I wasn’t sure where to put this - I think it’s worthy of debate, so here goes:
Be honest - when you read a post from someone who obviously lacks critical thinking skills, AND the post is riddled with spelling and grammar errors, don’t you think to yourself “Geez, what a dunce!”? Yet, criticism of such errors seems to be a taboo on the internet. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen comments to the effect of: “Oh my! A spelling flame. How gauche.”
I’m not saying that I never make spelling mistakes, but I DO consult a dictionary if I have any doubt about how to spell a word. This isn’t about the occasional typo, but more about the kind of post that makes you cringe when you read it. The resources to check these things are available to anyone with an internet connection, so I don’t see how there’s any excuse for not looking it up.
Granted, there are many for whom English is not their first language, and I’m certainly not going to criticize anyone who knows more languages than I do - but often it’s pretty obvious by the colloquialisms used that the poster lives in an English-speaking country and really ought to know better.
So how about it? Why are spelling and grammar considered off-limits for criticism? Why is it o.k. to criticize a person’s reasoning skills, but not his/her written communication skills?
There’s nothing that annoys me more than when there is a post and someone rebuts with “Oooh, he can’t use an apostophe correctly, so no response required!”
Attacking spelling or grammar skill is usually avoiding the main issue being discussed. Bad spelling and grammar isn’t OK, it’s just usually beside the main point or points being discussed.
But in that vein, it’s okay to attack both the content and the spelling/grammar issues - but the latter only if it’s so bad that the post becomes somewhat incomprehensible.
Thanks, dantheman, I was just going to bring that up. The consensus seems to be that it’s only acceptable to focus on the content, which I guess is sort of the core idea that the person was trying to get across. So what if the writing is so actrocious that the point is almost completely obscured? Is it then o.k. to criticize the writing? Or should one try to guess at what the writer actually meant, and still ignore all the writing errors?
And a second question: Why is it intrinsically more correct to deal with “content” rather than presentation? In other words, why is it better to say “Your idea is wrong”, than to say “Your spelling is wrong”? Why is the former considered acceptable, while the latter is considered rude?
[Devil’s Advocate] But if a native-English-speaker’s post is so wrought through with spelling and grammar errors that it looks as if it could have been written by my six-year-old nephew, it’s often (not always, but often) a good indicator that: A) The poster’s ideas lie somewhere between illogic and complete incoherency, B) The poster is less interested in discussion than in ranting, and C) The poster really isn’t concerned with whether or not the reader can accurately distill the meaning from the message.
I mean come on guys if I wrrtie my psots all like this…nd i cant speel anthin corectly and stuff r u gonna bohter t try and fiugre owt wht i’m talkin abut?[/Devil’s Advocate]
It’s up to the poster to make sure that the audience to which he or she is addressing his/her post is readable, and that the audience can tell what the content is. If reading the post looks to be a struggle, well, screw it – the SDMB is slow enough, and I can spend my time more constructively reading posts by literate people.
Of course, there is a continuum. And context is relevant. Spelling and grammar requirements are different - and generally less demanding - online than, say, in a high school English essay. But I certainly can see no inherent benefit to execrable spelling.
I believe it shows some disrespect for one’s audience if a writer is unwilling to take minimal efforts to at least cut down on the most eggregious misspellings.
In a minor respect, it suggests to me an element of sloppy thinking when someone is not aware of the correct spelling of words they use. Same when someone mangles the pronunciation of a word when speaking.
In a small way, it suggests pretension, that someone is trying to use bigger words than they competently can, to make themselves sound a certain way.
Also, if someone is posting as an authority, or taking a judgmental position, I tend to be more critical of all aspects of their posts - including spelling.
I’m a big believer in trying to get all your words spelled correctly (by the way, blowero, “Internet” is generally capitalized as a proper noun ). But it’s normally not a big deal, no bigger a deal than, say, starting a sentence with a conjunction would be.
Sacrifice to gaudere here.
It becomes a big deal when it’s difficult for me to follow what you’re saying. If you believe that paragraph breaks are for the weak – if you disdain punctuation as a Tool of the Man – if you’re all Humptily-Dumptily Glorifying your words, so that they mean what you want them to mean and to hell with the dictionary – then I’ll get a headache from your post.
And I’ll likely ignore what you say. Or I may, gently, suggest to the writer that you pay more attention to punctuation, spelling, etc. And then I’ll ignore the inevitable flames.
Hmmm; If somebody makes a post that, with the exception of a sinlge typo, is coherent and well-formatted, then it is petty and pointless to make an issue of it.
But if somebody makes a post that is littered with poor grammar and spelling, as well as being ill-informed or logically unsound, then I think it is reasonable to include the presentation as possible extra evidence (if such is needed) that you are dealing with an arsewit.
