quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If your sensitivity to grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes significantly impedes your ability to understand posts on an internet forum, then you need to improve your reading skills. Communication is a two way street. Clearly writers have an obligation in that communication process but so do readers.
What if I'm sensitive to mistakes AND have excellent reading skills?
What constitutes "excellent reading skills" is highly dependent on what you are reading.
If one of my students is explaining a problem they are having on a project and I can't concentrate on what they are saying because they misprounce a word or say "a whole nother" or keep scratching their nose, then I am not being a good listener. If I keep interupting them to correct their grammar, I'm being very rude. On the other hand, if one my students is rehearsing a presentation for me which they plan to present at a professional meeting and I don't correct their pronunciation or bad grammar or nervous habits I'm also being a poor listener. What constitutes being a good listener is different in different situations. Shifting between the different listening modes isn't easy but it is an important communication skill
The same is true for being a good reader. Different skills are needed for different tasks. If you can't switch from editor mode where you are very sensitive to minor errors to content mode where your efforts are focused on understanding rather than correcting then you don't have excellent reading skills.
I will admit that I have poor proof reading skills. I am an excellent content reader but a bad editor. This isn't because I don't know proper grammar or spelling or punctuation rules. Its because my mind automatically interprets and I read what should have been written rather than what actually stands on the page. I can read the same paragraph through several times and never see that I've left out a key word. In order for me to edit my work, I generally have to let it sit for a day or longer. It helps if I read things from back to front rather than front to back. As a teacher, I've had to develop this skill but it is never quick and easy for me.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka: I'm a prescriptivist about certain things (spelling, punctuation, and capitalization, for example) and in certain situations (like on a cover letter or resume, where you will likely be judged harshly for not following traditional rules).
Joe: Okay, gotcha. I used to be more that way, but I have definitely changed over the last couple of years.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Rivka: I'm a prescriptivist about certain things (spelling, punctuation, and capitalization, for example) and in certain situations (like on a cover letter or resume, where you will likely be judged harshly for not following traditional rules).
I know.
And I'm not a strict prescriptivist either. I was kidding. (Well, not the haughty sniff. That was genuine. A genuine sniff, anyway. I think I need another tissue . . .)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: First, I was trying to say that the minimum standard for acceptable writing on a internet forum isn't and shouldn't be the same as the minimum writing standard for publication or a school paper.
Seriously, nobody believes it is. Not even these alleged spelling Nazis.
I'm becoming convinced you didn't start this thread to point out an interesting fact or to call for more mutual respect. I believe you started it to pick a fight.
Icarus, Have you read El JT de Spang's posts. He clearly stated that correct spelling and grammar were "the minimum standard". I disagree. The minimum standard for an internet forum should be "clarity". While bad spelling, grammar and punctuation can interfere with clarity, they often don't. In fact the spelling, grammar and punctuation errors most frequently attacked by the spelling/grammar Nazis rarely have any impact on clarity.
The common link between the spelling example I quoted and the improper punctuation in the thread title is that neither the poor spelling nor the improperly used hyphen actually influences the clarity.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
And if you honestly think the mangled paragraph in the OP is an example of CLARITY . . . !
I remind you again, the "study" is not real. And for most people, there is considerable more effort involved in reading that paragraph than in reading the correct one. Just because it can be decoded does mean it is reasonable to expect people to do so.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you mean different things by the same words, then. I don't think that saying correct spelling and grammar are the minimum standard is the same as saying that the standards for writing on a forum and the standards for publication are the same. I believe the standards for publication are much higher than correct spelling and grammar.
I also was under the impression that JT was saying that the expectation was that one made an effort to have correct spelling and grammar, and that failing to make the effort at all was inconsiderate. I don't think anyone expects posters to know all the most arcane rules of grammar. But anyone can spell correctly, because there are downloadable spellcheckers for internet forms. In fact, the latest version of Firefox includes one. So unless there is a reason why you can't download one, such as a limitation on a work computer on downloading stuff, then yeah, I would expect correct spelling at a minimum, because it really does take no longer. It doesn't take as long as looking words up in a dictionary. The misspelled words are underlined in red; you right-click on them and select the correct spelling from a list. It doesn't take any real time or effort. If someone can't do that from work or from the library or internet cafe, I totally understand, but if all of their posts, from work and home and everywhere in between, contain misspelled words, then I can only conclude that that person really just doesn't care. Am I failing to consider something here?
