but any such project would inherently be fraught with some political controversy. here is a list of ~100 papers still waiting to be reviewed by the community— woeginger p vs np page. also one should study the dynamics of the deolalikar commotion of 2.5 yr ago, 4 good refs to that here along with "some other stuff" too =) $\endgroup$– vznDec 25, 2012 at 17:30
-
3$\begingroup$ I would advocate that such a project be aimed principally at improving writeup quality and fixing typos/grammar, NOT at checking proofs of earth-shattering claims or deciding whether a paper is conference-worthy. The main intended application would be refining textbook drafts. I would be happy to see proofreaders make helpful suggestions about the content as well, but within a supportive, non-political framework. $\endgroup$– Andy DruckerDec 25, 2012 at 18:20
-
$\begingroup$ actually it would be possible to launch a stackexchange group for this purpose if there were enough volunteers, & its infrastructure would provide a lot of useful/relevant features (votes to prioritize what to review, reputation to measure merit of reviews etc) but unf there would prob not be very many volunteers & it would be difficult to overcome the new group membership commitment/count threshhold. for anyone interested proposals for new groups go here on area51 $\endgroup$– vznDec 26, 2012 at 17:49
-
$\begingroup$ more on community tcs reviewing idea on "community brain", windows on theory blog $\endgroup$– vznJan 2, 2013 at 18:41
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
You might want to try nb, developed by David Karger's group at MIT. The interface is very slick for online editing, and keeps track of edits and who made them.
-
$\begingroup$ This is a brilliant tool, thx! But the question still remains how to find proofreaders... $\endgroup$– domotorpDec 25, 2012 at 8:24
-
1$\begingroup$ That's a much harder problem :). you might want to start with a few people and spread the word. $\endgroup$ Dec 25, 2012 at 8:28
-
1$\begingroup$ The answers show that the main question of the OP has nothing to do with [meta]. $\endgroup$ Dec 26, 2012 at 20:49
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
It seems to be that posting your request on on CS Theory Google+ community would be quite appropriate, and you might find reviewers that way.
