BR is annoying!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

VackAttack

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
58
Reaction score
2
I just have to say this... I'm using BR to study and I honestly can't believe how many mistakes/typos/spelling/grammar errors there are!!!

You'd think they would have done a better job editing everything before it getting published. Oh well...

Members don't see this ad.
 
I definitely agree with this. Some of the typos are freaking ridiculous. There are way too many errors like nonsense sentence fragments, non words, and descriptions that are incorrect because the writer did something careless like write sin instead of cos.

Even that wouldn't be so bad since at least that stuff is pretty easily spotted, but there are also careless(or maybe misinformed) errors of information that drive me nuts. For example on pages 128-129 of Physics II, the diagrams for dipoles are all backwards. In physics, unlike chemistry, dipoles point toward the positive charge.

This is very important because in physics all of the diagrams point in the direction a positive test charge would move, so when you put a dipole in an electric field, the angle between the dipole and the field depends on the direction that both are pointing in. The formula U=-pEcos(theta) works if the dipole is drawn properly because it means at zero degrees, the potential energy is at its minimum and the formula gives that result.

As drawn in the book, it shows(and describes) the potential energy of a dipole where the negative pole is to the right in a field that is pointing to the right as being the most stable(most negative) system. This is the least stable because if the dipole tilts even a little, the negative pole will be pulled to the left and the positive pole will be pushed to the right.(either clockwise or ccw depending on how it is tilted)

Edit: I am pretty sure I will miss a question or two on the MCAT due to some TBR section describing something incorrectly and me not spotting the error. I have the EK books which I am going to read after the TBR ones and hopefully that clears up any errors, but I doubt it gets them all.
 
Agree 100%. I went back to studying TBR Orgo rather than commenting and made it only about 10 minutes before reading, "nut the length of the...". It's awful, I've found major and minor errors, but they seem to be, on average, every 3-4 pages.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
This one just made me laugh a bit. On page 145 of General Chemistry 2, in the answer to one problem, "Be sure to pay attention to the phase, especially for water, because inadvertently using the value for H20(g) instead of H20(l) would lead you to pick [the wrong answer]".

The reason this made me laugh is because in the solution to the problem above it (ie on literally the same page where they tell us not to screw up which values to use) they screwed up and used the value for the liquid form of water when the problem was about the gaseous form. This screw up also meant that none of the answer choices for the problem were correct.
 
I haven't noticed too many errata in the questions/answers or important information (although that could very well mean I'm screwed come test day lol), but I have noticed a ton of non-nonsensical sentence fragments, repeats of sentences, etc. I've noticed that some chapters in particular seem to be chock full of them, as if no one bothered to proofread those sections.
 
OChem 1 Book, on page 202... I noticed it said in the last sentence of solution to example 3.16... it says "Due to steric hinderence from the ethyl group on carbon 2..." umm.. I don't see an ethyl group. I see a methyl group in the problem. Is this an error? Really annoying because you waste time thinking if you are not following something correctly/not understanding or if its really a book error.

This is an error right?
 
This one just made me laugh a bit. On page 145 of General Chemistry 2, in the answer to one problem, "Be sure to pay attention to the phase, especially for water, because inadvertently using the value for H20(g) instead of H20(l) would lead you to pick [the wrong answer]".

The reason this made me laugh is because in the solution to the problem above it (ie on literally the same page where they tell us not to screw up which values to use) they screwed up and used the value for the liquid form of water when the problem was about the gaseous form. This screw up also meant that none of the answer choices for the problem were correct.

What version of the book do you have? I have the latest (printed in late March) and I can't find the error you are talking about. Question 8.13 uses H2O(l) in the equation and the value of -286 from the table on the previous page. That's exactly the value they're suppose to use, so I'm not sure where the typo is that you're talking about.

OChem 1 Book, on page 202... I noticed it said in the last sentence of solution to example 3.16... it says "Due to steric hinderence from the ethyl group on carbon 2..." umm.. I don't see an ethyl group. I see a methyl group in the problem. Is this an error? Really annoying because you waste time thinking if you are not following something correctly/not understanding or if its really a book error.

This is an error right?

That is a typo. The picture is correct and shows the structures of the major and minor products. The last sentence is missing an "m" in front of ethyl. Thank you. I'll let the editor know.
 
What version of the book do you have? I have the latest (printed in late March) and I can't find the error you are talking about. Question 8.13 uses H2O(l) in the equation and the value of -286 from the table on the previous page. That's exactly the value they're suppose to use, so I'm not sure where the typo is that you're talking about.



That is a typo. The picture is correct and shows the structures of the major and minor products. The last sentence is missing an "m" in front of ethyl. Thank you. I'll let the editor know.