(If I'm misreading JT, I leave it to him to correct me.)
quote:In fact the spelling, grammar and punctuation errors most frequently attacked by the spelling/grammar Nazis rarely have any impact on clarity.
Again, let me express my skepticism that this happens with the frequency you seem to be implying.
quote:The common link between the spelling example I quoted and the improper punctuation in the thread title is that neither the poor spelling nor the improperly used hyphen actually influences the clarity.
In the case of the poor spelling example, I vehemently disagree. I can decode it, but it takes me more than twice as long. If your posts were all written like that, which they are not, I would find reading them unpleasant and not worth the effort.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, let me express my skepticism that this happens with the frequency you seem to be implying.
I'm not sure what frequency I implied other than more often than suits me. I don't post things on hatrack that are rife with spelling, punctuation and grammar errors but I suspect that there are minor errors in most things I post for the reasons I have already explained.
When I say "grammar/spelling/punctuation Nazis", I'm referring to people who choose to comment on largely inconsequential proof reading errors rather than the ideas in someone post. While we don't have anyone at hatrack who does this all the time, we do have several people who do it occasionally.
On several occasions I have put thought and research into a post only to have people mock me over inconsequential errors in punctuation or spelling. Although the number of times that this has happened isn't that high, I find it very offensive everytime it happens. Those experiences have made me sensitive to the issue.
Perhaps that is why you read JT's posts quite differently than I do. If I have become snarky, it was because I found his comments to be arrogant and insulting. If I misinterpreted what he wrote, then he should clarify.
My response to him regarding the "punctuation Nazis" came across far harsher than I'd intended. Some time ago rivka started a thread about improper use of apostrophes. Since that time it has been a running joke at hatrack to misuse apostrophes particularly when referring to Nazis.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: That's actually not quite what JT said.
And if you honestly think the mangled paragraph in the OP is an example of CLARITY . . . !
I remind you again, the "study" is not real. And for most people, there is considerable more effort involved in reading that paragraph than in reading the correct one. Just because it can be decoded does mean it is reasonable to expect people to do so.
We are clearly using a different definition for clarity. By clarity, I meant simply that the ideas were unambiguously communicated. There are clear problems with the readability of the paragraph.
I find the paragraph to be fascinating because I can read it very nearly as fast as I can read properly spelled text which says something very interesting about how my brain recognizes patterns. Many other people find it fascinating for the same reason. I know that study wasn't real but it doesn’t really matter. My experience reading is not invalid because there was no study.
There are clearly times when improper spelling, grammar and punctuation interfere with the clarity of a sentence (i.e. they obscure the meaning) rather than merely influencing the readability. But I have found those occasions to be the exception rather than the rule.
It was never my intent to justify bad spelling, grammar or punctuation. Those things, among many others, can improve the readability of a text and it certainly behooves every author to make their text easily readable.
My point was really pretty simple and I’m a bit surprise that it’s stirred so much disagreement. The human brain is an incredible thing. We are largely able to understand what people intended to communicate even when the spelling, grammar or punctuation are badly garbled. As listeners and readers it serves us well to develop this skill. Pointing out such common errors when they do not obscure meaning is bad etiquette unless you have been asked to act as a teacher or editor.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps that is why you read JT's posts quite differently than I do. If I have become snarky, it was because I found his comments to be arrogant and insulting. If I misinterpreted what he wrote, then he should clarify.
I thought the burden was on you, the reader, to decode just what the writer intended to say.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not you too avatar. Could you please point to the place where I said that reader is responsible for decoding what the writer had to say. You see, I never intended to say and I really don't see where you are getting that from what I said.
I have NEVER said that the reader (listener) bares sole responsibility. I have said repeatedly that communication is a TWO WAY STREET. THE WRITER HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO EXPRESS IDEAS CLEARLY. THE READER HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO GIVE DUE DILIGENCE IN UNDERSTANDING THE READER.
If I missed misread the words in JT post then its my responsibility. If however JT's words could rationally be understood in more than one way, its his responsibility to clarify.
Can you please attack the arguements I make instead of strawmen?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what. I feel like I've really been dogpiled on in this thread and I honestly can't see why.
Do all of you really believe that the ability to understand others even when they aren't using standard spelling and grammar isn't a useful skill?
