If you’re not known for your writing, then at least don’t take a job as a professional writer. Unless you want to work for Yahoo! Style; then it’s totally OK.
After reading this, it shouldn’t take you long to figure out what they’re making over at Yahoo! Makers:
They’re making mistakes and not just one or two. They’re making four in a single sentence, three of which would be flagged by a common spell-checker. The writers make more mistakes per hour than any other writers on the Web.
(In case the writer is reading this, it should be airborne, toxins, than, and purifying.)
What’s better than writing? Writing, and then editing. And maybe doing a little research. That’s what the writer for Yahoo! Style should have done:
He might have mentioned that Ms. Blanchett is an Oscar-winning actress (and not just a nominee). And he might have figured out that she looked “more like the fairy godmother” than the stepmother. Maybe.
When in comes to quality writing, the scribes at Yahoo! DIY never cease to fail:
Why would anyone make cotton candy that is guaranteed to be a failure at wowing guests? What better way to show your carelessness than adding an unnecessary word to a common idiom or confusing then with than?
When it comes to writing errors, these folks never cease to amaze.
Reading this on Yahoo! Style should have been more than enough to give me pause: Did I really want to continue reading?
In spite of that, I continued, only to discover a missing word (there should be an a between wearing and cool). Then a problem with the next sentence: I think the writer fidgeted with it a tad too much:
It seems that every day I wish that I hadn’t read something on Yahoo!, like this word that means “commonplace or ordinary”:
But I soldiered on. I wish the writer had, too, and that he tried to uncover an unnecessary word. Maybe he tried, but he doesn’t can’t find it:
If you’ve never seen than mistaken for then, or haven’t seen the compound adjective 30-second without its hyphen, then you haven’t been reading Yahoo! DIY.
What would Yahoo! DIY be without its very own misuse of it’s for its?
Somehow in that same article, this got past the eagle-eyed editors:
I think it has something to do with wearing a pattern to keep your head warm. Frankly, I think a hat would be warmer than a pattern.
Of course there are more typos, like this one below:
Call me old-fashioned, but I appreciate the well-placed hyphen and the beauty of a real dash (like this: —) and not a puny hyphen:
Also, I think pronouns (like them) should refer to a noun that’s actually present in the same sentence. Or paragraph. Or article.
Yahoo! just launched a new site called Yahoo! Style. I immediately thought that it must be better written than the rest of Yahoo!; after all, it was new! Wouldn’t the Internet giant invest in the quality of the writing of a new site? Wouldn’t Yahoo! finally hire competent editors to ensure the success of Style? I was hopeful as I jumped at the opportunity to read an article by Style’s editor in chef. Now there’s a person who must appreciate the need for quality writing.
The title promised info on dressing for extreme temperatures, so I’m thinking the heat of summer and the cold of the dead of winter:
By the time I’d finished the article, I’d learned about dressing for heat and for that other temperature extreme — rain. But I shouldn’t have been surprised that the writer (the editor in chief!) couldn’t figure out what he was supposed to be writing about. The more I read the more I realized he probably couldn’t figure out what language he was supposed to be writing in.
Here he takes a serious subject like global warming and reveals its true threat to humanity: It wrecks havoc on fashion:
Well, wrecking havoc sounds good to me; that would be destroying chaos. It’d be much worse if it were wreaking (or bringing about) havoc.
Then, I read this use of then instead of than:
I’m going to try to ignore the advice, which doesn’t exactly seem like it’s meant for the woman of the twenty-first century, and focus on the writing, which kinda sucks:
When I read this, I thought wearing cotton over silk sounded odd for dressing for hot weather:
But the writer (the editor in chief!) meant “prefer cotton over silk.” The rest of the stream-of-consciousness writing alleges that cottons allows [sic] the body to breath. Believe me, if your body ain’t breathing, wearing cotton isn’t going to help. The writer meant that cotton is preferable because cotton breaths (that is, it allows air to pass through it).
So, am I hopeful that Yahoo! Style will provide quality content? Not if it’s written by Yahoo! writers (and the editor in chief).