3 ms·
The negative comments don't make any sense. It's hard for me to understand why a bunch of people who clearly don't understand the domain complain how more infor
by astrodev 9y ago
The negative comments don't make any sense. It's hard for me to understand why a bunch of people who clearly don't understand the domain complain how more informed parties invest their money.
I use Grammarly daily. The subscription is cheap compared to hiring a proofreader, which I used to do. The market for ESL speakers is huge, and native speakers, too, can often benefit from improving their writing.
- wwwigham 9y agoHow much more targeted and useful are their suggestions compared to a rule-based tool like proselint[1]? [1] https://github.com/amperser/proselint https://github.com/amperser/proselint
- astrodev 9y agoI can't make any general statements. I checked both tools against a document that was recently corrected by a human proofreader. Out of six errors found by the human, Grammarly identified three and proselint none. "only half of the mass if accounted for by the stars", misspelling "if" -> "is" "in the heath death scenario", misspelling "heath" -> "heat" "The quantity follows Gaussian distribution.", missing article
- pasquinelli 9y agoCan you really get away with using grammarly as a proofreader? What sort of text are you using it on?
- astrodev 9y agoIt's about half as good as a non-specialist human proofreader (see my post above) for a fraction of the cost. While that's not sufficient for some documents, I consider it (in addition to my own eye for detail) good enough for things like client proposals and my academic work (grad student), not to mention all the real-time (chat, email) applications.