9 ms·
Nitpicker - an overly picky language style checker
- jstalin 14y agoThe name itself has an error. It should be "An overly picky language style-checker."
- evincarofautumn 14y agoWhy? A hyphen isn't necessary there. It's just apposition: a checker of style of language.
- npsimons 14y agoThat's a sweet ass-checker!
- languagehacker 14y agoI for one wholeheartedly disapprove of an app like this. We don't need things enforcing old, arbitrary modes of prescriptivist grammar. If you spent time writing this, and you didn't realize along the way that natural language is far too complex and nuanced to support such reductivist, Cartesian attitudes, then you're entirely missing the point of how natural language works. You're sending the wrong message and masquerading as a language expert, when really you're just codifying meaningless, pedantic complaints about how other speaker groups utilize a roughly identical system using shared constructions. Those attitudes lead to unnecessary prejudice against others at best and bigotry at worst. You want to know the best way to determine whether or not a construction is grammatical? Whether someone said it, and another person understood it. Because well-formedness is ultimately determined on a gradient scale, and not a categorical one with a series of by-laws like some kind of rulebook for a secret club.
- apl 14y ago> well-formedness is ultimately determined on a gradient > scale So you're willing to admit there's a scale. That's great. Use stylistic rules as a guide for where you are on that scale; they're a brilliant heuristic. After all, it's not all relative. Once you've accumulated sufficient experience, you'll know when to ignore a rule.
- cynicalkane 14y agoSomeone posts a really neat language tool, and the top-voted post is not talking about the technical merits or interest of the tool, but is instead a pretentious rant about how real language is what ordinary people speak and understand. You know, phrases like "Cartesian attitudes" and "identical system using shared constructions". This is the descriptivist-approved language for the masses. Using 'whereas' instead of 'while' is an elitist habit that must be stopped, whereas name-dropping dead philosophers out of context is the mark of a humanist. Anyway, I'm primarily interested in hacking, not in seeing some angry nerd on the Internet make excuses to take down someone else's technically challenging work.
- fredsted 14y agoI tried this tool on a few texts and it recommended some fixes on ambiguous and redundant words. It didn't change the style as much as it improved the clarity and comprehensibility of the text. I think you're overreacting.
- _delirium 14y agoThe bigger problem imo isn't so much that language changes, but that many of the rules enforced here (and in some older style guides) never existed to begin with, in the sense that not even elite or literary usage followed them, let alone common usage. There was an unfortunate period in English grammar, around the late 19th and early/mid 20th centuries, where grammarians tried to "purify" the language with invented rules, often modeled on Latin grammar. Strunk & White's Elements of Style is one of the offenders from that era that sadly lingers on in reprintings. A tool based on rules that bear some closer resemblance to actual English grammar would be interesting to me. Maybe something that checked against the recommendations in a recent edition of the Chicago Manual of Style. The technical aspects of this tool don't seem hugely tied to the specific constructs it currently flags, so perhaps that could be done (though the source is not available, so perhaps not).
- jamesbritt 14y agoWhether someone said it, and another person understood it. The problem for me is that when I write something I may not know that what someone understood is really what I intended. No matter what I write there's no magic way to make every reader understand exactly what I meant, but if I adhere to some rules of grammar that I expect are reasonably comprehended than I have a better chance. So, for example, if I write, "The result was less bugs", some people may take that to mean the total number of bugs went down (i.e, "fewer bugs") while others may think that the number of bugs stayed the same but that the bugs were not as serious ("lesser bugs"). Pedantry can be helpful here.
- xtreme 14y agoI would like to know the privacy aspects of this - does the text gets stored in the server? What about the "report false positive" button- is it entirely algorithmic or actually goes to a human? If the latter, how much of the text is visible to him/her? Of course, I am not going to use it for anything confidential, but knowing how much privacy I can expect would be nice.
- jsnell 14y agoThe framing of the site as overly picky is brilliant. I disagreed with maybe 90% of the suggestions it made on some example text. But no matter how silly the errors and suggested fixes are, the criticism can be defused by noting that the site stated up-front it was going to be nitpicking. (That said, I can't imagine actually using this except for the humor value of seeing suggestions like replacing "half" in "half a year" with "one-half" or "moiety".)
- zapt02 14y agoEs not working señor..
- cheald 14y agoI want an API for it, so I can write the world's most annoying IRC bot. It'd reuslt in the kline heard 'round the world.
- niklaslogren 14y agoInteresting service, will definitely try it out the next time I write something. A heads-up, though: the "blog" link in the site's menu doesn't work.
- pseingatl 14y agoClick on "Analyze", screen flashes and no output. Using Google Chrome.
- ansman 14y agoSame here, tried Chrome, FF and Safari.
- xorgar831 14y agoYep, on an ipad Chrome, safari and whatever instapaper uses did't work.
- advisedwang 14y agoWorks for me on FF 10. I run with NoScript and it even produced meaningful output with javascript off (although much nicer with javascript).
- StavrosK 14y agoIt did this for me too, but then I entered a longer paragraph and it worked.
- FuzzyDunlop 14y agoIronically, the image at the top says 'replace by' when it should be 'replace with'.
- GiraffeNecktie 14y agoActually, all the text across the site needs a thorough edit (by a human). Here are just a few examples of what the tool likely passed but that would have been flagged by a competent human editor: "Nitpicker was written by Niels Lohmann during the final stages of this thesis." > ... his thesis "At that time, every second page looked like the one on the left when it came back from his supervisor. " > ... on the right.
- a1k0n 14y agoAnd if you feed the site's own copy into the analyzer, it complains not only about the use of passive voice, but also that "Unnecessary specification of gender is widely regarded as sexist. Probably recast the sentence."
- apaprocki 14y agoThe errors themselves have errors: "Make sure you the negation of 'can' applies to the activity rather than to the ability to carry out the activity."
- neumann_alfred 14y agoEnglish is my second language, I will learn so much from this, I love you. That's all :P
- advisedwang 14y agoBe careful, they aren't kidding when they say "Nitpicker". Many of the mistakes covered (for example while/whereas) are extremely common and are acceptable in all but the most stringent circumstances.
- neumann_alfred 14y agoSure, but I can still make up my own mind in those cases. For example, I don't see myself saying "do not" instead of "don't", but with while/whereas, I'm happy to have that pointed out.. It never occured to me, because I learned and learn English from reading/hearing English, so it's very easy to pick up sloppy habits. I think "whereas" is a neat word and should be used more often, at least by me :) As Orwell said: "If people cannot write well, they cannot think well, and if they cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them." I like nitpicking, I love being corrected. But maybe this would be even better as a list instead of an online application.
- cjhopman 14y agoIn fact, such a use of "while" is supported by both Fowler's Modern English and the Oxford English Dictionary (and others).
- drbig 14y agoNow we can all fight the Grammar/Style Nazis around! On the serious side - should be useful, I'd certainly like to have a local offline version to add it right after aspell in my editing pipeline. Just to see if I agree with the results.
- dbaupp 14y agoIt appears to munge newlines, entering A B (with any number of empty lines between them) outputs AB Other than that, I like how the output is presented.
- tom_usher 14y agoNice, but why tell me to 'Avoid using British English.'? Maybe a one-off misuse could be caught, but if you see multiple instances of British English in a text block, maybe you can assume the writer intends it to be that way?
- derleth 14y ago> Maybe a one-off misuse could be caught, but if you see multiple instances of British English in a text block, maybe you can assume the writer intends it to be that way? Ah. No. This is clearly in Full-On Prescriptivist Peeving Mode, which means The Author Is WRONG!!!! (Yes, all of those exclamation points are required.) It's fundamentally more important to hew to the dictates of someone who thinks English must needs be used according to the rules of Latin than it is to express yourself in a clear and concise fashion. Anyone who disagrees would likely use the non-words 'Electrocution' or 'Television'.
- d0m 14y agoSmall bug: Html tags can screw up the interface. I pasted an e-mail containing a couple of <a href=".."> and it was then unusable.
- mindprince 14y agoThat is why whenever I paste text now I almost always use Cmd+Shift+V.
- d0m 14y agoActually, my e-mail contained escaped html tags; I was explaining something. The paste was alright, the problem was how it got rendered.
- lucian303 14y agoNice. Just needs an API and HN to tie into it and reject posts that are grammatically incorrect that come from English speaking countries, especially people who think that knowing their programming language is more important than knowing their native language and English (regardless of one's native language).
- NinetyNine 14y agoPossible opportunity charging students facebook credits to get their essays checked.
- lysol 14y agoI used a positive anymore and it didn't even care.
- thisishugo 14y agoI pasted in an article I wrote for a publication with a reasonably competent editor a while ago and the number of false positives was, I thought, surprisingly high. Many of the 'errors' it flagged simply wouldn't be considered as such in the context I was writing, and in fact the proposed changes would worsen the reading experience for the intended audience. I realise it's overtly supposed to be nit picking, rather than providing a realistic overview of what an intelligent reader may actually consider errors, but there's no substitute for simply having another human read what you've written when trying to eliminate mistakes.
- guptaneil 14y agoAny plans to add an API? I know it's a work-in-progress but it could still be quite useful in some cases.
- jvdh 14y agoIf you want to be even more picky, try submitting the same content to http://afterthedeadline.com http://afterthedeadline.com
- jrajav 14y agoIt would probably be better for usability to just have the tool on the front page. The first two steps of the tutorial - "Enter your text." and "Submit to Nitpicker." - will already be clear to anyone who has used a few web forms. You could then include a hint on the Analyze step that one can click on the issues to pop up the menu. This would lower the barrier to using the tool, and reduce the amount of text and exposition new users have to slog through.
- Zenst 14y agoThis is what I want/need, alas it failed my to/two/2 and their/there/they're as well as long sentence punctiontion and multiple and's. But early days and can only get better. But hey if you chuck shakespere at any modern day spelling check it will barf more than what I have put the english language thru, so it's no easy challenge. If anything there are more exception in the english language to the rules than there are rules and there be a lot of rules.
