This doesn’t pass the smell test

If only there were a way for the Yahoo! Style writer to verify the spelling of the captions she writes. Maybe if she had a picture of the eau de parfum she’s writing about, she wouldn’t make these misspellings:

Oh, wait! Here’s the actual picture that goes with that caption:

Maybe she didn’t think she needed to look at it. But when writing this caption:

. . . don’t you think she should have checked out the picture of the bottle of eau de parfum, which is quite different from cologne and eau de cologne:

Well, she finally got the product right in this caption:

. . .  but not the name of the manufacturer:

If these captions didn’t appear right next to the product pictures, perhaps no one would have noticed that the writer can’t copy words right under her nose. But they’re there and there’s no amount of eau de parfum that can cover the stink.

Advertisements

Are you being series?

Is the writer for Yahoo! Style being serious? Did she really think this paragraph was ready for the big time?

Didn’t she notice that the title of the book is “Debutante Divorcée”? How are we supposed to interpret “big hair sprayed hair”? I’ll guess it’s supposed to be “big hair, sprayed hair.” Or maybe  “big hairsprayed hair.” But I have no firsthand (Note: It’s one word) knowledge of that.

I also have no firsthand knowledge of the writer’s reasoning for using need instead of the correct needs. Or for using both but and yet together. Is she being serious?

How many does it take?

How many errors does it take for a website to lose credibility. If you see three errors in a photo caption, like this one from Yahoo! Style, do you trust anything about the site?

The author is writing about Hillary Kerr, but can’t manage to spell her name right, nor the name of the websites Byrdie and Obsessee.

I’d give that caption an A+ for alternative facts and an F for accuracy. But wait! There’s more! The caption was reformatted and “corrected.” Except that two of three errors are still there:

No access to Google?

Apparently Yahoo! Style writers have no access to the Internet and search engines, so they’re reliant on their memories when they write. Unfortunately, some have a rather faulty memory:

The former Kate Middleton is really Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.

New record errors in one sentence

This might just be a new record for number of errors in a single sentence:

It’s unimaginable to me (and to most English speakers) how the writer could think that sentence is okie-dokie for publication. She didn’t notice that prices starts is a grammatical horror? Or that prices can start at $700 and also go up to $1500. But there’s only one starting price for any item.  And prices … is sold? That one made me spit out my sugar-free, nonfat vanilla latte. That’s so bad, I almost didn’t notice the random and totally unnecessary at.

I just can’t go on

I tried reading an article on Yahoo! Style, but I just can’t force myself to read beyond the first paragraph. It is so stunningly awful in its grammatical mistakes and ignorance of basic English, that I gave up. Here’s what I found with just a cursory examination of the ‘graph; I’m sure I missed a few things that merit attention:

My experience tells me that this writer is not a native English-speaker. Her mistakes are ones that are common with people who did not grow up speaking and writing English. But there’s no excuse for not providing her with a competent editor, if only to save her from embarrassments like these:

  • 18 years old should be 18-year-old. He is 18 years old, but he is an 18-year-old model.
  • instagram follower should be Instagram followers.
  • on first name term seems to be a bastardization of on a first name basis.
  • to loose his cherries for the first time is not just a vulgar expression, it’s kind of a stupid metaphor. First, she means lose, not loose. And one can only lose one’s cherry (which is singular) once. So I’m really confused as to what this is purported to mean. Maybe it just means the writer is both careless and ignorant.
  • There’s a missing the in at Coachella music festival.
  • will also be is redundant when one ends a sentence with too.
  • been to famous music festival needs a the.

I’m sure I missed something, and I didn’t even touch on the run-on sentences. Please, Yahoo!, get this gal an editor!

Removing your mistakes has never been exciting

Yahoo! Style staff seems to include a writer who is still learning English. That’s OK. There’s nothing wrong with hiring ESL students, especially if they’re working for a trade school, where on-the-job training is part of the experience. If they’re employed by a for-profit company, then they need a competent editor to avoid publishing an embarrassing statement like this:

Try to ignore the obvious grammatical gaffe and focus on the allegation that removing layers [of clothing] has never been exciting. You won’t get an argument from me.

Thanks for the clothes!

Thanks to Yahoo! Style I am now the proud owner of the “fashion trends to know for fall 2017.” Some generous person just bought them for me!

That’s an excellent example of why you can’t rely solely on a spell-checker to do your proofreading.

Big Bird, Cookie Monster, and manmade errors

Maybe the writer for Yahoo! Style is dealing with a funky keyboard with an occasionally inoperable Shift key and a space bar that’s kinda jacked:

Just in case the writer actually made these mistakes intentionally, let’s school her: Big Bird and Cookie Monster are Muppets deserving of being treated as proper nouns. And manmade is one word according to the American Heritage Dictionary, though it allows the hyphenated man-made.

A screaming cape, a ladylike error, and sometimes grey

It’s probably not ladylike to point out writing errors by professional writers, but I’ve never been mistaken for a lady. When I saw three errors in a single sentence on Yahoo! Style, I knew I had to say something:

What did the writer think “a lady like pink” means? That there’s a lady who likes pink? Uh, no. She meant “a ladylike pink.” That’s something completely different. Also different is the spelling of grey. Although it’s not technically wrong, some U.S. authorities consider it a chiefly British spelling, and all suggest that gray is the preferred spelling.

That sound you hear is me screaming: Seeing mistakes like that makes me literally scream. But can a cape literally scream? No, but it can figuratively scream.

%d bloggers like this: