Saturday, July 30, 2011

Test Your Vocab

Maybe you've seen this on Facebook by now, but if not, check it out:

http://testyourvocab.com/

The instructions read: "Check the box for each word you know at least one definition for. Don't check boxes for words you know you've seen before, but whose meaning you aren't exactly sure of."

My score was 24,900. What was yours?

Most of my friends' and families' scores were higher than mine. I used to think I had a big vocabulary. But that was back in high school, when I was reading world literature and classics on a daily basis for English class.

Sometimes I think my high school days were the "smartest" I've ever been, at least in terms of book learning. I read a lot now, but the books I read don't necessarily use words like legerdemain and sparge. I wish I had time to be reading Poe and Dickens on a regular basis. *sigh* Maybe when I retire.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Mxied-Up Wrods


For your amusement:
  • Deos it relaly maettr aubot the splleing or grmaamr, as lnog as you get the msesege?
According to an Internet meme that's been circulating for many years, something about the human brain allows us to read words - easily, too - as long as the first letter and the last letter are in the right place.
  • I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs too.
Fact or Fiction?

Is this really true? Can you scramble up the middle letters of ANY word and still be able to read it without a problem?

It turns out that the "research at Cambridge University," cited in the jumbled paragraph above, does not exist. At least, it did not exist when that paragraph started circulating.

However, Cambridge researcher Matt Davis, after seeing that paragraph on the internet, delved into this issue in great detail. Click here to read his excellent page on the topic.

The Verdict

On his page, Mr. Davis debunks the theory that you can scramble up the middle letters of a word any way you want to and still maintain readability. Behold:
  1. A vheclie epxledod at a plocie cehckipont near the UN haduqertares in Bagahdd on Mnoday kilinlg the bmober and an Irqai polcie offceir
  2. Big ccunoil tax ineesacrs tihs yaer hvae seezueqd the inmcoes of mnay pneosenirs
  3. A dootcr has aimttded the magltheuansr of a tageene ceacnr pintaet who deid aetfr a hatospil durg blendur
If you're like most people, these sentences get progressively more difficult. Yet they've all been scrambled according to the same rules: keep the first and last letters in place, and mix up the middle letters willy-nilly.

So, just in case you were wondering: No, this does not give you an excuse to stop giving a damn about spelling, or about proofreading. But it does explain why even the best proofreaders overlook some mistakes, especially when they're reading text quickly!

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Bye, Borders

Well, it happened. A few months after it downsized and closed multiple stores, Borders is now giving up the ghost for good. Read more in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. By the end of September, all the stores will be gone.

So now my lament from March becomes a eulogy today.

It's Not About the Books

The more reactions I hear from people about Borders going out of business, the more I realize one thing.

Borders may be a giant bookstore. But the sadness accompanying its closing is not about the books at all.

No, people went to Borders for the experience. They went to browse through new arrivals and to check out the staff's picks. They went to lose themselves in the possibilities: seeing a new release by a favorite author, discovering a brand-new author, finding a gem that they might never have stumbled across ("treasure hunting," as one fan called it today online), and holding those gems in their hands. They went for the ways that a bookstore stimulates the senses: warm lighting, endless colorful book covers, artwork on the walls, the subdued murmurs of other customers, and the smell of coffee from the cafe. They went to feel like part of a community of people who love reading and learning. They went to Borders to be alone, or to meet up with friends. They stopped in on first dates, or with their children, or to kill time before a movie. They stayed a few minutes, or they stayed for hours. It was a destination. For book lovers, it was hard to leave the store without buying a book, because the rows upon rows of bookshelves were just too tempting, and you had to throw yourself into them and see what they might hold for you.

You can get books online. But you can't get those experiences online. And sure, you might get the same experiences at Barnes & Noble, or at a neighborhood bookstore. But Borders had so many locations all across America that, for many people, it was the only bookstore in the area. For many people, losing Borders means losing the bookstore experience for good.

It's sad news, Borders. We'll miss you.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Creating the Perfect Password

Sometimes I feel like a ridiculously large percentage of my brain is used by remembering all of the various passwords that I use in my life.

There must be dozens of them. Maybe even hundreds. There's a handful for work. One for my home computer. One for my bank. Several for each of the online bill sites that I visit to pay my bills. One for my health insurance company's site. One for my husband's health insurance company's site. The list goes on and on.

It's a bit maddening. My poor brain could be using those cells to store pleasant things, like fond memories of friends and family and good times. Yet those neurons are saddled with the most boring job description around: remember several strings of characters as well as which websites or computers those strings belong to.

The Master Password

Wouldn't it be great to have just ONE password for everything? Then you could send most of those poor beleaguered brain cells on vacation, and when they return, give them a brand-new and much more fun job.

But creating a master password would be complex. It would be both a science and an art. It would, in fact, be a feat of creative writing, on a tiny scale.

It would have to meet the following requirements at the very least:
  • Uncrackable, even by people who know you (no names of your pets, spouse, children, hometown, your username spelled backward, etc.)
  • Exactly 8 characters in length (I've seen sites that require at least 8 characters, and a few that require exactly 8 characters, but never any sites that require fewer than 8)
  • Easy for you to remember
  • Easily tweakable to meet the stringent requirements of certain sites. Here's what I mean by tweakable. Some sites require that your password contain only letters, while other sites require at least one number and one symbol in addition to letters. So an ideal password would allow characters to be swapped out easily for numbers or symbols. For instance, you could use the word migraine as your password, and if you encounter a site that requires a number and a symbol, you could substitute an exclamation point for the first i, and substitute the number 3 for the letter E, so that you get m!grain3.
That's a tall order. I don't even know if it's possible, given the many different requirements demanded by various computer systems.

