With this homophonic horror, the bond between Yahoo! Style and the reader is broken — if there ever was one.
It’s hard to beat this for the number of errors in a single sentence:
I can’t explain why the Yahoo! Style writer included a registered trademark symbol with a product name, unless she’s under the illusion that she has to protect a trademark. Which brings me to the question: Why didn’t she recognize Velcro as a registered trademark, too? Because that would be as wrong as not capitalizing Velcro.
Don’t you wish we could all be flies on the wall when the writer discusses this with her editor? What would her argument be? Oh, never mind. I forgot: Yahoo! doesn’t believe in editors.
You just gotta wonder what was going through the mind of the Yahoo! Style writer who contributed this description to the picture just below it:
I have no idea what a “suit dress” is, but I suspect the writer doesn’t either. I don’t know what color the writer’s lemonade is, but mine is definitely NOT blue and gold. And that turtleneck that Beyoncé is allegedly sporting has a very realistic image of a partial breast on it. Just what picture was she looking at when she wrote that?
I really don’t believe that the writer for Yahoo! Finance doesn’t know the difference between you’re (which is a contraction of you are) and your (which is a possessive pronoun):
It’s the kind of mistake I’ll prone to make even though I know the difference and my writing is otherwise perfect. Nearly.
Let’s take the charitable view and call this a typo on Yahoo! News:
Typo or egregious grammatical error? Doesn’t matter when it’s in a headline that big. It looks really bad.
I have no idea who Kevin is, but he has a locksmith or a blacksmith or some other smith. And that smith has a daughter named Harley Quinn Smith. At least that’s what I get from this headline on the home page of Yahoo! Style:
You might think it’s just a typo, but here it is again, a little lower on the same page:
Those editors are sure consistent, aren’t they? I’m sure if it were a typo, they would have corrected it before publishing it, right?