|
Post by jorpho on Aug 2, 2008 21:33:56 GMT -5
I'm not sure if this belongs here or in Off Topic, but here goes.
I've been reading the articles on this site for a long time, and while it's usually great reading, with well-presented, neatly summarized, and thoroughly comprehensive information, I can no longer stay silent: something has got to be done about the grammar. Articles are frequently riddled with little mistakes that seem as though they would be easy to pick up in a second read-through.
Yes, there is some absolutely terrible grammar on the Internet, and certainly the grammar on this site is far, far from the worst I've ever seen, it's also far from what I'd expect from a professional gaming publication. (To this, one might respond, "It's not a professional gaming publication!" To this in turn I might reply, "It's so good, that's easy to forget sometimes.")
Is there a lack of volunteers for the task of proofreading? If I were to start sending in corrected versions of the articles, would the contributions be welcome?
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Aug 2, 2008 21:45:56 GMT -5
I've said it before and I'll say it again here - proofreading is largely a tedious, thankless job. I'm terrible at it, especially with my own writing, but even in looking over other people's work I tend to overlook a lot of stuff. There are some awesome people here who occasionally take the time to pick out stuff and help fix it up, and usually when I go back to make additions, I make a second sweep over the text. But that doesn't always happen.
If you're offering to help I will graciously take it.
|
|
|
Post by Weasel on Aug 2, 2008 21:45:57 GMT -5
Your contributions would be most welcomed, in fact there are already a few people that point out mistakes when the articles are first posted in the Recent Articles forum. But you're more than welcome to start poring over the older stuff and making corrections as you see fit.
|
|
|
Post by steven on Aug 2, 2008 22:44:49 GMT -5
Proofreading might be a bit tedious, and I guess a necessary "evil" if the writer's grammar knowledge is a bit suspect. But one of the fun things about writing is the revision process, where you fine tune parts of your writing. I also do the proofreading as I'm revising, and it's quite enjoyable to see a piece come together. But, I do feel I have a moderately solid grasp on grammar and what have you, so I don't need to send it off to someone to proof read it. However, someone who receives somebody else's piece of work can't revise it obviously, unless given permission in a special circumstance. Nope, they can only fix grammar mistakes, and from that standpoint I agree that it is a bit of a thankless job.
To those who feel their grammar might need some brush-up, it may be worth browsing through simple books or grammar sites on the internet.
EDIT: Jorpho... from DP? Welcome, man.
|
|
|
Post by jorpho on Aug 3, 2008 0:06:01 GMT -5
Good to know you're receptive. I shall keep that in mind in the future. EDIT: Jorpho... from DP? Welcome, man. About time I showed up here; I plug this site over there often enough.
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Aug 3, 2008 7:24:43 GMT -5
This is the worst topic ever.
Have you ever considered that people may be writing that way on purpose? What exactly is the problem with "improper" grammar anyway? You do realize that's how people talk, right? And that most people don't appreciate being told that they talk the "wrong" way? After all, why should the wording have to be so stiff?
There isn't anything wrong with people writing the way they like. What you're saying basically makes it seem like you think they write this stuff just for you.
Seriously, if you're going to "correct" people's grammar then I'd appreciate it if you could at least leave what I've written alone. I put a whole hell of a lot of work into these things, and I am very specific and deliberate when it comes to wording, so I don't really like the idea of having them messed around with because they break meaningless outdated rules about how the English language is supposed to be written.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Aug 3, 2008 7:39:42 GMT -5
No he's right. I know I tend to make a lot of mistakes in typing words that sound similar to the ones I want to use. Those are even worse because when reading them over, I tend to glaze over. I'm pretty loose on strict grammar stuff but there are definitely things that are errors.
FAKE EDIT: Ironically after rereading this post, I realized the first sentence I wrote said "No he's write."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2008 13:21:44 GMT -5
About time I showed up here; I plug this site over there often enough. Ah, jorpho! I thought the name looked familiar! Yes, I've pretty much been hiding from the RR out here... not really, but I post here more than I do there nowadays. However, I'll pop into the Roundtable again and check things out. Anyway, welcome to the fold, sir! Any and all proofreading you would like to do is appreciated. I'd do a lot more myself, but I can't seem to bring myself to focus on anything these days. Hell, I still have an article on Actraiser that's slowly moving like an automated butter churner on low battery. Let us know what you detect.
|
|
|
Post by Jave on Aug 3, 2008 21:35:32 GMT -5
While I do certainly agree that grammar can be an issue (I'm a little embarrassed by the quality of my own articles) I still think you're being a bit unfair. It's easy for someone else to pick up on those little blips because you're reading it for the first time. I can go over my articles again and again, and often do, and I'll miss the same mistakes every time because I already know what it's supposed to say.
