Apple Pay gets an addition

Do the folks who write for yahoo.com just make up product names? Here’s a case of a new name for a new Apple product: Apple iPay.

fp ipay

Someone managed to get the name right; it’s Apple Pay. So why did the product get an addition? Maybe the writer thinks all Apple products should begin with a lowercase I.

I have two questions

After reading this on the Yahoo! front page, I have a couple of questions:

fp restoring control

How does one restore control to an ability? My other question: How the heck does a nonsensical sentence like that get published on one of the busiest webpages in the universe?

Not to knock your writing, but…

Not to knock Yahoo! Style, but I think the quality of its content would be greatly improved if it were written by people actually familiar with English:

knock against style

Maybe if they employed college graduates familiar with common idioms and with using Google to check the spelling of characters (like, say, Maleficent), the writing wouldn’t be so amateurish. And if their writers knew that one of five “women” is actually a one-year-old baby, another is a doll, and another is a Lego figure, the word choices might be also be a bit more accurate.

I guess I really was knocking Yahoo! Style.

Literally, an embarrassment

Why do writers use words that they don’t understand and wind up just embarrassing themselves? Here, the writer for Yahoo! Style wants us to believe that athletic women actually, physically run to the top of the business world:

literally style 1

Since “the top of the business world” is a figure of speech, those women could not possibly literally run there. But they could figuratively run there. (Here’s a hint: Don’t use literally. Ever. Even if you don’t misuse it, your readers will think you did.)

This writer is so sure of her elementary school vocabulary that she’s telling you what she wrote is “not a metaphor”:

literally style 2

Well, honey, it is a metaphor. Unless the businesswomen kicked the CEO in the family jewels and commandeered his office, you are writing metaphorically.

Edited and still bad

In a never-ending search to find an article on Yahoo! DIY that doesn’t contain multiple errors, I came across this 2-sentence paragraph:

never search dyi

It’s hard to imagine that this was written by someone who advanced beyond fourth grade. It’s written by someone described as “Cinematographer/Editor.” After reading this, I can only presume the editing is of videos — and not text.

There’s just so much wrong in so little space: There’s the “never search,” which I take to mean “never-ending search.” There’s the mysterious “to do pumpkins a new way,” which sounds particularly lewd. There’s the claim that you need a sand bag, which you don’t; you’ll just fill a trash bag with sand. You gotta wonder about a writer who uses wonder instead of wander. And who the heck calls Halloween “the Halloween Eve.” And don’t get me started on the five periods, which might be an attempt at ellipsis (which is three periods).

So, I just checked that article and it looks like someone attempted to edit that mess. Unfortunately, the editor isn’t much better than the writer when it comes to writing:

never search diy 2

Now it looks like there’s just one word missing in what should be “pumpkins in a new way,” though the sand bag is still there. But what’s really surprising is that the editor doesn’t know any more about Halloween than the writer. It’s also known as All Hallows’ Eve.

It’s not nice to lie to readers

When is a little inaccuracy really a lie? When it’s accompanied by several other “inaccuracies.” Maybe the writer for the new site Yahoo! DIY didn’t mean to lie to her readers. Maybe she was just fibbing a little when she told them all they’d need for this project was a hammer and candles:

chandelier 1

That little white lie gets exposed as a big fat lie when you read the list of materials and tools:

chandelier 2

Overlook the random capital letters in the list and the quirky categorization of masking tape as a “tool.” The issue is, there’s more to this DIY project than the writer let on. But wait! There’s more!

Here’s a picture that the writer provided of some (or all?) of the tools and materials you’ll need:

chandelier 3

Did she forget to tell readers that they’d also need a miter box and a hacksaw?

Would you trust Yahoo! DIY for instructions on your next do-it-yourself project? I didn’t think so.

Homemade errors

Pssst. I think this is supposed to be a secret. It looks like Yahoo! has quietly launched a new property called Yahoo! DIY. I wonder why the Internet giant hasn’t announced it on yahoo.com. Maybe the company is waiting until it gets the wrinkles out. Lordie knows this could use a little more time in the editing cycle:

home made diy

People writing for a site called DIY (for “do it yourself”) should know how to spell homemade. I guess this spelling is just one way the writers are clinging to the Yahoo! tradition of avoiding the dictionary. The headline also pays homage to another Yahoo! tradition with its inaccuracy. The “costumes” are actual one costume. One.

It looks like Yahoo! DIY will be a great source of future blog posts for Terribly Write.

News to confuse

Sometimes the news can be so confusing. Especially if you’re reading Yahoo! News. I’m so befuddled by the possibility of a Nebraska hospital ending up in Liberia. How the heck did that happen?

news 2

We all know people who are so fond of their dog that they feel they’re owned by their pet. Apparently that’s the case with the nurse in Texas who contracted Ebola. Her spaniel owned her, and not the other way ’round:

news 1

Although I’ve been following the story of the nurse’s illness, I had no idea she was the first person infected with Ebola. I thought the outbreak started in Africa, not the U.S. Shows you how much I know.

Not even trying

Ah, geez. This writer came up with one stinking little paragraph and she can’t even get the name of the product right? She’s not even trying:

fendi peekaboo

The bag is called the Peekaboo — without any of those hyphens. It’s downright (notice it’s one word?) crazy that the writer would insert them. I can forgive her for referring to an object as she, although it strikes me as both amateurish and juvenile. But then she tries to construct a sentence that is pure nonsense and seems to think navy is a synonym for midnight blue. It isn’t and the claim that “her navy is also .. midnight blue” just makes no sense.

Should writers lie to their readers?

Should writers pretend to be someone they’re not? Should a writer for a supposedly fact-based site lie to readers by pretending to be someone they’re not?

I first asked myself that question when I read an article on Yahoo! allegedly written by popular cookbook author and TV personality Rachael Ray. I couldn’t help but notice that the name in the byline was Rachel Ray and that throughout the article “Ms. Ray” misspelled her own name a dozen times. Obviously it wasn’t written by her, but by some hack at Yahoo! trying to deceive the public. That’s not nice.

Does this paragraph from Yahoo! Style raise questions of journalistic integrity at Yahoo!? There seems to be nothing to question here:

chris kim 1

until you read the byline:

chris kim 2

Christopher Kim appears to be a male in this picture (he’s the one on the right):

chris kim pic

I don’t know anything about his personal life, especially about his gender identity, but is he really just trying to make readers think he’s just one of “us ladies”? Any why bother deceiving readers? And would you trust Yahoo! Style to be accurate, honest, and truthful?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 777 other followers

%d bloggers like this: