All hail the grammar checkers

Posted Nov 3, 2005 14:02 UTC (Thu) by gravious (guest, #7662)
Parent article: All hail the speed demons (O'Reillynet)

first sentence: hero's
_groan_
why bother going on?

All hail the grammar checkers

Posted Nov 4, 2005 1:40 UTC (Fri) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link] (4 responses)

No kidding. Hero's what?

All hail the grammar checkers

Posted Nov 7, 2005 15:36 UTC (Mon) by lypanov (guest, #8858) [Link] (3 responses)

pathetic. grow up

All hail the grammar checkers

Posted Nov 7, 2005 17:40 UTC (Mon) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link] (2 responses)

You may not value your time but don't disparage me because you feel that Slashdot-quality journalism is acceptable on LWN. If someone has something to say then I expect their sentences to be clearly formed so that their ideas can be properly communicated and understood. If the writer can't even take the time to communicate clearly then why should I bother to read the article? I have better things to do than try to figure out what the author was really trying to say. A confusing grammatical error in the first sentence and an irrelevant detour about developers with the "coolest names" doesn't help me understand what he's saying about Liunx application performance.

What's even more disappointing is that O'Reilly is a publisher that I have felt has always published quality books. It's a shame that their editors did such a poor job on this article before it was published.

All hail the grammar checkers

Posted Nov 8, 2005 22:32 UTC (Tue) by chromatic (guest, #26207) [Link] (1 responses)

It's a weblog, not an article. We the editors don't edit those.

All hail the grammar checkers

Posted Nov 9, 2005 2:43 UTC (Wed) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link]

Thanks for the tip. It wasn't clear that it was a web log. After knowing that now and looking at the page again the only thing that gives an indication that it might be a web log is some breadcrumb navigation right above the author's photo. Everything else has O'Reilly branding that makes it look like it's regular editorial content. The fact that it's a weblog is not conspicuous.

If by "we the editors" you mean that you work there, you might want to pass this comment on to someone there. I will see if there's a feedback address on the web page and email them as well.