Do all of you honestly believe that there is no such thing as reader etiquette and that the full responsibility for communication lies with the writer?
Do you really believe that commenting on common spelling, grammar and punctuation errors in an internet post when they do not significantly obscure the authors meaning is polite and respectful?
If not, why won't even one person acknowledge my point has the slightest validity?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps that is why you read JT's posts quite differently than I do. If I have become snarky, it was because I found his comments to be arrogant and insulting. If I misinterpreted what he wrote, then he should clarify.
Ick has the right of it. I don't expect perfect grammar and spelling. I just expect people to put some effort into proofreading their posts. I can only draw the line for how much effort for myself, but I think a general rule would be less effort than a scholarly paper, but more effort than an IM conversation.
FWIW, I think the whole thing is semantics anyway. I don't recall ever having a problem reading your posts, Rabbit, though I do frequently see one or two small and easily fixable errors in a lot of them. But I'm not your mom, and I'm not your English teacher, so I don't correct them. When a post has enough errors that they seriously affect readability (as determined by me, in this example), I'll probably say something*. If your point is that there's no sense jumping someone for infrequent and trivial errors in spelling or grammar, then I agree.
If your point is that 'punctuation nazis' need to get over themselves and that errors do not affect readability at all, then I disagree.
It seemed that the point you were trying to make was more the latter than the former. And the way in which you were trying to make was dismissive and insulting, so long as we're sharing (and, I got that vibe from your posts before I posted even once in this thread).
Also, I think the crux of it, for me, is what I posted earlier -- every time I skip proofreading, I make life easier on me and harder on every single reader. That's not an acceptable tradeoff, for me. YMMV.
*Except in the case where it's beating a dead horse, like with Blayne (sorry to use you as an example, but I didn't think you'd mind). I've told him about a half-dozen times that when he throws together posts without proofreading them I can't read them at all. I don't need to tell him that anymore -- he's well aware that it's a problem (and he's done a much better job proofreading in the last few months, to his credit).
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry you feel dogpiled, Rabbit. It's not my intention. I think your last post, though, shows that you either don't quite get the stance of the people who disagree with you or are oversimplifying it for rhetorical reasons. I also think you are unaware of how your characterizations of the people you disagree with come across.
quote:Do all of you really believe that the ability to understand others even when they aren't using standard spelling and grammar isn't a useful skill?
Do all of you honestly believe that there is no such thing as reader etiquette and that the full responsibility for communication lies with the writer?
Do you really believe that commenting on common spelling, grammar and punctuation errors in an internet post when they do not significantly obscure the authors meaning is polite and respectful?
No.
That's the point. Nobody who has posted here has expressed these beliefs. You have assumed that if we don't buy into the whole package of your beliefs, then we must believe in this grammar Nazi strawman you've concocted instead.
quote:If not, why won't even one person acknowledge my point has the slightest validity?
I think people have acknowledged the validity in your points. People have acknowledged that the standards for internet posts should be lower than for academic papers. (If not resoundingly so, it's because the point feels kind of obvious.) People have acknowledged that nitpicking on grammar for no good reason is rude. I don't doubt that it has happened to you, but I don't see it happen here with any frequency at all. I can't think of a single poster for whom jumping on bad grammar is characteristic. (Have you considered the possibility that someone has done this to you not because he or she is a grammar Nazi, but because he or she disagrees with your political stances, and is using grammar as a way to avoid your arguments? The significance of this is that whoever has called you on it may not be someone the rest of us even associate with being any sort of grammar advocate, and it's behavior that only you are getting. For instance, King Of Men routinely points out grammar errors of people he wants to ridicule, but it is not because he is a language purist so much as because of his need to ridicule people he disagrees with. But in this thread, you're not talking to him, because he doesn't publicly self-identify as a language person. He self-identifies as a science person whose language is perfect--according to him--because of the fact that science people are naturally more intelligent than liberal arts majors, and so they can excel in multiple fields.)
Do I need to cull people saying things like "If ___ is your point, then I agree"?
Where we disagree is, apparently, in whether it is EVER productive to ask someone to try to write coherently, and on how easy it would be for people to do more. Specifically, I disagree that spelling errors are hard to catch in most cases, due to the existence of internet spell-checkers.
