This sentence on Yahoo! Celebrity started out OK, and then flamed out when it came to spelling flambéed and avoiding duplicating words:
It’s not uncommon to see mistakes on Yahoo! DIY. It’s not uncommon to see mistakes on Yahoo! DIY. Like repeated sentences. Like repeated sentences. And sentences that never get an end because the writer nodded off. And sentences that never get an end because the writer nodded off.
Kinda illustrates the need for proofreading, doesn’t it?
At Yahoo! Style, writing mistakes aren’t restricted to the words on a Web page — they extend to videos, too. Who could miss this misspelling of Café d’Étoile? Oh, yeah, that would be everyone at Style:
That video is part of a series called “Style Bites,” and it couldn’t be more aptly named, unless it were called “Writing on Style Bites.” Because the writing really is awful — far below any standard you should expect from a professionally written site. Where else can you see a misspelling of both Barbra Streisand and Liza Minnelli?
UPDATE: Well, lookie here. The brain trust at Style made some changes to that paragraph, correcting the spelling of Ms. Streisand’s name, overlooking the misspelling of Ms. Minnelli’s name, and misspelling Tinker Bell’s moniker:
And they’ve add some information about Mr. Mackie: He doesn’t consider himself a fashion designer in this episode. But I really wasn’t expecting him to design fashions in an online video. So that’s not news, is it?
The really bestest change was to the name of the video series: Fashion Bites. So, now it’s the subject of the website that bites. But really, Style bites, too.
The editors for Yahoo! Style, who collectively wrote an article about Jennifer Aniston, forgot what the abbreviation LBD means and how to form the plural of LBD:
LBD is short for “little black dress.” Hence, the adjective before LBD is a little redundant. And the plural of the abbreviation doesn’t include an apostrophe.
Yahoo! just launched a new site called Yahoo! Style. I immediately thought that it must be better written than the rest of Yahoo!; after all, it was new! Wouldn’t the Internet giant invest in the quality of the writing of a new site? Wouldn’t Yahoo! finally hire competent editors to ensure the success of Style? I was hopeful as I jumped at the opportunity to read an article by Style’s editor in chef. Now there’s a person who must appreciate the need for quality writing.
The title promised info on dressing for extreme temperatures, so I’m thinking the heat of summer and the cold of the dead of winter:
By the time I’d finished the article, I’d learned about dressing for heat and for that other temperature extreme — rain. But I shouldn’t have been surprised that the writer (the editor in chief!) couldn’t figure out what he was supposed to be writing about. The more I read the more I realized he probably couldn’t figure out what language he was supposed to be writing in.
Here he takes a serious subject like global warming and reveals its true threat to humanity: It wrecks havoc on fashion:
Well, wrecking havoc sounds good to me; that would be destroying chaos. It’d be much worse if it were wreaking (or bringing about) havoc.
Then, I read this use of then instead of than:
I’m going to try to ignore the advice, which doesn’t exactly seem like it’s meant for the woman of the twenty-first century, and focus on the writing, which kinda sucks:
When I read this, I thought wearing cotton over silk sounded odd for dressing for hot weather:
But the writer (the editor in chief!) meant “prefer cotton over silk.” The rest of the stream-of-consciousness writing alleges that cottons allows [sic] the body to breath. Believe me, if your body ain’t breathing, wearing cotton isn’t going to help. The writer meant that cotton is preferable because cotton breaths (that is, it allows air to pass through it).
So, am I hopeful that Yahoo! Style will provide quality content? Not if it’s written by Yahoo! writers (and the editor in chief).