About the about the about the

I have one thing to say about the about the about the on Yahoo! Celebrity: Proofread!

about the about the cel

Nitpicnicking

I admit it: Sometimes I’m just really nitpicky. I read a sentence like this one on Yahoo! Makers and say (sometimes out loud): What the heck does the writer mean?

picnic 1

Is she saying that sitting down at a dinner table (as opposed to preparing that dinner) requires no thought, but a “picnic situation” (which I presume is different from a picnic) requires thought and planning? I don’t get the comparison. I also don’t get why logisics and differnt passed through the spell-checker unchecked. Oh, yeah, I forgot: Yahoo! writers don’t use spell-checkers.   They also don’t believe in proofreading for missing words. But I quibble.

And and I don’t understand how a writer can misspell separately, since separate appears on every list of the 100 most commonly misspelled words. Shouldn’t a professional writer know that?

picnic seperately

Is it nitpicky to expect that a writer would know that picnicing, if it were a real word, would be pronounced pick-nice-ing?

picnic ing

In order to maintain the hard C sound at the end of picnic, the writer should have added a K: picnicking. But I pick nits.

Do I repeat myself myself?

From the Yahoo! front page page:

fp room

It’s all about the baseball

For at least a half of a nanosecond I thought this was going to be a fine sentence on yahoo.com. Then I read the second word. And then I read about “the baseball.”

fp on the baseball

More proof that you can’t outsource writing to non-English-speaking, non-baseball-loving countries.

Did you change your mind?

Did the writer for Yahoo! Sports decide that naming the team that Tony Gwynn Jr. faced wasn’t important after all? And then did the writer forget to remove a word? Or did the writer forget to include the opposing team’s name? So many questions.

against nearly spo

In addition to also

In addition to using in addition to, the writer for Yahoo! Movies used the redundant also:

whose guided mov

Who’s responsible for the use of whose instead of who’s? The writer, who’s actually a senior editor. He’s also responsible for the missing parenthesis and the totally mystifying ending to that paragraph.

Arriving at several wrong words

Some writers latch onto a word and never let it go — even when it’s wrong. That’s the case with the Yahoo! Style writer responsible for this sentence:

achieve

I’m not referring to achieve, which is obviously incorrect. It’s probably just a typo. The writer’s fingers slipped and he accidentally typed achieve when he meant to type closet. It could happen to anyone. I’m referring to the incorrect preposition to in what should be arrived at. The writer just won’t let that one go. That looks like the one he made in my previous post. At least in that photo caption he didn’t throw in an extraneous word.

Did I mention the bedrooms?

When you’re selling your house, be sure to advertise the number of bedrooms and bathrooms. Maybe mention it twice. It’s just that important. And that’s why the writer for Yahoo! Celebrity mentioned it twice:

bedrooms

Unlike no writing anywhere else

This claim on Yahoo! Style is unlike anything I’ve read anywhere:

unlike no woman sty

I’ve been trying to parse that phrase and the best I can come up with is: Ms. Deeley is like every woman everywhere except where she is. Is that clear?

Do I repeat myself repeat myself?

Some things are worth repeating. Other things are best said only once. In this excerpt from Yahoo! Style, the writer felt it necessary to repeat the year (or she simply doesn’t proofread her own writing):

congress lc sty

That was unnecessary. What is necessary, however, is capitalizing Congress when referring to the federal legislative body of the United States.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 993 other followers

%d bloggers like this: