Wow - I was out of town most of the week, and I return home to find a thread about me? I'm just sorry it took me this long to find out about it. Hopefully I'll be able to address everybody's questions/concerns/comments, and I apologize in advance for the length of this response.
First of all, I hope I'm not unduly causing publishers any unnecessary stress. It's certainly not my intention. On the other hand, I have to admit that when I'm reviewing a d20 book, the publisher's reaction is not my primary concern; I'm more concerned with how useful the book is to the average consumer, and how well the book does at sticking with the d20 rules that they're supposed to be using. Correct game stats (as I try to mention in any of my reviews where I'll be pointing out a bunch of errors) are at the absolute top of my list. While I agree with Whisperfoot's comment - 13 hp vs. 15 hp isn't going to be a game-breaker - I'm strongly of the belief that a creature's stats should be perfectly useable as published. If you have to go through and fix up attack bonuses and AC values before actually using the monster (or worse yet, don't notice and end up with a TPK or something because the creature ended up way too powerful for the encounter), then I really don't feel that the publisher is doing a service to the consumer.
As a result, I've made it a habit to point out any mistakes I find in the creature stats. I'll admit that I'll occasionally point out "insignificant" errors (like Whisperfoot's 13 hp vs. 15 hp example), but my thoughts there are not "Ah ha! Another error that I can slam the publisher on!" but rather "Well, as long as I'm listing errors, I might as well make the list as complete as possible." Also, I hope that my error lists are helpful, both to the consumer and the publisher. As such, I really appreciate companies that take my inputs in the spirit in which they're intended and either make the appropriate changes on the spot (if it's a PDF) or add it to their errata list (if it's a print product). (Or, for that matter, call me on it: I've overlooked things myself on occasion and have had to go back and modify a review once my mistake has been pointed out to me. I'll be the first to admit that it's easy to make game stat errors!) Either way, the end result should be the same: a better set of game stats for the consumer.
As far as Whisperfoot's concerns that an error that has to be dug deep for probably isn't worth mentioning, I pretty much agree. As an example, I never bother checking out the Skill points in any monster stats I'm reviewing; it's too much work to subtract the ability modifiers from each Skill, figure out which Skills are cross-class, add up the total ranks, and make sure they equal the number of Skill ranks the creature should have. Plus, if I find an error, then what? There's no "correct answer" to what Skill ranks a monster should have (as opposed to, say an AC value: there is a "correct answer" to that!). That's pretty much my only exception, though; it's gotten so I can figure out a creature's BAB based on creature type, size, and class in my head, and if I come up with a different value I don't mind breaking out the books and making sure I've got it right.
As for my "nitpickiness" (and Hellhound: I just love the title "King of Nitpickers" - I'll wear that one with pride!), I'll be the first to admit it. Yes, I dislike it when an RPG book is riddled with typos, grammar mistakes, poor punctuation, and the like, and I make sure to include how well the book does in that regard in my reviews as well. I've never bought into the theory that these are "just" game books and thus should be held to a lower standard; a printed product is a printed product (ditto with PDFs, in my mind), and the rules of the English language are as important to me as the d20 rules. In my 74 reviews to date (I hope to make it 75 by tonight), I've only included a list of grammatical errors in one review, and that was to back up a statement I was making in the review (a bit of overkill I admit, and not the best use of my time; I still gave the product a "4").
Incidentally, my reviews have inadvertantly ended up gaining me a few proofreading assignments. Hellhound had me proofread Secrets of Theurgy based (in part) on my review of Steam & Steel, and I'll be doing the same on upcoming issues of EN World Gamer Magazine. As tensen mentioned, he hired me to do some proofreading work (an upcoming PDF) based in part on my review of Lost Prehistorica. I've done several reviews of Silverthorne Games PDFs, and as a result I was hired to proofread their web enhancement of Template Troves Volume 1 and will be working on a rather lengthy product of theirs sometime in the near future. Also, I sent in a list of errors (grammatical and otherwise) I found in Mongoose's Conan RPG book, and as a result I was told I picked up a "thanks to" credit in the updated version of the book (although I haven't seen it to check). This certainly wasn't a path I had ever intended to walk down, but as haiiro mentioned, I'm not against taking a paying job now and again. And, for obvious reasons, I'll never review a product that I had a hand in, proofreading or otherwise.
Ed Cha: I hope you don't feel that I fall into the category of reviewer you mentioned!
I think that just about covers everybody's comments.