I know, we all have the option of chipping in with regards to other articles and suggesting things that ought to be fixed, up until now I've opted out of doing so because it feels kinda rude. And certainly, I'm in no position to be criticizing anyone else's grammar.
Besides, sometimes constant rewrites and revisions actually make things worse.
|
|
|
Post by crithit5000 on Aug 4, 2008 1:33:42 GMT -5
We've had this discussion before, and it's pretty much the same result as last time. Really, I don't see the big deal with proof-reading articles that a small handfull of members here have. For the five or six articles I proof-read in the past, it's not like I sat there and said "CHANGE THIS SENTENCE", "AXE THIS PART", or whatever. For the most part, it was correcting some random punctuation, capitalization (Vulcan cannons!), and spelling errors. Anything else was just stuff that didn't sound right, and I would merely offer a suggestion to word it better to get the proper meaning across. It isn't trying to water down the original author's meaning, it's just trying to improve it. Nor is it a way of trying to make the original author feel like a poopy-head because he can't spell, because everyone makes mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by jorpho on Aug 4, 2008 2:42:22 GMT -5
FAKE EDIT: Ironically after rereading this post, I realized the first sentence I wrote said "No he's write." Aye, and I thinking someone would point out my brazen comma splice. EDIT: Argh, I did it again! Oh vicious irony! Ah, jorpho! I thought the name looked familiar! Yes, I've pretty much been hiding from the RR out here... For a second there, I thought, "Didn't Sotenga die...?" But no, that was someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Shellshock on Aug 4, 2008 8:55:44 GMT -5
I agree with typos and minor grammar mistakes being fixed. It's a must. There's such a great collection of old-school games here that having this kind of errors does nothing but diminish the articles' credibility and scare new readers away. The OutRun series article featured here was the first one I ever wrote, and thanks to Disco's editing you guys didn't have to put up with my amateurish writing. I have learned a lot from my mistakes since I started, so it's all for the greater good.
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Aug 4, 2008 9:01:23 GMT -5
Anything else was just stuff that didn't sound right, and I would merely offer a suggestion to word it better to get the proper meaning across. Doesn't sound right to who exactly? What if it sounds just fine to somebody else? Why is their word preference to be given a lower priority than anyone else's? Improve it how? And what does "improve it" even mean? Make it more like you would have worded it? When it comes to correcting word definitions, spelling, and punctuation, I'm in complete agreement that those things should be fixed wherever necessary. But that's different, because those things are a matter of fact, and not something that's susceptible to different opinions, like word preference. I know, we all have the option of chipping in with regards to other articles and suggesting things that ought to be fixed, up until now I've opted out of doing so because it feels kinda rude. ... Besides, sometimes constant rewrites and revisions actually make things worse. These two sentences say everything that there is to say.
|
|
|
Post by Jave on Aug 4, 2008 12:25:30 GMT -5
When it comes to correcting word definitions, spelling, and punctuation, I'm in complete agreement that those things should be fixed wherever necessary. But that's different, because those things are a matter of fact, and not something that's susceptible to different opinions, like word preference. I think the problem here is the use of the word grammar, which implies a lot more than merely fixing up spelling and syntax errors.
|
|
|
Post by dai jou bu on Aug 4, 2008 12:30:20 GMT -5
I'll add my two credits on this one:
1) Yes, discoalucard is correct. It was painful reading my stuff over and over again for my Senko no Ronde article last year so the wording made sense (but not the way I wanted it to sound in hindsight), not to mention there were several things I had to revise before it rolled out, so there was a good chance of seeing grammatical errors within certain parts of it.
2) Having an editor also helps rewording your rage against criticisms that are obviously unjustified about the game to sound as friendly as possible, if that made any sense.
EDIT:
3) I hate that the T key on my laptop likes to randomly dislodge itself from the keyboard.
|
|