I always proof each review I edit three times. I am glad there is a limit to how many I can pick up because I feel as though I can give each review I edit quality attention. I usually make some corrections on the second and third times through the
I always proof each review I edit three times. I am glad there is a limit to how many I can pick up because I feel as though I can give each review I edit quality attention. I usually make some corrections on the second and third times through the review, despite taking my time and doing a thorough job the first time. (I do admit, however, that I am extremely tedious and pretty nit-picky when it comes to grammar, so this is probably a bit extreme.) Granted, it takes a lot of time to proof a review three times, and not everyone can take the leisure to do that. (Back when EF's editors published reviews, I can guarantee you no one went over each review three times---not with the vast number of submitted reviews that passed under the noses of a small handful of overwhelmed editors! )
As Kindred mentioned, the reviewer can always go back in and make changes to a review once it has been edited, thus leaving behind errors that were not there at the time the editor published the review. Unfortunately, the editor does not receive a notification that the review has been edited again, so s/he cannot double-check the review. (I think it would be great if we did get such notifications! I also would appreciate notifications when a review is rated anything less than "excellent" so that the review can be checked by the editor again.)
Off-site reviews cannot be edited by the editor, other than the summary, pros, cons, and the experience section that is on-site. Additionally, follow-up reviews are very rarely edited by the original editor. (The follow-up editor is not shown though---only the original editor.)
I don't want to make excuses for blatant and multiple errors, but there are occasionally some very difficult reviews to edit. Most of the contributors have a good (and often even great) command of grammar, and the editing changes are quite minor. But sometimes you get a review for which you must laboriously decipher what is even being said sentence by sentence. You could theoretically send it back to the contributor to revise, but honestly, if the contributor's grasp of grammar is that poor, it is not likely that s/he can do a lot better. It is unreasonable to expect someone who struggles with grammar to take a review of a sex toy to a tutoring center to request help, so I am always happy to help the contributor out, especially if I think the contributor is sincere and is sharing an honest opinion with the community; I think it's worth the effort to make the review readable. But sometimes the amount of work one must do to make a review readable is overwhelming, so errors one might not otherwise miss are overlooked in the struggle to simply make the review readable and understandable. (I hope this makes sense.) I would always welcome and deeply appreciate a private message pointing out a blatant error in any review I edit.
As far as copying and pasting into a software program with a spelling and grammar checker, there are too many errors that are overlooked by such programs, so I hope no one uses that as their main form of proofing! For example, if the list of errors in the original post were posted into Microsoft Word, the grammar checker only catches the "there there" duplicate, "masterbator," and "goo." (Of course, there are some correct applications of the word "goo.")
Just my $0.02.