Also, when someone starts a thread to point out a rule, like the difference between "its" and "it's" or "your" and "you're," they are specifically not calling someone out in his or her own thread. Such a thread is never a response to one single poster. It's always a response to seeing a mistake made all the time by a lot of different people. When that happens, it is clear that many people aren't aware of the rule in question. (For instance, it seems like a majority of people don't know when to use "you're," and use "your" all the time instead.) It may seem hubristic for one of us to presume to teach the rest something, but if the rest genuinely don't know it, it seems equally hubristic to resent that person for attempting to teach. People are free to not click on the thread or to not care, but there may be people who are actually grateful to have the correct rule explained to them, so that they can avoid embarrassing mistakes off the forum in the future.
Your opposition stems from your assertion that there is a whole group of people who rudely comment on spelling and grammar to the exclusion of content all the time. It also stems from your acknowledging that you were deliberately trying to annoy these people.
I think you're much more sensitive about your grammar and spelling issues than you ought to be, FWIW. It reminds me of my mother, whose first language was Spanish, who was always self-conscious about how bad her English was, when in fact her English was pretty good. She was a university professor teaching in English, for goodness sake, and she really communicated just fine, but she was always sure that people were going to jump all over her case for her accent, which was negligible. You're a perfectly clear writer, and I, for one, would never dream of jumping on you for a spelling or grammatical error when your larger point was something else entirely.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But anyone can spell correctly, because there are downloadable spellcheckers for internet forms. In fact, the latest version of Firefox includes one.
Really? How do I access that? Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just right-click while the cursor is in the reply/message window. "Spell check this field" is an option, click on that. Misspelled, and weird words or acronyms not in the dictionary, will be underlined in red. Click on them and you get replacement options. I just did it and it pegged "mispelled" as needing another "s".
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't read this whole thread, but I'd just like to say that a while back I was trying to decide a way to write that would be unintelligible at first glance so as to dissuade peekers, but also not impede my writing speed (which, I should say, is slow to begin with). So, after remembering this coming up before, I decided to put my own spin on it and write each word in alphabetical order. eikl hist. I guess it's roots really lie back in my scrabble hay days where I'd anagram everything. But, I just thought that was a funny anecdote. Back to your bickering.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
If you don't use Firefox, do you use the Google toolbar? It has a spellchecker too. Click on the green check mark here.Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To amplify on my prior post, I don't have to click on anything to make it happen. Misspelled words are always just underlined.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I totally agree with you here, about everything you've said.
As for spelling, I don't think it matters much at all. Two of the people I'm close friends with, whom I am positive are both geniuses, have horrible spelling. It's nothing to do with their intelligence, or their respect for their audience, or anything at all about their characters. It's about how their brains work. Spelling doesn't fit into their brains in the way it does mine. I never had to study for a spelling test. I just knew how to spell most things because I knew when they looked right. My two friends (Mikie and Joey) didn't have that. To Mikie, to whom I called out spelling words all the time to help him pass spelling tests in grade school, it was as though he were memorizing a random string of numbers to go with each word. He could do it for short times, in order to pass the test, but it was nothing that would stick, and no wonder.
It had no effect on communication in either case. As the subject post shows for sure, spelling doesn't really matter much in our reading comprehension. So I think the only reason people focus on spelling is that it's a cheap and easy way to find a mistake of some sort. When someone doesn't want to delve into substance, there are always tiny issues of form to be niggled over. Because that's easier to deal with, and clearer cut, and so on.
I think it's similar to the way some people focus on the outward signs of religious observance while ignoring the essence of the teaching. Because it's a whole lot easier than actually engaging ourselves in real searchings and growth and change.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's nothing to do with their intelligence, or their respect for their audience, or anything at all about their characters.
Not one person in this thread has so much as implied otherwise.
quote:It had no effect on communication in either case. As the subject post shows for sure, spelling doesn't really matter much in our reading comprehension.
Huh? The first sentence is pure conjecture (unprovable, as far as I can see), and the second is just plain wrong.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
El JT, did anyone say they had trouble understanding the first post? I thought the overwhelming consensus was that everyone could read it easily?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I think the only reason people focus on spelling is that it's a cheap and easy way to find a mistake of some sort. When someone doesn't want to delve into substance, there are always tiny issues of form to be niggled over. Because that's easier to deal with, and clearer cut, and so on.
And when some people don't want to delve into substance, they can make up stories about other people's motives instead of actually reading what they've written.
quote:As the subject post shows for sure, spelling doesn't really matter much in our reading comprehension.
