Does proper spelling and grammar always indicate good credibility?
Does poor spelling and grammar always indicate bad credibility?
I ask this because I see SO many good and well thought writings get ripped apart and denied credibility just because of a few spelling and/or grammar mistakes.
Bad spelling and grammar don’t add to your credibility. Additionally, if your grammar and spelling are so poor that they make it hard to understand what you’re saying, that will hurt your credibility quite a bit.
But if all you got’s a few typos here and there, and a couple minor grammar mistakes, then the people who ignore your message and attack your presentation are just being unpleasant.
Oh, and I’m glad I’m not afraid of irony. If you’d seen me typing my response, rather than just the finished product, you’d think that I’ve been drinking.
Nope.
What it does show is respect for one’s readers, taking the time to make your thoughts easier for them to grasp by using the conventions society has established over the years to improve such clarity.
I’ve seen posts with egregious spelling errors that made valid points and made them with cogent logic and well-harnessed emotion behind them. In such case, I simply reply (if appropriate) indicating my agreement with and appreciation for the point, and the most I’d do towards maintaining my membership in the Grammar Vigilantes is to find occasion to use the misspelled words and spell them correctly, or correct the spelling, within brackets, in my quote of the post that I’m agreeing with. (This also applies when somebody makes a good argument that I disagree with, but those are scarce.)
What does seem to happen, with about 0.8 probability, is that a poster who uses solid lower case, punctuates somewhat at random, misspells about 20% of his post, is also not making a particularly intelligent, coherent, or useful point either. But, as noted, that is a generalization.
I teach a writing course at a local law school. I tell my students on the very first day of class that proofreading is crucial to their credibility. I realize that this is a message board, and perhaps all the same rules should not apply here as in drafting legal documents. Nonetheless, I think lack of proper grammar and lack of proper spelling do impact credibility. Discounting those for whom English is not a “first” language, if someone cannot take the time to read their own post and determine if their grammar makes sense and if they have accurately spelled words, I think people reading the post will naturally attach less credibility to the post. There certainly might still be valid points or good arguments within a post that is full of poor grammar and spelling, but those arguments will be less effective.
I am not an “expert” in grammar, so I tend not to criticize other people’s grammar. I do, however, have a natural tendency to attach less credibility to posts that are simply unreadable. I would guess most people would have a similar response.
I peruse the online personal ads from time to time (to time to time…) and if I see spelling or grammar mistakes, I’m immediately turned off and go on to the next one. You’re there to present yourself in a positive light, I hope. Part of that is taking care to proofread yourself. And if you have proofread and found no mistakes (which are in many cases very obvious), then I don’t care for your sloppy nature.
Now, that’s not to say I’m perfect or better than anyone, but as a grammar fan, those mistakes stick out like a sore thumb and say a lot to me about the person who wrote them.
Around here though? Bah, say what ya want! It’s casual 
Spelling and grammar are specifically designed to help ease the communication process. When they break down, so does the communication. So, if you can’t say what you want to say, chances are pretty good that no one else will get it either.
I have also seen many ultra-pedantic comments, both on this board and off. While these are almost always grammatically correct and spelled correctly, they are invariably so bogged down by their own complexity that they are also impossible to understand.
My conclusion: using correct spelling and grammar usually aids clarity and strengthens one’s argument, but not always. Poor spelling and grammar always hurts clarity and weakens one’s argument.
O i dunno, Jimbo**, there is a widew range of mistakes possible in individiual circumstances that are terribly easy to overlook fo rvarious reasons (and which,in fact, we might not even notice given the non-professional reading as we would in reading a message board post).
[of course, mashing them all together here doesn’t help ;)]
People that take pride in their spelling and sentence construction skills are likely to be put off by improper use or spelling. I have no such pride: misspell away; in almost all cases, either the context makes the word clear, or the mistake is not semantic (consider ‘the’ as ‘teh’—not uncommon in hasty typing).
But I think it is important to have a point first, then let language take care of the rest. If you lack the point, no amount of proper spelling or grammar will help you.
BTW, there’s a convention on this board, another of our “unwritten rules,” invoked by “(sp?)”. What it says, in essence, is, “I know the meaning of this word but not the proper spelling and cannot find it with the resources readily at hand to me. Please forgive any misspelling and correct me if it is misspelled.”
As in a hypothetical post that begins, “Bush is not able to weigh varying advice because his advisors are all psychophants(sp?)…” Obviously the poster here is aware of the term “sycophants” and is using it in this context to describe people telling GWB only what he wants to hear, but does not have a clue how to spell it, made a best guess as to the spelling, and could not find it in dictionary resources with the “psy-” beginning.
This little gimmick is not offensive but simply says “I’m using the term that best fits the meaning I wish to convey here but am unaware of the ‘proper’ spelling of that term, and am humbly seeking correction if I have erred in its spelling.” That shows consideration for one’s fellow poster, not arrogance in typing a stream-of-consciousness rant with no thought to accuracy of wording nor the ability of the reader to figure out what the heck you’re talking about.
I’d say that it depends entirely on the content. If the post is well thought out, then a spelling/grammar doesn’t count for much- I’m thinking maybe the person was in such a rush to get his/her voice heard or was so excited that spelling and grammar slipped their attention.