And then, of course, there are the companies that require your password to be changed every few weeks. So you'd have to go through the entire master-password creation process again several times a year.

On second thought, I don't know that this would be a creative process after all. It might only be an exercise in futility. What do you think?

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Mistakes Cost Money

"Spelling mistakes cost millions in online sales," shouts the headline of a recent BBC news story.

I was fascinated to see this story. Spelling mistakes cost millions in sales? Really? If the article had contained hard data, it would have been a real coup for editors.

Alas, it's not scientific. But it is interesting. The guy making the claim is not an editor or writer, apparently, but an "entrepreneur" who publishes websites professionally. An excerpt:

Mr Duncombe says that it is possible to identify the specific impact of a spelling mistake on sales.

He says he measured the revenue per visitor to the tightsplease.co.uk website and found that the revenue was twice as high after an error was corrected.

I wrote about this issue a few months back. If a website is riddled with mistakes, I do tend to take the website -- and sometimes the entire company -- less seriously. To me, the mistakes make the company look careless and amateurish. If they don't care about communication, I wonder, how much do they care about their product?

I don't know if mistakes on a website would cut sales in half, like Mr. Duncombe claims, but I'm sure it would cut sales at least somewhat. What do you think?

I'd love it if some brilliant researcher would do a real study on how bad web editing affects web sales. It's seldom that you can put a hard dollar figure on the value of good editing.

Typos and the Folly of Autocorrect

One of my Facebook friends posted today about how he always misspells the word business as buisness.

I can relate. For me, I always typo any word that ends in -tion. Like, information becomes informatino, and relation becomes relatino. It's as if my Italian roots are showing through.

Even the best spellers on earth make typos. I think it's a sign that your brain is moving faster than your body. Your fingers are trying to type one thing, but your mind has already raced on to the next thing, so your fingers get distracted. It reminds me of when my two-year-old is all amped up to tell me something, but she stutters, because she's thinking of the words faster than she can make her little mouth pronounce them.

Auto-Co-Wrecked

Then there's the hilarious world of autocorrect. Some smartphones make their best robot guess at what you might have been trying to say when you made your typo. If you haven't seen it, you need to check out www.damnyouautocorrect.com for gems such as the following:


Monday, July 11, 2011

Quality in Educational Publishing

Actually, I was going to title this blog "Quality (Or Lack Thereof) in Educational Publishing"... but I decided to hold off on the cynicism.

Have you worked in educational publishing in America or Europe during the past few years?

If so, did you feel that your funding, production schedules, deadlines, wages, and quality standards were reasonable? Were you proud of the product your team produced?

Or was your reaction more like this: "How on earth can this publisher think that operating this way is going to produce a product remotely worthy of educating students?"

Quality Audit

If you chose the last answer, you might be interested in sharing your experiences in a new research project. (Gracias to Jen Murtoff for passing this along)

The following is taken directly from the researcher (Steve Ball)'s website:

Many experienced people in the academic and educational publishing sectors claim that there have been progressive erosions of important aspects of quality in the industry. These may affect, among other things, the value of the product, the credibility of publishers and ultimately the future of the industry itself.

Continue reading to learn more and anonymously submit your experiences.

http://ah.brookes.ac.uk/research/project/publishing_quality_audit/

Saturday, July 9, 2011

The Grammar Nerd is IN


I can't believe I've never said this on this blog before, 10 months into writing the blog.

But if you are reading this, and you have a burning question regarding punctuation, grammar, spelling, writing, literary devices, your secret crush on your high school English teacher, or the relative merits of Twilight vs. True Blood -- Feel free to e-mail me anytime at jenallen74 (at) yahoo (dot) com. I will answer all questions here on the blog.

By the way, I have no idea if those cute little spam-thwarting tricks that people use -- e.g. jenallen74 (at) yahoo (dot) com -- actually thwart spam. But I get so much spam to that e-mail address anyway that it doesn't matter.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

"Client Scorecard" Lets Freelancers Rate Clients

Last year I talked about starting up a Jen's List -- the equivalent of an Angie's List for freelancers and clients.

Well, someone else had the same idea. I'm thrilled to see it in action, even if I didn't get around to doing it myself.

Check out the Client Scorecard, brought to you by the Freelancers' Union. "Have you loved/loathed a company that you freelanced for?" it asks. "Rate them here."

You can rate a company from 1 to 5 stars, along with a description of your experiences.

Caveats: To start reviewing clients, you do have to sign up for an account with the Freelancers' Union, wait for the confirmation e-mail, click the link in the e-mail, log in, then paste the Client Scorecard link into your browser again because it's not available from the home page. Also, I believe the site may still be in beta-testing mode, though many reviews have already been posted.

A big thanks to Chicago's Northside Freelance Network for passing on the word of this great tool.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Webster's Dictionary Updates Definition of "Marriage"

Hi all! I've been away for nearly two weeks, part of which was spent at the beach.

Miss me? I missed you. Although there was something very restful and refreshing about not touching a computer keyboard for more than a week.

Anyway, today I learned something nifty. Merriam-Webster revised its definition of "marriage" based on the growing trend of states legalizing same-sex marriage. Previously, it had defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The New Definition

In its Trend Watch on June 30, Merriam-Webster Online reported a spike in lookups for the word marriage following the news in New York.

M-W's new definition of marriage includes a second meaning (see below). It now reads as follows:

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

The Dynamic Dictionary

It makes me happy to see dictionaries changing with the times. After all, if dictionaries were entirely prescriptive (i.e., telling us how we should use words), rather than descriptive (defining words as people actually use them), then they might still be telling us to speak in Old English.

I wonder if Merriam-Webster will one day jettison the "opposite sex" language entirely and just have one definition for marriage. Time will tell.