The depth of ignorance

This might actually be funny if it weren’t for the fact that it shows the depth of ignorance of one Yahoo! Makers writer:

A turkey’s “waddle” is its clumsy walk. But it seems that the writer was just kidding! Maybe that’s why she put those quotation marks around the word. I’m pretty sure she meant wattle, which is skin hanging from a turkey’s neck or throat. It is not the “red floppy part on top of the head.” That would be a comb. And it is not the “red floppy part … under the chin” because turkey’s do not have chins.

Well, it looks like the writer finally concluded that the area under a turkey’s beak is not really a chin. I think. I have no idea why this genius decided to put apostrophes about the word the second time she used it and not the first time. And those apostrophes are wrong, as is the placement of the period.

Imagine, a professional writer getting paid to screw up one single sentence in so many creative ways. Maybe she’s not the only ignorant staffer at Yahoo!.

Phoning it in

Nothing says “I don’t give a crap” about readers than sloppy writing. Perhaps the writer for Yahoo! Makers wrote these instructions on an iPhone and didn’t bother with capital letters or punctuation to end a sentence:

I didn’t bother circling all the mistakes because I was afraid I’d run out of red ink. But you can see for yourself that she didn’t bother with the Shift key. She didn’t bother to end each sentence with a period, or spell cheesecloth correctly, or use the correct idiom if need be.

This is simply some of the sloppiest writing ever to appear on Yahoo!, and that saying a lot. If this were a third-grade writing assignment, she’d fail. She just phoned it in.

Whose writing is this?

Words get out of order on Yahoo! Makers on a now seemingly daily basis. Wrong words are used daily, too, especially when the writer can’t choose between two words, only one of which is correct. And with more than a dozen punctuation marks, how can one pick among them? And whose writing is actually worth attempting to replicate?

Did you spot all those errors? The incorrect word order? The use of between (which should be used with only two objects) instead of among (for more than two)? The lack of a question mark at the end of the question? And the use of who’s (which is a contraction of who is or who has) instead of whose (the possessive pronoun)?

Not a subject-matter expert

You don’t need to be an expert on the subject you’re writing about if you’re writing for Yahoo! Makers. If you can’t spell E. coli, and you can’t take the time to Google it, don’t worry! Close enough is good enough for Yahoo!:

Of course, you might lose some credibility with your readers, but they’ve probably come to realize that Yahoo! isn’t exactly a trustworthy source of scientific information.

How to punch up your writing

Looking for a way to punch up your writing? Just do what this writer for Yahoo! Makers does and skip the proofreading and spell-checking! Your writing will be unique and keep those readers guessing.

Start with just one extra letter for a bit of added punch:

Then add a few more until you have at least two per sentence. And is that a sentence? Your readers will be trying to figure that out if you don’t use any punctuation at the end:

Do bottle cops enforce recycling?

What is the role of bottle cops in today’s society? Do they make sure you’re recycling that Diet Snapple bottle? Do they monitor the number of ounces in a 12-ounce bottle of Aquafina? Perhaps the answer is locked away in the mind of the Yahoo! DIY editor responsible for this little excerpt:

She might also be able to explain why she put the period after the closing quotation mark, when the standard in the U.S. is before it. And perhaps she’ll tell us if “the humans” is different from “humans” or just plain people. The humans seem to be dumping waste into something that resembles the environment. Maybe we should report them to the bottle cops

You really meant firery, didn’t you?

I was willing to call it a typo. Obviously the writer for Yahoo! DIY knew how to spell fiery. She was just a little clumsy when typing out the headline:

Then I noticed that she didn’t know that the thing over a fireplace was a mantel. Then I noticed a repeated firery. This time it had to be intentional. She really thinks that’s a word! Just like she really thinks that an ellipsis is made up of six periods, and not the customary three.

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:

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:

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 just an estimate

I guess this event will be starting at an estimated time of 2 PM. Or maybe an established time of 2 PM:

In my estimation, the writers for Yahoo! Style have no idea what the abbreviation for Eastern Standard Time is. Here’s a hint, it doesn’t include a period.

Where do nymphs frolic?`

So, this writer for Yahoo! Style had a little problem with punctuation. I wouldn’t ordinarily mention it because it seems too nitpicky, even for me. But I can’t ignore it.  Just like I can’t ignore the claim that a designer has revisited a theme for a second time. I guess that means he’s visiting it three times: The first visit, the revisit, and the revisit for the second time. I wonder if at each visit to the theme nymphs frolicked in woodlawn:

And was this where the woodlawn nymphs frolicked?

Or is it just possible that maybe perhaps it was woodland nymphs who did the frolicking?