It’s a triple play of homophonic horrors

Some writers deserve recognition for their great writing. Piper Weiss, the senior features editor for Yahoo! Shine, is not one of them. She has earned, however, the distinction of being one of the few professional writers (maybe the only professional writer) to make three homophonic errors in a single article. Without further ado (or “adieu,” as she would write), they are:

Bares for bears. Unless the brainiac writer meant “uncovers.” But that would make no sense.

Hoards for hordes. This is a stretch since, really, neither word is correct, though hordes is closer to her implied meaning. A hoard is a supply of something stored up and often hidden. A horde refers to people in a mob or crowd. So, either one pretty much sucks in this context, but I’m calling it a homophonic error:

Sight for site. Just because she writes for a site, we can’t assume she can spell the word. Good thing she doesn’t work for a rotogravure.


The effect of your errors on your site

Homophonic errors on a Web site can destroy a writer’s credibility. So, this excerpt from Yahoo! Shine, with its misuse of effect instead of affect and site and cite, rates a big fat zero on the reliability scale:

Not an editor in sight

Apparently when this article was written for Yahoo! Shine there wasn’t an editor in sight:

That might be why this word is indistinguishable from a wrong word:

When did cottage cheese become a proper noun? Uh, never. And when did Jell-o become a common one? Uh, only in the writer’s mind. Can anyone explain what “in an era where less processed foods are healthier” means? Even if the writer had used the correct word when instead of where, I’d still be lost. And let’s talk about her inability to distinguish a contraction from a verb and a typo from right word:

Perhaps an editor might have spotted the an extra word, misplaced punctuation, and a misspelled Bieber and pomade:

It takes a great deal of moxie to use a Latin abbreviation when your English is so wobbly. The correct abbreviation is et al. The Internet still requires a capital letter. The plural of BlackBerry is BlackBerrys. (The whole “change the Y to I and add ES doesn’t apply to proper nouns.)

How does the writer get away with errors that proliferate in her writing?

Out of sight, out of mind

I’d like to get this mess out of my sight and out of my mind. But first I must share it. It’s from an article on Yahoo! Shine:

How does a shirt compliment eyes? Shirt to eyes, “Gee, you’re so blue. Are you wearing colored contacts?”

Now that that’s over with it, I intend to forget that I ever read it.

Hot mess: The new standard for writing?

It’s just a hot mess of random punctuation, homophonic errors, missing words, and other weirdness. And this is by a professional writer for Yahoo! Shine.

It starts with some missing punctuation: A hyphen in clear-view would make sense of the two words, as would two hyphens in out-of-season. But out of site? It’s out of sight, man!

Maybe the random comma is a result of a fat-fingered error. But what’s the excuse for including not only without its partner but also?

More random punctuation: A hyphen slipped out of hand-woven, a comma popped in where something else belongs, but I have no idea what. And an apostrophe that the writer wrongly thought was necessary to form the plural of DVD drops in:

More hot messness: A missing hyphen in over-door. More random punctuation: I don’t know what the comma should be since the words following it aren’t a clause and it seems to be referring to organizers. And again with the out of site:

This isn’t a brand-new mistake; it’s actually quite common on Yahoo!:

Does Yahoo! have any standards for hiring writers? Or is the ability to produce a hot mess the standard?

Diabetes steals Web site

It’s no laughing matter: Diabetes stole this woman’s life. But not before stealing her Web site:

site shine hp

I don’t know which is sadder: the loss of a friend or this headline on Yahoo! Shine.

It’s scary, but it’s not pretty

Designer Cynthia Rowley describes her new spring collection as “scary pretty.” In an article about her Fashion Week show, the Yahoo! Shine writer produces text that is scary, but definitely not pretty. There’s this repeated word, one of which should probably be she:

rowley shine 1

There’s a bit of a disagreement between the subject and verb here:

rowley shine 2

It’s a little frightful to think that a writer doesn’t know that clothing is a singular noun. Less scary is the absence of two capital letters in Bok-Hee:

rowley shine 25

Completely ugly is this typo and the incorrect lower-case Prosecco:

rowley shine 3

Scary and ugly: The erroneous plural of drop cloth (which should be drop cloths), the sentence missing a period, and citing the wrong homophone:

rowley shine 4

More scary, not pretty: The missing punctuation in vintage-looking (it needs a hyphen) and the missing comma after this:

rowley shine 5

And some missing words here make this sentence an unsightly mess:

rowley shine 6

Some writing is just scary. And scary isn’t pretty.

Oy! What a headache!

For a supposedly “Healthy Living” article on Yahoo! Shine, this is actually giving me a headache. It started when I read this misspelling of Philippines:

doctor shine health 1

The cranial pounding continued with this sentence:

doctor shine health 2

I wish that sentence had the writer’s complete attention. Then maybe she wouldn’t have added the extra word. And maybe if she set her sights on clear communication, my temples wouldn’t be throbbing:

doctor shine health 3

How will my struggles to get though this mess impact my health?

doctor shine health 4

I think I need to go lie down in a cool, dark room with a bottle of Advil.

Error in plain sight incites readers with insight

Any reader with any insight  into the difference between site and sight might be incited to violence (or pity) for the writer of this nonsense on Yahoo! Shine:


%d bloggers like this: