3 ms·

I was just waiting for the first grammar or usage mistake to be made and pointed out in this thread. :-) It's ironic that now, when anyone can publish their wr

I was just waiting for the first grammar or usage mistake to be made and pointed out in this thread. :-) It's ironic that now, when anyone can publish their writing to the world in a blog, so many people don't have the writing skills to communicate effectively.

RyanMcGreal 16y ago
Muphry's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law Also, it's always been true that many people don't have the writing skills to communicate effectively. What's different today is that for the first time, those people have the ability to publish their writing.
- Retric 16y ago
  I don't think it stems from really increasing the author pool so much as reducing the amount of effort put into editing the material. A good editor can dramatically improve legibility, but few bloggers are paying for it.
  - RyanMcGreal 16y ago
    You raise an interesting point, but the purpose of an editor is to filter content before publication in a scarce medium so that resources aren't wasted publishing crap no one wants to read. The editor serves the owner of the means of publication and acts as a quality filter so that only content worth buying and reading will make it into print. Unlike a printing press or a broadcast frequency, the internet is unbounded and access is dirt cheap. There's effectively no cost to publish crap, so there's no reason not to wait until after publication to filter for quality.
    - Retric 16y ago
      Editors do both. However, if you look at the standard quality of a small town newspaper from the 1920's the overall quality is not all that high. Realistically, papers like the New York Times are an outgrowth of having a huge audience which can support a lot of staff, but there used to be a lot of small players out there who had a lot less content to choose from.

3 ms·

I was just waiting for the first grammar or usage mistake to be made and pointed out in this thread. :-) It's ironic that now, when anyone can publish their wr

by whitegloveapps 16y ago

RyanMcGreal 16y ago
Muphry's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law Also, it's always been true that many people don't have the writing skills to communicate effectively. What's different today is that for the first time, those people have the ability to publish their writing.
- Retric 16y ago
  I don't think it stems from really increasing the author pool so much as reducing the amount of effort put into editing the material. A good editor can dramatically improve legibility, but few bloggers are paying for it.
  - RyanMcGreal 16y ago
    You raise an interesting point, but the purpose of an editor is to filter content before publication in a scarce medium so that resources aren't wasted publishing crap no one wants to read. The editor serves the owner of the means of publication and acts as a quality filter so that only content worth buying and reading will make it into print. Unlike a printing press or a broadcast frequency, the internet is unbounded and access is dirt cheap. There's effectively no cost to publish crap, so there's no reason not to wait until after publication to filter for quality.
    - Retric 16y ago
      Editors do both. However, if you look at the standard quality of a small town newspaper from the 1920's the overall quality is not all that high. Realistically, papers like the New York Times are an outgrowth of having a huge audience which can support a lot of staff, but there used to be a lot of small players out there who had a lot less content to choose from.