4 ms·
It was correct when I just looked at it, and you still read it, though. Eventual correction works and is less important than getting the news out. Any-way - th
by vr46 3y ago
It was correct when I just looked at it, and you still read it, though. Eventual correction works and is less important than getting the news out.
Any-way - the fact that they have a system that seeks to improve the copy and direct it towards their style guide is something to be celebrated when most of the news about, erm, the news, is how AI is replacing actual writers.
- sph 3y agoThey fixed it some time between my comment and yours. Maybe I'm spoiled with our programming tools, but I would have imagined a major newspaper to have an automated style and spell checking system that runs every time one presses Save on their CMS, and this is proof they don't. I am surprised why no one at The Guardian has set this up before — it's not rocket science, but their core business.
- vr46 3y agoThis is just about priorities and theirs are different to yours - firstly, we don't know that they don't have a system that catches and warns of possible errors, we only know that articles may be published without addressing them. Secondly, the fact that it was corrected post-publish suggests that errors are picked up, but timely publication is more important. The core business is delivering news, and typos halting publication is not a trade-off they want to take, they'd rather have the subs or copy editors batch process or review all the corrections required - maybe they use Pull Requests? :D