Get a peek at this

Get a peek at the use of an incorrect preposition on the Yahoo! front page:

fp get a peek of

Who says “get a peek of”? Someone still learning English perhaps?

Don’t miss missed opportunities!

From Yahoo! Style we get advice that we’re all sure to follow:

missed opp style

I have nothing to add to that bit of wisdom.

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.

This writing could repel readers

Using the wrong word could repel your readers. It’s a lesson that’s lost on the writer at Yahoo! Style:

repelling style

Reading something like that makes me want to climb the walls. And then rappel down.

That would be difficult

It would be difficult to be the lowest rung on any totem pole, despite what you might read on Yahoo! Travel:

rung on totem pole travel

A totem pole does not have rungs. Ladders have rungs.

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.

I should have stopped reading

I shouldn’t have read more than this headline on Yahoo! Style:

our stories 1

I should have known that if the headline contains one humongous goof, the article itself is going to be a disaster. The huge mistake in the headline? The article is about a retailer called & Other Stories. How bad is that? Bad. But it gets worse.

At least in the opening paragraph, the writer manages to use the correct words for the retailer, though she does close up the space after the ampersand:

our stories 2

But she drops the the in what should be “in the U.S.” and the hyphen that’s required in brand-new. Maybe the writer is a recent arrival to the States and doesn’t realize that it’s capitalized when referring to the United States.

When it’s a noun or an adjective, must-have must have a hyphen:

our stories 3

This could be a simple typo (names instead of named), but the use of the pronoun their without any known antecedent is just wrong:

our stories 4

How do you explain the misspelling of a product when it appears below a picture of the product?

our stories 5

The final sentence of the article doesn’t disappoint: One hardly ever sees the use of a plural verb with the singular everything:

our stories 6

That was not good. I knew when I read the headline I should have stopped reading. My bad.

There’s no earthly reason for that

It was just a few days ago that I urged the writing staff at Yahoo! to avoid all words derived from French, because even if they spell the word correctly (which is unlikely), they use it incorrectly (which is likely). So, here we have on the Yahoo! front page a misspelled word from French:

fp earthly

The expression is au naturel, which means in a natural state. But there’s no earthly reason to use that expression; natural works just fine. Oh, and the use of earthly here? I don’t know what it means in this context. It generally is used to mean of this earth or not heavenly. But I like another meaning: conceivable or possible.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 777 other followers

%d bloggers like this: