titles?

[Outdated]

Worse, for some reason some I only spot some after I've posted, regardless of checking the original first. <sigh!>

Same here, at least posts can be edited, much worse when you do it in emails.

PEBCAK Error. Problem exists between chair and keyboard.

 

[Judge]

I now understood, that it's something I did in ublock. Can I switch off ublock just for this website?

Yes, you can make exceptions by URL with that particular extension by right-clicking it and choosing options to make it inoperative. You can also choose to temporarily just turn it completely off as well. No harm, no foul.

Using logical deduction and turning off extensions and plug-ins is yet another way of troubleshooting a browser. No telling whether or not it will impact what is being discussed here though.

Ublock Origin is being challenged by Google Chrome, as they seem intent on neutralizing ad-blockers in general now. No telling whether Ublock Origin will attempt to counter this, or what "collateral damage" additional programming might create with other browsers. I'm guessing they're in a bit of a panic given Google Chrome's share of the browser market.

In turning it completely off, it didn't seem to make any difference on my end. I still see thread titles, but have nothing under my avatar when replying to a post. But then I'm not running Windows either.

 

[Boogs]

Same here, at least posts can be edited, much worse when you do it in emails.

PEBCAK Error. Problem exists between chair and keyboard.

It is an odd effect indeed. I've tried really hard to scan for all mistakes before submitting a post, with this in mind at the time and so on the alert, and yet despite the font being so close or identical between edit and posted I still often miss something that immediately stands out after posting. I remember noticing a similar effect when I first started programming, and I'd spot syntax errors immediately from a printout after spending ages trying to find them on the screen. I think there's some sort of shift in context that gets the brain to properly re-evaluate the text and then it see's the breaks in the patterns - ha! that's funny! I'm clearing the cache!

But spotting (missing) the mistakes seems to involve a different brain function to making them. A large part of making them is a mix of repetitive mistakes such words always spelt incorrectly with the same mistake, in addition to trying to type too fast because the brain's output is streaming too quickly for my fingers to keep up. I've tried learning to touch type a few times over the years, but it wouldn't take, always too many mistakes, always the same one's.

 

[Outdated]

I've tried really hard to scan for all mistakes before submitting a post, with this in mind at the time and so on the alert, and yet despite the font being so close or identical between edit and posted I still often miss something that immediately stands out after posting.

I was trained to proof read as part of my trade, and I was good at it, yet I do exactly the same.

 

[Boogs]

I was trained to proof read as part of my trade, and I was good at it, yet I do exactly the same.

Interesting, I read with great precision and accuracy, but ...
.. . . . very s-l-o-w-l-y!
(or at least slow when there's content that needs processing and understanding - new concepts and ideas).

And, from previous comments you've made I'm guessing you're probably similar in parts:
I first have to turn the string of arbitrary symbols (those word thingies) into semantic packets of meaning, which can then be pieced together to form a sentence of meaning rather than symbols expressing meaning.

As long as the original text is almost all literal with little emoting between the lines (so to speak); and as long as I didn't compose it, then I pick out the errors and ambiguities almost instantly sometimes.

I've wondered if this is partly due to inability to visualise, I can only work with what's in my direct field of view and the semantics I can generate from that (same for everything, not just text). So once I've converted text to knowledge I treat those words on the page as a link to the meaning in my head, I can't reread it from a memory of what words were used. If I haven't gained the full meaning of the words on first reading and need to reread, then my only source is the original text, I have nothing internal to refer back to.

@Outdated - you, I believe, are quite visual in your cognition? I just wonder if you notice a similar effect in the difference proofing something you've written as opposed to proof reading other people's work?

 

[Outdated]

@Outdated - you, I believe, are quite visual in your cognition? I just wonder if you notice a similar effect in the difference proofing something you've written as opposed to proof reading other people's work?

Yes, that's how it seems to work. Other people's errors stand out glaringly to me but my brain seems to skip past my own.

 

[Tired]

I love how this topic moved to something else entirely, as it always does in this forum heh

 

[Boogs]

The word 'diverse' springs to mind!
Or is that just 'divert'?

 

[Boogs]

Yes, that's how it seems to work. Other people's errors stand out glaringly to me but my brain seems to skip past my own.

It sounds like although the mechanisms may differ, the underlying methods are rather similar.
e.g. we may differ in how we perceive things in our conscious mind, but use those differing perceptions and mechanisms to achieve similar aims (analysing and processing written language in a particular fashion).

In our case, we seem to process language in a similar fashion (from descriptions of constructing meaning in real time conversations), at least overtly, and yet our perceptions must be quite different in many ways and perception must be nearer the root of this processing since we have to perceive something before we can process it.

Now, if only I can think of a way to relate all that to the UI of this forum's platform, I may be able to bring the topic back round to the OP?