I read through 5 to 10 different sites with lists of error types, and kept a list of the errors they mentioned as common. Errors in articles, prepositions, and verb tense are mentioned most consistently. More stress was on incorrect articles (using 'a/an' in place of 'the' or vis-versa) than on missing articles, although missing articles were common as well. No differentiation was made between different kinds of preposition errors. Another common error was in "verb form," which usually meant that an infinitive was used in place of a gerund or a gerund in place of an infinitive (e.g. "I want succeeding in school" instead of "I want to succeed in school").
I thought that it was interesting comparing the CS articles to the linguistics/education articles, and am thinking we will need to use some compromise of both approaches for our MTurk study. The CS articles tend to focus on fewer and broader error types, while the websites aimed at education focus on very specific errors. In a highly unscientific study, I turned my lists of errors into tallies, so that each time an error type was mentioned in a paper, it got a point. Then I made graphs of the number of times each type was mentioned out of the total mentions - mostly just because I really like graphs, and also to practice with Google Plots.
What I see as being the most difficult part of translating the many error types listed on the education sites is the inconsistency. These sites aren't attempting to partition all errors, so using these error types directly could lead to a corpus with a few errors tagged as specifically as "effect vs. affect" or "which vs. that" and then a very large "other" category. This type of schema seems very non-ideal from a ML perspective. On the other hand, the insert/delete/substitute error types that have been the focus of many of the CS studies aren't highly descriptive and don't offer much linguistic insight or fine-tuning. I suppose this will be something we will have to wait and hash out after we have run some tests on Mturk.
As mentioned, these are very unscientific. The scale has very little meaning since the CS articles tended to focus on one or two errors per paper whereas the linguistics ones usually gave lists of 8 to 12 errors. In other words, 10% of mentions in CS could be literally one mention while 10% in linguistics is probably around 5 mentions. Like I said, these are just a way of listing the error types and an excuse to make pretty graphs, not meant to be a deep analysis.
*I have a list of citations for the papers I read, but left it on my other computer, so I will post it this evening when I get home.
**I feel like a commercial for Google, using Google blogs, Google plots, Google docs, Google scholar...at least no Android phone...yet...