I wish I had known you were going to re-publish this article. I would have raised the issue that the words "reading higher" in the captions of all figures 6 through 13 should instead say "reading lower". This is not just me being a grammar cop, as this mistake made the article very difficult to read and process for me the first time I read it, since I was convinced at the time that you could not possibly be making a mistake, and so I doubted my comprehension.
For example, in Figure 9, the graph makes it quite clear that for a true specific gravity of 1.0264, the miscalibrated refractometer will read somewhere between 1.023 and 1.024, which is *lower* than the actual value, but the caption says, "...with all values reading higher than the actual value." No, all values are reading *lower* than the actual value (even though the red line is "higher" than the green line on the graph).
Please don't get me wrong; this is a fantastic article, and very helpful, but I admit that to someone carefully reading the article and trying to make sense out of it, this discrepancy did confuse and befuddle me for a while, until I came to the conclusion that the "reading higher" should be changed to "reading lower", and then it all made perfect sense.
Thanks again for all you do for us, Randy!
EDIT: Another, more clear example is regarding Figure 10, where in the article text, you say, "Similarly, Figure 10 shows the relationship between the measured and actual salinity for a refractometer with an offset miscalibration. It is clear that seawater (35 ppt) reads much lower in this case, at about 31 ppt." But the caption to Figure 10 says, "This refractometer has an offset error, with all values reading higher than the actual value."
You are right. I transposed the axes in my mind when I was writing those. I can have them changed.
