Rejected again
Moderators: Celeste Stewart, Ed, Constant
Rejected again
I have had an article rejected again, with comments about grammatical errors, punctuation errors, run-on sentences or other errors. I have no idea which one it is. I have used the program Grammerly to check all errors, it comes up fine. I even looked up one of the sample articles from the expert writers to see how they set it out and checked it on grammerly finding it had over 38 errors, but it was excepted. I have no idea what I'm doing wrong. Can anyone help? My article is Introduction to Ayurveda.
-
Celeste Stewart
- Posts: 3528
- Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:28 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Re: Rejected again
Grammar software tools are just that: software. Software runs on based on the rules entered into it. Unfortunately, with English, the rules are not black and white. Exceptions are common, making it impossible for a computer program to accurately identify grammar errors.
I ran one of my "premium content" (http://www.constant-content.com/MoreDet ... atters.htm) articles that was well received by Ed through Grammarly to see what it would reveal. No suprise there, but I scored a 0 out of 100 with multiple grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Since I don't have a Grammarly account, I can only see the numbers of "errors" detected and not the actual so-called mistakes. However, I can guess that many of the findings will be dubious if not downright incorrect. Plus, some of what it checks for is redundancy. While I appreciate that, keyword writing by its nature requires some redundancy.
Who do I trust more to catch errors, Ed or a software program? Ed. I also have strong enough grammar skills that I trust myself more than Word's built-in grammar checker which often underlines sentences in green, indicating potential grammar errors. Most of the time, the grammar checker is wrong. I leave it on because it forces me to rethink those sentences, but I don't take its suggestions as authorative.
So, if you use Grammarly (or any other grammar software) and change your sentences based on its recommendations without thoroughly understanding whether the suggestions are correct or not, you may end up with a "clean" article as far as the software is concerned but an article loaded with grammar errors as far as real editors skilled in the English language and all of its nuances are concerned.
If you want to post a brief paragraph for critique, one of us writers will likely be able to spot errors that the software didn't catch. For example, in your post, you used the word "excepted" when you really meant "accepted." Software might not be programmed to recognize those two words as commonly misused, but many writers will quickly spot the problem.
I ran one of my "premium content" (http://www.constant-content.com/MoreDet ... atters.htm) articles that was well received by Ed through Grammarly to see what it would reveal. No suprise there, but I scored a 0 out of 100 with multiple grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Since I don't have a Grammarly account, I can only see the numbers of "errors" detected and not the actual so-called mistakes. However, I can guess that many of the findings will be dubious if not downright incorrect. Plus, some of what it checks for is redundancy. While I appreciate that, keyword writing by its nature requires some redundancy.
Who do I trust more to catch errors, Ed or a software program? Ed. I also have strong enough grammar skills that I trust myself more than Word's built-in grammar checker which often underlines sentences in green, indicating potential grammar errors. Most of the time, the grammar checker is wrong. I leave it on because it forces me to rethink those sentences, but I don't take its suggestions as authorative.
So, if you use Grammarly (or any other grammar software) and change your sentences based on its recommendations without thoroughly understanding whether the suggestions are correct or not, you may end up with a "clean" article as far as the software is concerned but an article loaded with grammar errors as far as real editors skilled in the English language and all of its nuances are concerned.
If you want to post a brief paragraph for critique, one of us writers will likely be able to spot errors that the software didn't catch. For example, in your post, you used the word "excepted" when you really meant "accepted." Software might not be programmed to recognize those two words as commonly misused, but many writers will quickly spot the problem.