You say your review is impartial, but then go out of your way to target the subject of your review as has been pointed out by numerous readers.
They need more than an extra tool in their belt. The emphasis here is on “final step.” Let’s be honest, the sort of person who would rely on Grammarly alone for their writing is the sort of person that doesn’t understand the basics. I personally use it as a final step before submitting any academic paper to my university. That’s why the costs are drastically different. The point of Grammarly isn’t to be relied on as a professional editor. And it still bothers us that anyone would rely on this software instead of a human for proofreading or editing, but maybe we should let it go. We don’t usually do things like this, and we made sure to bury it deep in the site where it would only be found by people Googling for Grammarly reviews. passive voice strikes us as arbitrary.Īnd that was really our main conclusion–that writing involves so much variation, subjectivity, and preference that a computer program like this can’t possibly do all the things it claims to do. Plus, since there are so many things to consider when putting together a sentence, boiling it down to active voice vs. This highlights (a) that some parts of writing are too delicate and subjective for a computer program to evaluate, and (b) that the people behind Grammarly are relying on old grammar superstitions, misleading its users and helping keep those superstitions alive. Maybe Grammarly is just ahead of us on this.Īs for the passive voice issue, Grammarly gave its warning about the passive voice for every single sentence constructed this way. And the “homogenous” one is probably unfair as well because, as we’ve written elsewhere, trying to keep “homogenous” and “homogeneous” separate is a lost cause, and it’s probably time to accept the change. You’re right that the “Web site” criticism is especially unfair, so we’ll take that out. I’m not defending Grammarly - it still sounds like crap - but if you’re going to tear the thing apart, your rips should be legitimate. “Web site” isn’t wrong, it just isn’t the style you want. Did you run it as one word, and then Grammarly told you it should be two and capped? As I read it above, you -1’d them because Grammarly didn’t tell you to to close it up. If anything, this should be a +1 under “nonstandard variants.” Your example sentence isn’t grammatically incorrect, even if it doesn’t say what you want it to say.
I also don’t think the homogenous/homogeneous criticism is fair. On the flip side, you give Grammarly a +1 for NOT noticing that a “who” should technically have been a “whom.” Grammarly did correctly identify use of the passive voice, and even though passive isn’t ungrammatical, I think it’s good that Grammarly picked it out, making sure that the author knows it’s there and letting them make an informed decision.
0 kommentar(er)