On the other hand, we have the type of post that has little merit and really bad grammar and spelling. The spelling and grammar, do not destroy the poster’s argument in this case, instead it adds rounds of ammunition for fellow posters to launch.
In my 16 years of lawyering, I am not aware of having yet won or lost a case based on spelling, grammar, or syntax.
On-line, there is a huge difference between an occasional misspelling or punctuation error/oversight, and no attempt whatsoever to comport with accepted spelling/grammar rules. I agree with those who consider it a matter of respect for one’s audience.
Personally, I also apply a sliding scale depending on the poster’s tone. If someone comes off as an aggressive know-it-all, I’ll be more critical of minutiae.
Oh, and Poly - you sure “psycho” would not be an appropriate prefix for Bush’s advisors? 
I agree that you should never win or lose a legal case based on those things. But I also know that in difficult cases judges can be swayed somewhat by the credibility of the attorneys before them. If it’s a novel case and an appellate court, for example, has to decide whether to buy your argument based on a brief that is full of spelling, grammar, and syntax errors, or the argument of your opponent based on a brief that is technically excellent, you do nothing whatsoever to help your case by not bothering to proofread. When the court is trying to decide which side of the issue to go with your credibility suffers if you haven’t bothered to proofread. In addition, you can easily develop a reputation that you don’t want before that court.
I got taught that particular misspelling by Satan, who used it intentionally in a thread I kept hard copy of. And it’s of course a perfect example, since it would be impossible to find “sycophant” if you were convinced “psycho-” was part of the derivation.
As for your question, I think they’re quite sane, far too hardline and not capable enough of seeing the opposite viewpoint, but well intentioned. Some of his supporters, on the other hand…
First, please ignore my grammar and spelling mistakes…
The problem is that these conventions are obvious and natural for some of us and not for some others. I’m pretty good at spelling (in my own language) and a major spelling mistake is usually quite blatant to me. I will notice it immediatly when reading, and proofreading what I wrote will usually be enough to notice most my own mistakes.
Unfortunately, it’s not true for everybody. One of my brothers (though highly educated) is horrible at spelling. He just doesn’t notice the mistakes when he reads a document. If he’s writing it, instead of naturally writing it correctly, as a lot of us do, he has to think about the way a word should be spelt. Like in “Is there a “s” or not at the end of this verb when I use the 2nd person of the singular”? “Is there two “t”, or only one in this word?”, etc…And still there are a lot of mistakes.
So, spelling correctly might common courtesy, but it appears much more easy to us (“why didn’t he simply proofread this damned post???”) than it is for some people who have to make a big effort (OK…Not necessarily a “big” one…but often at least “some” effort) to spell properly and don’t notice their own mistakes when they reread their letters/posts. And they aren’t necessarilly illiterate, or poorly educated, or stupid. So, I prefer to cut them some slack and judge them on the content rather than on the packaging.
Personally, I much more admire someone like your brother, Clairobscur. That he cares enough to take his time and write at a speed commensurate with his abilities speaks well of his character, in my opinion. And people with such character typically don’t want any “slack”.
I have a friend who is severely dyslexic, and yet he graduated from Wake Forest University by sheer determination and hard work. He asked me about Atlas Shrugged, and knowing of his condition, I told him that the book might be a bit much. It is very long, and written in a very strained prose.
But he waived off my concerns, and insisted that he wanted to read it. I loaned it to him. It took him three months. But he finished it. And we discussed it often for several days.
I love that man. He is an inspiration to me.
Polycarp I think makes the best argument for taking care with your spelling and grammar. I remember wring saying the same thing in a similar thread a long time ago. I retype pretty much everything I post here because initially it’s all lowercase. The only thing that truly bothers me is large unbroken blocks of text. I just don’t read them.
That said, writing on the Internet is not the same as writing a thesis, a newspaper article, or a legal brief. It has conversational aspects that those forms of writing do not, so allowances must be made.
Probably the most important thing to note is that pointing out grammar and spelling errors on a message board has social consequences. It’s basically an Ad Hominem attack and a thread hijack to boot. Both of these things are far worse than any spelling or grammar errors in the context of a message board. To me nothing destroys your credibility faster than sniping about apostrophes or willfully misinterpreting an error when the real meaning is easily deduced from context.
The other consideration regarding the conversational aspects of online writing is that being a conversation, some people are going to be writing in nonstandard dialects. Before you criticize their writing, make sure you’re fluent in the dialect they’re using to avoid looking like a fool.
-fh
There are mistakes and then there is illiteracy.
I am tolerant of understandable mistakes, but when a person spells psychology “sikolagy” I find it difficult to believe that they have read a great deal about the subject.
Kalashnikov, and I think that is a well-justified assumption. But I also think that one needn’t be well-educated to make a good point. I would not care to speculate whether that says something about me, or something about my conduct.
If I feel I understand a person, then that is all I need to consider their points. Really, on a board whose ostensive purpose is fighting ignorance, do you suppose it serves us well to predispose our behavior in such a manner? (Not that you implied how you treat such people, and please don’t think I’ve made such assumptions…)
peepole hoo carnt speel r stoopid.
Here’s something to ponder:
The purpose of grammar and orthography (that’s a fancy word for spelling things right) is to enable clear communication. If you understand what I’m trying to say well enough to correct my grammar, then obviously my grammar was good enough. You’re just being a :wally.