Does the new LuLa need an editor?

[john beardsworth]

Were I rich, owned this site, by now I'd have simply disconnected; who needs this shit?

Yup

[Jeremy Roussak]

A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.

That grammar of that sentence is interestingly dubious. It seems to me that there's an "and" missing.

Jeremy

[Rob C]

That grammar of that sentence is interestingly dubious. It seems to me that there's an "and" missing.

Jeremy

Those glass houses are everywhere!

;-)

[nirpat89]

That grammar of that sentence is interestingly dubious. It seems to me that there's an "and" missing.

Jeremy

The grammar...

[jeremyrh]

And in any case the grammar seems fine - compare "a man should have a dog, a woman a cat".

[32BT]

And in any case the grammar seems fine - compare "a man should have a dog, a woman a cat".

I think he's referring to the equivalence. It currently says "A, B like C and D" whereas you might expect either of "A, B like C, D" or "A and B like C and D".

They actually did a study somewhere which concluded that people who have a tendency of correcting someone's spelling (as opposed to concentrating on content) are less amicable personalities. No, I kid you not.

Another, more recent, study claimed that some 6% of my country fellowmen did not use internutz in the past year, and half of them don't even have internutz. I didn't know what to make of it, until Rob's remark! It likely corresponds to the 6% millionaires, who simply haven't the time or inclination for this hollowness.

[Robert Roaldi]

There is nothing ungrammatical about splitting infinitives, or ending a sentence with a preposition. Shakespeare and many others did (do) it all the time. These "rules" might be remnants of some style guide or other, or they may have been arbitrary school "marm" rules dreamed up to instil discipline in (or inflict maximum misery on) children.

The only "rule" about splitting infinitives is that you should place the adverb to properly convey your meaning.

"To go boldly where no man has gone before..." doesn't sound right.

There is a very useful style guide "Words into Type", Prentice-Hall. I have the 3rd edition but there are probably more recent editions by now.

Many of the things that we consider "rules" or mistakes are conventions of the day. There are real rules of grammar, of course, but many of the things that people complain about are just things that they are used to or were taught. The language has never been static and isn't now.

A good example appeared in these pages a few weeks ago. I remember because I looked it up. There was a complaint from one contributor about the use of the phrase "begs the question". The phrase has a specific cultural meaning that is different than the actual denotation of the words in the phrase. Someone used the phrase in a way that was different than its current common meaning. Doing so was not a grammatical error, it was just a misunderstanding of the cultural meaning of the phrase. In 20 years's time, that specific cultural idea may die away completely. This is not unlike using "bad" when we mean "good" or the ironic "I could care less" instead of the more accurate "I couldn't care less". Proper usage may indicate hipness but it doesn't imply that you know grammar.

Many "rules" are contextual. It is silly to insist on using the style of scientific or legal journals in a photography web forum. The articles on the site should be held to a slightly higher standard than the forums, I'd say, but some of the comments I've read lately seem over the top to me. It is just a few errors not the end of civilization.

One simple and effective way to avoid some of those errors though is to simply have someone other than the author read/proof the text before publication. This isn't a daily newspaper, there is no need to rush to deadline.

[faberryman]

One simple and effective way to avoid some of those errors though is to simply have someone other than the author read/proof the text before publication.

Josh and Irene ought to be able to sort that between themselves for their own articles. When third parties submit material for publication, Josh will read it and should be able to clean up any glitches.

[amolitor]

To be quite fair, the previous management did not copy-edit submitted material. I have a typo or two that I know of preserved for posterity in articles on the front.

For those who declare the discussion silly, I remind you that you are already sold one way or the other, and are therefore irrelevant. Commuter train systems are optimized for the regular rider, sometimes to the fury of the new or occasional rider. Web sites operated the same way die.

[32BT]

To be quite fair, the previous management did not copy-edit submitted material. I have a typo or two that I know of preserved for posterity in articles on the front.

For those who declare the discussion silly, I remind you that you are already sold one way or the other, and are therefore irrelevant. Commuter train systems are optimized for the regular rider, sometimes to the fury of the new or occasional rider. Web sites operated the same way die.

I remain convinced that autonomous vehicles should include an "I feel lucky" button...

[nirpat89]

If I were Josh, I would tap a few people on this thread to volunteer for part-time editor's duty.

[Rob C]

There is nothing ungrammatical about splitting infinitives, or ending a sentence with a preposition. Shakespeare and many others did (do) it all the time. These "rules" might be remnants of some style guide or other, or they may have been arbitrary school "marm" rules dreamed up to instil discipline in (or inflict maximum misery on) children.

The only "rule" about splitting infinitives is that you should place the adverb to properly convey your meaning.

"To go boldly where no man has gone before..." doesn't sound right.

There is a very useful style guide "Words into Type", Prentice-Hall. I have the 3rd edition but there are probably more recent editions by now.

Many of the things that we consider "rules" or mistakes are conventions of the day. There are real rules of grammar, of course, but many of the things that people complain about are just things that they are used to or were taught. The language has never been static and isn't now.