- kepano 14y agoThis is a neat tool, I hope it continues to improve. Suggestion: allow users to choose from the major style guides.
- Stratoscope 14y agoI'm a bit skeptical of a style checker that introduces itself like this: > Nitpicker is a language style checker which compares your text with a large database of style warnings, common errors, or warnings indicating that you may have once more used the wrong word or preposition. Nitpicker’s goal is to implement the old proverb “shame on you if you fool me once, shame on me if you fool me twice”: the moment your supervisor, colleague, reviewer, or local native-speaker finds a mistake in your text, any repetition is just embarrassing. Let's nitpick: > Nitpicker is a language style checker which compares your text with a large database... I'd probably write "that" instead of "which" - it's easier to say - and maybe "writing" instead of "text"? Not sure if "compares" is the ideal word either, but these are just nitpicks. Rather than tweak these I'd probably rewrite the whole thing. > ...of style warnings, common errors, or warnings indicating... Major bug: "or"? Does it check for one of these problems or another, but not necessarily all of them? It should be "and". Repeating "warnings" twice is confusing too. This second group of warnings: are these style warnings too, or not? > ...that you may have once more used the wrong word or preposition. I've read this at least a dozen times now and my brain still slows way down around the "may have once more used" part. I have a few guesses about what it means, but I'm not sure which if any are right. Also, "word or preposition" doesn't make any sense. A preposition is a word. It's like saying "a parrot or a bird". > Nitpicker’s goal is to implement the old proverb “shame on you if you fool me once, shame on me if you fool me twice” Ugh. Way to mangle a beautiful and poetic saying. This version has no power: it's like the nursery rhyme translation, and it's confusing too. Here's how it really goes: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Now that is writing. But what does fooling people and and who should be ashamed have to do with a style checker anyway? And how would Nitpicker "implement" the proverb? Make people feel ashamed when someone has fooled them twice? > the moment your supervisor, colleague, reviewer, or local native-speaker finds a mistake in your text, any repetition is just embarrassing. Is it embarrassing to you or to them? And are we saying that the first mistake is not embarrassing, only when you repeat it? I'm trying to connect this with the proverb, which is all about who should be ashamed, not when the shame happens. It is all very confusing. Enough nitpicking. How would I write it? Maybe something like: > Nitpicker helps you find and fix common mistakes in your writing. It checks for thousands of style errors and questionable wording and offers suggestions to improve them. Let Nitpicker find your mistakes before your friends and colleagues do!
- chris123 14y agoSerious or joke? Or trying to be serious, but failing, in which case props for trying to scratch your own itch.
- foobarqux 14y agoCan anyone suggest books that will improve a person's writing?
- tremblanc 14y agoThese three lines did not flag any errors: These things are always mired with troubled. These things are always mired with trouble. These things are always mired with troubles.
- SparrowOS 14y agoGod says... 20:37 Then he found another man, and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, so that in smiting he wounded him. 20:38 So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face. 20:39 And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king: and he said, Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle; and, behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man: if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou shalt pay a talent of silver. 20:40 And as thy servant was busy here and there, he was gone. And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall thy judgment be; thyself hast decided it. 20:41 And he hasted, and took the ashes away from his face; and the king of Israel discerned him that he was of the prophets. ---- God says... broke grammar games Seraphim thunder warning ARE net/pg Stand plural fallacies don't_have_a_cow subtilty Milanese 2000 country age lilies crying dreadful Infinite Finland recited traces sanctification taken tempts computers notions nothing choose my designs Howsoever contentiousness strayed relater Turned oblation impart beloved excuse neatly measured unemployment steep examined ETEXTSSTART* revolving fantastic naughty immortal Revenue thinketh easier skin dearer shakes shadows pattern incorporeal else sufficed exceedingly plainly subtile city dispensed Knock_you_upside_the_head during healthful property promising avenues glorified what_a_mess Boo foretold fame bends bath material prerogative ---- In theory, God's response is proportionate to the QUALITY of what I offer, but I get away with freebies. When He's being stingy, I can get short answers or, more often, long rambling nonsense answers. In a passage pick, only one word might make sense. That can be very good, though. Or, I might get a dud. Sometimes, I hope my applause for one pick makes Him happy to do another one. You can do praise, thanks, meditations, poems, hymns, comics, jokes, interactive fiction, sermons... anything. It's Cain and Abel. Read this carefully -- "You will be accepted if you give a good offering." ---- Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. 6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” ---- Be charming. Wit is KING, I think. ---- God says... 41:27 The first shall say to Zion, Behold, behold them: and I will give to Jerusalem one that bringeth good tidings. 41:28 For I beheld, and there was no man; even among them, and there was no counsellor, that, when I asked of them, could answer a word. 41:29 Behold, they are all vanity; their works are nothing: their molten images are wind and confusion. 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. 42:2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.