Chronic bad speller here. I am not an idiot. I know I have trouble with spelling, I always have. It is probably some form of low grade dyslexia (reverse numbers on occasion too etc.) When I am writing a post on the Internet ( thanks DanielWithrow) I do my very best to avoid typos and spelling errors, and if some people can’t deal with that then fine. I do find it annoying when people post a second post to explain that they spelled a word wrong, or screwed up the code. I think most people here are intelligent enough to make the corrections in their heads, and it is very rare indeed that I see a post so incomprehensible that I can’t understand it.
I agree with Mangetout. Part of written communication in English is spelling. There are a number of words which sound the same, yet are spelt differently, thus spelling the word in “the other” way can convey a completely different message than the one intended. For better or for worse, English spelling has certain conventions and to communicate in written English, one opts into those conventions.
This is not to say that the ideas the poster intends to convey should be dismissed out of hand, but rather that the occasional typo (or even the occasional “in joke” {when’s the last time someone typed inslut?}) really don’t interfere with the message. Such a posting will be readily understood. It’s the posts (such as a certain poster’s in a BBQ Pit thread concerning India) which essentially involve clairvoyance to even approach meaningful discourse.
Being educated by a school system that didn’t believe spelling needed “teaching,” but that it would come naturally, I can attest to the years of agony it cost to approach correct spelling as it is practiced by most educated speakers.
Spelling isn’t difficult for an intelligent person – one who’s been reasonably coached. Therefore the assumption of a typical, intelligent reader is that someone who can’t spell is not in the ballpark of educated and intelligent. As if to say: If you can’t even spell words, how can you remember rules of logic, historical facts, formulas, or quotations?
However, this slope is slippery than it appears. Having done a stint as an editor, I can report that every editor views different things as “critical,” and that none have memorized a substantial portion of “The Chicago Manual of Style,” even though they quote it.
I, myself, recognize the level of education of someone who quibbles about the use of “that” and “which,” claiming “which” can only be used in nonrestrictive clauses. It’s a matter of degree of familiarity with the language.
So, in a sense, one who is seen to use English improperly is simply less familiar with the language than the reader is. But this cannot imply that only English majors graduating cum laude have a right to communicate in a way that’s natural to them.
Heh. Actually, I didn’t pore over the O.P. An uncapitalized Internet (like an uncapitalized Web, in reference to the World Wide one) is one of the errors that pops out at me when I read. When I was writing a course on Internet marketing several years ago, I got paranoid about making sure I spelled and capitalized Internet-related terms correctly, so I notice it when other folks don’t.
But if it helps, you overuse hyphens in your o.p., your use of commas is (like every other English writer’s) problematic, there’s a sentence fragment somewhere in there, and “o.k.” should either be spelled “okay” or capitalized and sans periods. “Really,” contrary to what I originally thought, is used correctly.
Is that better?
Daniel
P.S. Note that there was nothing in your o.p. that made it difficult for me to figure out what you were saying; in that respect, there were no “errors” in your writing. But I figure one good smartass retort deserves another.
One point. I have a friend who has multiple sclerosis. She has a first rank mind (I met her in Mensa, FWIW) and can compose a good argument. The problem is, as I understand it, having MS means she has little feeling in her fingers, so typing correctly is a bit of a problem. Knowing her circumstances, I’d be more than willing to overlook a few spelling errors and/or typos.
On a broader scale, lack of capitalization and punctuation or overuse of fashionable internet-isms (“4u” instead of “for you”, for example) indicates someone who is more interested in appearing cool than in communicating clearly. I have read the argument that the using the former style makes it possible for people to type faster, but that doesn’t make a difference if their meaning doesn’t come across clearly.
As for spelling and grammar, to me it’s an indication of how much the poster cares about what he or she is writing. I worry more about spelling and grammar here than in some other forums because I’m usually writing about more serious subjects. No, they shouldn’t influence how good a posters arguments are, but they will influence the way they’re perceived.
CJ
Who just had a narrow escape from Gaudere’s law!
Yes and yes. If someone posts a message, but doesn’t bother to try to make it readable, why should I bother to read it? It’s not really the existance of spelling mistakes that bugs me, it’s when those mistakes interfere with the presentation of the message.
Really, I imagine that pretty near everyone here has no problem with a couple typos, but would be exasperated with a “totallie speeling opshunal, d00d” post. And most people will cut non-native speakers, or 13-year-olds, or MS-sufferers, some slack. The only differences among us would be exactly where we draw the line in the continuum from good writing to horrid.
). But it’s normally not a big deal, no bigger a deal than, say, starting a sentence with a conjunction would be.