A good example appeared in these pages a few weeks ago. I remember because I looked it up. There was a complaint from one contributor about the use of the phrase "begs the question". The phrase has a specific cultural meaning that is different than the actual denotation of the words in the phrase. Someone used the phrase in a way that was different than its current common meaning. Doing so was not a grammatical error, it was just a misunderstanding of the cultural meaning of the phrase. In 20 years's time, that specific cultural idea may die away completely. This is not unlike using "bad" when we mean "good" or the ironic "I could care less" instead of the more accurate "I couldn't care less". Proper usage may indicate hipness but it doesn't imply that you know grammar.

Many "rules" are contextual. It is silly to insist on using the style of scientific or legal journals in a photography web forum. The articles on the site should be held to a slightly higher standard than the forums, I'd say, but some of the comments I've read lately seem over the top to me. It is just a few errors not the end of civilization.

One simple and effective way to avoid some of those errors though is to simply have someone other than the author read/proof the text before publication. This isn't a daily newspaper, there is no need to rush to deadline.

Robert, Shakespeare was an artist.

As such, you can't expect him to employ perfect English grammar, though for all I know, he might have been doing just dandy for the times. He was as much in the entertainment industry as any old singer from Nashville, or even the Brill Building. These people never permit grammar to stand in the way of things being assonant, and neither they should. There's permitted licence in such cases, but not any sense that the usage is applicable in formal, written intercourse.

Split infinitives simply don't make sense. Of course folks know what's intended, but that's no excuse for bad form.

Begging the question does have a specific meaning; because many fail to understand that does not, of itself, render the term silly or irrelevant. You could extend the defence of bad grammer to the point where grammar turns into dust, and nothing makes any more sense ever again.

Sloppiness is not its own validation.

Rob

[luxborealis]

Thanks, kimballistic for having the guts to raise this issue. It has annoyed me, as well, for some time. My spelling is atrocious at times and my grammar not much better, but Ray, Peter and Andrew are correct: a professional website, like any professional journal or magazine one pays for, should have edited articles that are typo-free with generally acceptable grammar. Photographers are not, by default, writers. Having an editor can help bridge that gap.

The forum, on the other hand, can remain the dog’s breakfast it is. 

[Rob C]

If I were Josh, I would tap a few people on this thread to volunteer for part-time editor's duty.

Why should anyone be expected to volunteer? This is a now a business, and has been for some time; would you expect your doctor to spend hours on your case without charge? I think it quite sufficient that folks post without getting some financial return for their efforts. Don't forget, posters are actually content providers (as distinct from mere contented posters), providing far more daily content than the management ever managed to provide, again, for obvious reasons. When writers dry up, so will the site.

Rob

[faberryman]

Why should anyone be expected to volunteer? This is a now a business, and has been for some time; would you expect your doctor to spend hours on your case without charge? I think it quite sufficient that folks post without getting some financial return for their efforts. Don't forget, posters are actually content providers (as distinct from mere contented posters), providing far more daily content than the management ever managed to provide, again, for obvious reasons. When writers dry up, so will the site.

Rob

I have been on the site for about four months now, and my impression is there are only about two dozen active members providing most of the content on the forum. Josh is really going to have to step up the game on the home page to bring new life to the site.

[Rob C]

Thanks, kimballistic for having the guts to raise this issue. It has annoyed me, as well, for some time. My spelling is atrocious at times and my grammar not much better, but Ray, Peter and Andrew are correct: a professional website, like any professional journal or magazine one pays for, should have edited articles that are typo-free with generally acceptable grammar. Photographers are not, by default, writers. Having an editor can help bridge that gap.

The forum, on the other hand, can remain the dog’s breakfast it is. 

Do you remember the times when Michael used to ask people to behave here as if they were sitting in his parlour?

;-)

[nirpat89]

Why should anyone be expected to volunteer? This is a now a business, and has been for some time; would you expect your doctor to spend hours on your case without charge? I think it quite sufficient that folks post without getting some financial return for their efforts. Don't forget, posters are actually content providers (as distinct from mere contented posters), providing far more daily content than the management ever managed to provide, again, for obvious reasons. When writers dry up, so will the site.

Rob

OK. I agree on all your points.  I was thinking there are some people here who write really well and know a split infinitive when they see one (not me.)  Maybe some form of compensation can be worked out.

Incidentally, I tried to read Alain Briot's new article today and I couldn't go past the Intro.

[Alan Goldhammer]

OK. I agree on all your points.  I was thinking there are some people here who write really well and know a split infinitive when they see one (not me.)  Maybe some form of compensation can be worked out.

I did a lot of technical writing and editing during my career and still do a fair amount as a consultant.  I'm not sure the website can afford to pay my going rate ($125/hour).  If they can, I am happy to volunteer.

[amolitor]

The split infinitive rule was promoted as gospel for a period of time, but was always nonsense:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/split-infinitives

[amolitor]

Josh, you may feel free to take this as advice or not, as you see fit!

If I were running this site, and (this is important) I wanted to position the site as a higher-end, polished, product, I would do this:

1. Draft a short style guide, something like: 10th grade reading level, oxford commas, punctuation goes inside quotes and parens.
2. Good "online copy editing service"
3. Pick out 3 likely looking ones.
4. Test them out with some articles with a few errors salted in.
5. Select the best one, and contract with them to copy-edit all the articles.

This would add expense to each article, but would definitely improve the finish of the site.

I'd let the style guide evolve, developing standard word and capitalization choices, and so on, the usual stuff, but that can wait a while.