Another typo (I think) on Ochem 1 book, page 212. Example 3.22 For choice A and B it should be vice versa. Choice A should say inversion of stereochem and choice B should say retention. It is typed the other way around. Is this a typo?
 
Another typo (I think) on Ochem 1 book, page 212. Example 3.22 For choice A and B it should be vice versa. Choice A should say inversion of stereochem and choice B should say retention. It is typed the other way around. Is this a typo?

In my book, Example 3.22 is on page 207 and it deals with an SN1 reaction generating two enantiomers (one chiral center in the molecule). I'm not sure I have the version of the book you're using. Does your book have three distinct phases for homework passages or a block of 100 questions?
 
In my book, Example 3.22 is on page 207 and it deals with an SN1 reaction generating two enantiomers (one chiral center in the molecule). I'm not sure I have the version of the book you're using. Does your book have three distinct phases for homework passages or a block of 100 questions?

Block of 100 questions. But in beginning of each practice set, it indicates which passages correspond to Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 questions.

Example 3.22 is "The addition of sodium methoxide in S-2-bromohexane at low temperature would yield..."

Is that the 3.22 example in your version? I think my book has last copyright 2007.
 
What version of the book do you have? I have the latest (printed in late March) and I can't find the error you are talking about. Question 8.13 uses H2O(l) in the equation and the value of -286 from the table on the previous page. That's exactly the value they're suppose to use, so I'm not sure where the typo is that you're talking about.



That is a typo. The picture is correct and shows the structures of the major and minor products. The last sentence is missing an "m" in front of ethyl. Thank you. I'll let the editor know.

My book's copyright is from 2010. I got it in 2011 from the TBR website, and it was the most recent book at the time. In the book, the problem is for C6H12O6(s) + O2(g) -> CO2(g) + H2O(g). Maybe you have a more recent edition, but in my book the error exists. I am looking at it right now.

Edit: I should say that I do not think the TBR books are worthless. They have some good tips for speeding up your problem solving and some good memory tricks for certain problem types. I like the depth to which they cover material. I still use my textbooks to be sure about some things, but the depth of the books works well for me as a guide to show me how deeply to study a topic. I also like the passages despite the typos. If I thought the errors were enough to invalidate the good parts of the books I would have already asked for a refund, but that is not the case.
 
my book's copyright is from 2010. I got it in 2011 from the tbr website, and it was the most recent book at the time. In the book, the problem is for c6h12o6(s) + o2(g) -> co2(g) + h2o(g). Maybe you have a more recent edition, but in my book the error exists. I am looking at it right now.

Edit: I should say that i do not think the tbr books are worthless. They have some good tips for speeding up your problem solving and some good memory tricks for certain problem types. I like the depth to which they cover material. I still use my textbooks to be sure about some things, but the depth of the books works well for me as a guide to show me how deeply to study a topic. I also like the passages despite the typos. If i thought the errors were enough to invalidate the good parts of the books i would have already asked for a refund, but that is not the case.

+1
 
My book's copyright is from 2010. I got it in 2011 from the TBR website, and it was the most recent book at the time. In the book, the problem is for C6H12O6(s) + O2(g) -> CO2(g) + H2O(g). Maybe you have a more recent edition, but in my book the error exists. I am looking at it right now.

Edit: I should say that I do not think the TBR books are worthless. They have some good tips for speeding up your problem solving and some good memory tricks for certain problem types. I like the depth to which they cover material. I still use my textbooks to be sure about some things, but the depth of the books works well for me as a guide to show me how deeply to study a topic. I also like the passages despite the typos. If I thought the errors were enough to invalidate the good parts of the books I would have already asked for a refund, but that is not the case.

Thanks for your feedback on that question. I asked about previous versions, and sure enough that was on the corrected list. With each new edition, previous errors are corrected, but new ones seem to be introduced. I think the problem lies in that the author is driven to add new passages more than sweep through the books. I hope now that the orgo book is in the format of the physics book, perhaps they'll put more of their focus on the editting rather than the addition of new passages.
 
Hey berkreviewteach,

You should start a thread detailing the errata for tbr by edition, contributed to by the sdn community.

Highly agree! Good idea.

The only problem would be that all the errata would get listed in a highly non-ordered manner. So, I suggest:
-A different thread for each book (i.e. one for Physics, one for Biology, etc.) so that the same thread doesn't contain errata for four or five different book sets
-Not sure how to explain this well, but- a list by section (chapter) for each book that everyone copies/pastes and adds to so that the errata are listed by chapter/section for each book
 
Sorry for bumping an old thread, but I do think we should start an errata thread. I have the newest version of the TBR books and I just found an error in the work/energy chapter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top