1) There is also a winword .doc file in the same directory, but Hubisz says
to avoid it because it is missing a couple of paragraphs. I assume
everybody on this list can deal with .pdf format.
2) I found the report to be less useful than I had hoped.
a) It is mostly a conglomeration of raw data. It cries out for
systematic analysis. In its present form, the raw data is not very useful
unless you are using one of the books being reviewed. These are indicated
with an asterisk on the last page of the report.
b) With few exceptions, errors are not graded according to severity.
c) With few exceptions, strong points are not identified, just errors,
which seems a bit unbalanced.
d) Interspersed with the raw data (concerning the correctness of
isolated passages) there are conclusory opinions concerning the worth of a
given book as a whole. It would be nice to see a clearer path from the
data to the opinions. It would be nice to see a similar review of the
books favorably mentioned in the summary section, and a systematic
comparison among the contenders.
e) Interspersed at various points are colorful anecdotes about attempts
to get someone to take responsibility for having written the books, or to
take responsibility for fixing the errors. These are good for a laugh, and
shed some light on contemporary bureaucratic practices, but they are
incompatible with the stated purpose of the report. The correctness of a
book is independent of who wrote it.