Here’s a lesson you for

Here’s a lesson for you, courtesy of Yahoo: Make sure your words are in the correct order.

Another lesson: Proofread everything you write. Even the headlines.

Advertisements

Fake news?

Would you be skeptical, like me, if you read this on Yahoo News?

I’m no expert, but the cost of $25K per day seemed awfully low to me. So, I read the article to find out the truth:

Looks like Yahoo News might really be Yahoo Fake News.

Not a good place for that

The home page of Yahoo News is not a good place for a typo — especially in a headline:

That Shrkeli fella is actually Martin Shkreli.

Repeated redundancy

Well, do you think that the editor for Yahoo Style knows what palatial means? I think not, otherwise we wouldn’t be subjected to this headline:

Readers of Style noticed the redundancy, too, and didn’t hesitate to point it out:

Did you really just write “palatial palaces”? Do you work for the Department of Redundancy Department?

all palaces are palatial, dummy. It’s the definition of a palace. It’s like spatious [sic] space.
“Palatial Palaces”? Isn’t that redundantly redundant?
Can we talk about how the headline says “palatial palaces”? I find this an alarmingly alarming grammatical alarum.
Palatial palaces? What an uncultured illiterate!
Palatial: “resembling a palace” … Thus, a palatial palace = resembling a palace palace. I take it that Maggie Parker did not graduate from a top notch journalism school.
Palatial palaces? Seriously? That’s what you’re going to go with for your headline?
This article is redundant starting from the title…
A palatial palace? Um, palatial means “like a palace”. So, a palace-like palace? As opposed to….?
Palatial palaces? So…like…palace-like palaces? Redundancy is redundant
So, if you think readers don’t care about your use of words, think again and ponder once more. They notice.

No big deal, right?

No big deal, right? Just because a professional writer for Yahoo Style has no idea how to form the plural of a name (Hint: It doesn’t include an apostrophe), it’s reason to criticize. It’s just creative spelling!

Ability to count optional

You don’t need to be able to count to write for Yahoo Finance:

This writer can’t count and can’t get the name of the retirement account right: It’s 401(k). So, why would anyone trust the advice from this site?

Both are keeping the error

When this appeared this morning on Yahoo News, I was sure it would be corrected:

Well, the headline was edited, but the mismatch of a plural subject and a singular verb remains:

I guess the editors are keeping the mistake.

Did the editor roll over?

Was there some disagreement at Yahoo Finance about the name of a popular retirement plan? Did the writer insist it’s a 401k, but the editor claim it’s 401(k)? Did the editor roll over and write this:

Well, a finance writer and editor who don’t know that the plan is a 401(k) probably don’t know that rollover isn’t a verb. The verb phrase is two words: roll over. (And the illustrator has a different idea about the plan’s name.)

But wait! There’s more! The headline for the article also claims rollover can be a verb. (What would its past tense be? rollovered?)

And there’s yet another (and wrong) name for the plan, this time with a capital K. (I’m going to overlook the missing hyphen in what normally would be two-minute.  It’s Yahoo’s feature and the company can call it anything it wants, even if it’s slightly illiterate.)

Regarding that word

To the Yahoo! Style writer: In regard to your word choice, it’s wrong.

The expression is in regard to or with regard to, or even just regarding.

Writing imbued with ignorance

I’m stumped. What do the Yahoo! News editors think imbue means?

Clearly they don’t know that it means to permeate or influence something.

%d bloggers like this: