You're arguing against a strawman, neither of them said the content isn't credible (other than the implied "the name's spelled wrong, so don't take that spellin

You're arguing against a strawman, neither of them said the content isn't credible (other than the implied "the name's spelled wrong, so don't take that spelling as correct.") >It's easy to find typos If it's easy to find typos.. what does that say about the author? >Related, I've worked with people, scientists, that I've asked to provide useful feedback on the scientific aspects other's work, and who instead have come back with typos and grammar suggestions. This is worse than useless. I'm assuming the work you're referring to is in a written form? Considering that the purpose of writing is communication, considering the fact that incorrect spelling, grammar, syntax and so on makes it harder for a reader to understand what's being communicated, I'd argue that it is in fact not useless. Granted, sometimes people just aren't proficient in the language they're attempting to use and that's okay! Feedback in that case would presumably be welcome. Now if an author is simply declining to put the bare minimum of effort into their work, such as running it through a spellchecker, I think we have a moral obligation to call that kind of behavior out. Edit: Please note the "if...then" before voting or replying, this comment is a series of logical conclusions, not necessarily a direct commentary on the comments above it in this thread. Some of it may apply here, some may not. Logically sound generalizations are more valuable, as they will apply in more situations, than my personal opinion on these specific individuals and comments in this thread