# Any suggestion on how to make a cooperative effort for errata sheets for physics books?

Yes, McMahon's QFT Demystified has lots of erratas... Suddenly, an equation is compatible with $c=1$ units, and in the next line another one appears with a factor $\frac{1}{c^2}$. I am not any more sure if a changed sign is an errata or if I have made a mistake when solving the exercise. But is worth the effort of correcting them, I think it is a fantastic introductory text for non-theoretical physicists, with very simple but illustrating solved problems.

Would this site a good place to open a wiki-question, so that anybody can post the typos he/she finds? Perhaps can anybody put me in the right track of where and how to open something like a blog for that purpose? I ask first here in meta.

(Please notice how 'not-localized' I have made the question: errata for physics books in general...)

EDIT: I have just created this blog: https://mcmahondemystifiederrata.wordpress.com for posting errata, not only in QFT, but also for the other McMahon books (GR, QM and String Theory demystified). I have no idea on how to rule it, if it is visible, etc, it is the first time I create a blog, and I don't want to spend much time on it. I welcome any suggestions and help.

• For moderators: If I post a, ahem ahem, question on the main site to give that address of that blog I have created, so that many people can see it, it will be closed in minutes, right? – Eduardo Guerras Valera Jan 31 '13 at 16:18
• Well, I have just published some comments following questions that mentioned the book. I think that will be enough. – Eduardo Guerras Valera Jan 31 '13 at 16:25
• Pretty much :/ Again, create a chat room for collaboration on finding errata. Then collect them in one place (blog, etc). Not a bad idea. But off topic for main and meta. – Manishearth Jan 31 '13 at 16:30
• Comments about it are OK :) – Manishearth Jan 31 '13 at 16:30
• Umm, you were told that it would be closed, yet you re-posted? Why? That goes for physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52687/… as well :/ – Manishearth Jan 31 '13 at 18:34
• @Manishearth, no I did not re-posted. It is a completely different question, with no mention to McMahon book. I just had the idea nearly at the same time. Look at the post. – Eduardo Guerras Valera Jan 31 '13 at 19:24
• I was talking about physics.stackexchange.com/q/52673/7433 (which talks about errata and is a generalised version of the question you listed), the other link was just to refer to the other question. I said That goes for <link> as well, which means that <link> wasn't my original topic of discussion. – Manishearth Feb 1 '13 at 4:34
• @Manishearth, then I simply don't know what you mean, because I didn't re-post anything. I posted two different questions. And they were pretty general. Thay have been closed because they don't match whatever they need to match or whatever. I would be "re-posting" if I first had "posted", but... There may be a new, hidden meaning of the prefix "re-" that is unknown for me, in english, perhaps? – Eduardo Guerras Valera Feb 1 '13 at 14:14
• Sorry, I meant "post", not "re-post". My point basically was that I already told you that a similar question would be off topic. Never mind :/ – Manishearth Feb 1 '13 at 15:38
• No problem. I posted because I though it would fit inside a wider topics (errata for books in general, rather than the project for that title) but it's ok. – Eduardo Guerras Valera Feb 1 '13 at 17:40