Exactly the same except for the differences

Editors at Yahoo Lifestyle seem to have a different definition of “matching” than I do. Here’s what I mean:

See that headline? It refers to these “matching” dresses:

Did you notice that the dresses are alike except for the color. And the belt. And the sleeves. And the length. And the neckline. And the layers on the skirt. And the details on the bodice. And the train. So if you overlook those little items, they are indeed matching dresses. So maybe I’m just being picky. Or maybe the editor doesn’t know what “matching” means.

 

Advertisements

Uncommonly confused words

Halloween-themed weddings are all the rage around this time of year. It also seems that boat-themed weddings are making inroads into the matrimonial biz, if you believe Yahoo Lifestyle:

Although that excerpt appeared in an article about “Halloweddings,” the author slipped in a mention about a scull-covered cake. Do you think she was a tad confused? A skull-covered cake might be more appropriate.

This is a skull-covered cake:

 

This is a scull:

It’s a little different, no? I’ll file this one under “Uncommonly Confused Words” because I’ve never seen anyone make that mistake before.

That just tanked

This intro to an Instagram star on Yahoo Lifestyle just tanked:

This is Tank McNamara, a comic strip character:

George Resch is known as Tank Sinatra.

Don’t confuse lyrics with words

Gosh, I feel really stupid. All my life I’ve thought that lyrics were the words of a song. According to Yahoo Lifestyle, word and lyrics are two totally different things:

OK, I’ll also admit I don’t know what the writer meant by the word word. Was the writer referring to Mr. Petty’s promise (as in “he kept his word”) or to actual words (as in “lyrics of a song”)? I’m so confused.

What were limited?

I’m soooo confused by Yahoo News. What were the things that “were limited”?

To me it looks like the editors were limited in their proofreading skills. And the readers? We’re limited in our comprehension, due to a missing apostrophe.

Punctuation matters.

It hasn’t fazed the editors

Yahoo renamed its Style site to Lifestyle. That might be an improvement. Unfortunately, the Internet giant didn’t improve on the quality of its writing and editing. Are you fazed by this homophonic horror?

Apparently this hasn’t fazed the editorial team at Yahoo.

Repeated redundancy

Well, do you think that the editor for Yahoo Style knows what palatial means? I think not, otherwise we wouldn’t be subjected to this headline:

Readers of Style noticed the redundancy, too, and didn’t hesitate to point it out:

Did you really just write “palatial palaces”? Do you work for the Department of Redundancy Department?

all palaces are palatial, dummy. It’s the definition of a palace. It’s like spatious [sic] space.
“Palatial Palaces”? Isn’t that redundantly redundant?
Can we talk about how the headline says “palatial palaces”? I find this an alarmingly alarming grammatical alarum.
Palatial palaces? What an uncultured illiterate!
Palatial: “resembling a palace” … Thus, a palatial palace = resembling a palace palace. I take it that Maggie Parker did not graduate from a top notch journalism school.
Palatial palaces? Seriously? That’s what you’re going to go with for your headline?
This article is redundant starting from the title…
A palatial palace? Um, palatial means “like a palace”. So, a palace-like palace? As opposed to….?
Palatial palaces? So…like…palace-like palaces? Redundancy is redundant
So, if you think readers don’t care about your use of words, think again and ponder once more. They notice.

Ability to count optional

You don’t need to be able to count to write for Yahoo Finance:

This writer can’t count and can’t get the name of the retirement account right: It’s 401(k). So, why would anyone trust the advice from this site?

I’m soooo confused

Sometimes I’ll read a sentence on Yahoo! and there’s numbers in the sentence, and I try to do a little first-grade arithmetic (cuz I don’t trust Yahoo! writers’ numerical abilities), and I wind up with a headache. This is one of those times. After reading this on Yahoo! Celebrity, I’m very confused (and in need of a Tylenol):

I guess Mr. Pitt and Ms. Jolie have been together for 12 years. But they’ve been married for two more? I’m so confused. Have they been married two more years than they’ve been together? Like, 14 years of matrimony? Is that even possible? Maybe they got married by proxy two years before they actually met. Or maybe the writer is a tad confused and meant they “had been together for 12 years and married for two.”

Would that be a Kaiser or onion roll?

White privilege has played a roll, according to Yahoo! Style:

I’m just wondering what kind of roll it was. Was it a Kaiser roll, an onion roll, or an egg roll? I’m also wondering if an editor played a role in this homophonic hilarity.

%d bloggers like this: