Here is a link to my last post about this site: http://akeaston.blogspot.com/2010/10/lets-define-quick-turnaround.html
Today, I point out the site because in a very short article, a mere 158 words, the writer actually used a word that doesn't exist.
And, that word is..... 'runnings'.
Here is the paragraph:
"The New York Times – gearing up for the New York City Marathon with On The Run (Look! Old guys running marathons!) – takes a look at runnings who can’t get insurance."
Here is a link to the full article: http://www.mediabistro.com/sportsnewser/run-marathons-just-dont-get-hurt_b2456
The very next line of the article is "Huh?", and I have to say that I agree.
Huh?
I checked more than one dictionary and 'runnings' is not a word. We all know that the word that is meant to be in that sentence is the word 'runners'.
It's a very stupid mistake. And a simple run of spell check would have caught it. In fact, When I ran spell check on this article, it caught it.
And, now I will ask what I always ask when I find a grammatical error on a website: Don't you have a proofreader there? And if you don't, you mean to tell me that the author of this article, couldn't, himself, proof a 158 word piece and get it right? Thank God it wasn't an 800 word piece. I shudder to think how many errors might have been made, and published, in that piece.
For the record, for this blog I do not have a proofreader and I work very hard to ensure my accuracy. If I've made an error, please let me know and I will fix it immediately.
I would love to have a proofreader!
And, in the interest of full disclosure, maybe there is a part of me that's a bit jealous of fully paid bloggers. I would love to be a fully paid blogger. I take my work very seriously. I check and re-check my work so that their are no errors.
It bugs me when someone, who is paid to do this, is careless. In my opinion, it's incredibly unprofessional. Especially when simply running spell check would have caught the error.

No comments:
Post a Comment