It took me at least twice as long to read that opening post as it would have to read it with no errors. Anything worse would likely render it unreadable.
So between "normal" reading time and twice as long is the amount of effort associated with bad spelling and grammar, with anything worse equaling a communication breakdown. That is enough of a reason to focus on spelling sometimes.
quote:El JT, did anyone say they had trouble understanding the first post? I thought the overwhelming consensus was that everyone could read it easily?
A cursory glance turned up Icarus taking twice as long to read that post. That's hardly "easily." I recall others, but am not going to look for them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana, I can read it, but not what I would call "easily," or "with ease." I can do it, but it takes more time [~2X] and comes with some frustration and irritability.
I take responsibility for chosing to read it, of course, but I would assume that's a given.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I thought pointing out where people could find passive spell-checkers was a productive addition to the discussion.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could be that starting a thread with the word "Nazi" makes misunderstanding and exaggeration more likely.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes when I react to something I find irritating, I react not just to the incident at hand, but also to all of the amassed pent-up frustration and irritation at scores of similar such incidents which happened before this. I wouldn't be surprised if The Rabbit had a smilar response, though I will let her speak for herself.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I need a passive aggressive spell checker. Something that will smugly NOT correct my grammar and spelling, even though it knows perfectly well that it's mispelled.
And then it will get all defensive and sulky when I ask why.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: I never take seriously posts with the "i" pronoun, save for those case where it is used correctly. My internal intellectual-o-meter-tron just explodes.
You spelled asplodes wrong.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I need a passive aggressive spell checker. Something that will smugly NOT correct my grammar and spelling, even though it knows perfectly well that it's mispelled.
And then it will get all defensive and sulky when I ask why.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I need a passive aggressive spell checker. Something that will smugly NOT correct my grammar and spelling, even though it knows perfectly well that it's mispelled.
And then it will get all defensive and sulky when I ask why.
You win the thread.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: You know, I thought pointing out where people could find passive spell-checkers was a productive addition to the discussion.
So did I, but since I don't even know what Firefox is (much less if I'm using it)I need even more help than that. I have a Google toolber on my machine at work, so now I can spell check there for the first time. I will try to figure out how to get one here.
I really am trying to join the 21st century. I seem to have skipped the 20th entirely.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure rivka knows where to get one that works with Internet Explorer.
[Firefox is a different browser. Those of us who have switched from Internet Explorer to Firefox (which is free, incidentally) prefer it because it's much more customizable than Internet Exploder, has features that IE didn't use to have (I know the latest version of IE ripped a lot of them off, but I haven't used it so I don't know all the specifics), because it's open source (which is only meaningful to you if you are an idealistic geek), and because it's not Microsoft.]
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka loves spellcheckers, and will be happy to help anyone who wants one find one to suit their needs.
To start, my current preferred spellcheck for Firefox (not compatible with the newest version of Firefox, which I dislike, and which has its own built in) is the Google Toolbar (which has several other nifty features as well). And for Internet Explorer, try the Google Toolbar for IE. Or if you prefer a spellcheck that does not come with the Google Toolbar, try ieSpell.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, when someone starts a thread to point out a rule, like the difference between "its" and "it's" or "your" and "you're," they are specifically not calling someone out in his or her own thread. Such a thread is never a response to one single poster. It's always a response to seeing a mistake made all the time by a lot of different people.
Exactly. And I will neither apologize for making such threads nor stop making them -- and I won't even feel guilty.
I have a close relative who cannot spell to save their life. We used to joke that they could spell "Israel" three different ways on one page -- and NONE would be correct. Only it wasn't entirely a joke.
Then came computers, and spellcheckers. They still don't bother to spellcheck informal emails (nor am I suggesting that they should!), and they still have people proofread their professional stuff, and do not just rely on the spellcheck. But there is no question their ability to communicate clearly (especially in mostly-informal media like blogs and fora) has definitely been enhanced by spellcheckers.
Oh, and this relative is FAR more intelligent than I. And with the help of spellcheckers, that is clear, rather than being obscured by confused people trying to decode what they have typed.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which spellcheck did you pick? With all of them, the ability to customize dictionaries is a wonderful thing. Otherwise I'd get dinged EVERY time I typed oy vey, or kmb, or Shabbos. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
