Atrocious proofreading/copywriting from large organisations

[py_megapixel]

Is anyone else noticing how awful seemingly professional large organisations often seem to be at written communication? I'm not sure it's a new thing but it does seem to be getting worse.

Often there are basic schoolboy errors in letters and websites, all of which should be caught before publication, such as incorrect uses of punctuation, Microsoft Word formatting mistakes, etc.. Then there is stylistic sloppiness, such as run-on sentences and tautological statements. This is more subtle but still suggests an organisation doesn't really care enough about the quality of the information they provide to even bother read through it and make sure it sounds reasonable

I have seen legitimate letters and emails that are so appallingly produced they would not be too hard to confuse with phishing scams. If I was in charge of a large company, bank, government institution or such, I would certainly not want it to come across like that.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

That is very true, and rather annoyingly one of the worst organisations I know of for poorly written e-mails with spelling and basic grammar mistakes is the school my son goes to... virtually every e-mail or newsletter contains at least one glaring howler, and often more.

 

[birchesgreen]

I get stuff sent to me that is "proofed" which patently hasn't been. Running a spell check in Word isn't proofing (especially as stuff in text boxes and diagrams isn't included!) Like many things, proofing is a skill which requires time (and therefore some expense) and companies do not feel like it is worth it. Unless they get some mug like me to do it for them even though it isn't really part of their job!

 

[OuterDistant]

Embrace it!

I like to think that if I end up in a dispute with a large organisation, I get to go to their CEO / an ombudsman / etc. with their communications making them look lazy and/or amateurish, which will work in my favour.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Embrace it!

I like to think that if I end up in a dispute with a large organisation, I get to go to their CEO / an ombudsman / etc. with their communications making them look lazy and/or amateurish, which will work in my favour.

There is some truth in this.

If the company did not take any effort over task 'x', can we be sure they took the level of care they say they took over task 'y', currently the subject of our dispute, your honour.

Contract disputes, employment disputes - always useful to show a company up as sloppy in their work practices.

Attention to detail (which includes accuracy) in formal communications is essential, not a bolt-on.

I get letters from my GP which are rather poor. The practice nurse says this is a 'fast for 12 hours prior' blood test, the follow-up letter doesn't mention it.

In my redundancy a simple error in a letter tripped up my employer for several months. Thanks to my (now sadly deceased) eagle eyed legal loophole advisor. I spotted it and thought 'yeah well whatever'. He said 'no, we've got them here'.

As for the reason, may I guess at the general lack of formal written communication nowadays? All those informal emails, texts dashed off quickly and fitting things to the number of characters allwd n twttr.

Perhaps also a lack of reading correctly written material. By regularly reading top quality material, you absorb it subconsciously. Back in the day large numbers of the population read a daily newspaper (of whatever point in the market / politics). Copy from a journalist would be sub-edited to ensure correctness. Nowadays far fewer people read a newspaper and the number of sub-editors has been slashed. The quality of many on-line articles suggests that no proof-reading takes place at all, not even by the originating journalist.

 

[DelayRepay]

Perhaps also a lack of reading correctly written material. By regularly reading top quality material, you absorb it subconsciously. Back in the day large numbers of the population read a daily newspaper (of whatever point in the market / politics). Copy from a journalist would be sub-edited to ensure correctness. Nowadays far fewer people read a newspaper and the number of sub-editors has been slashed. The quality of many on-line articles suggests that no proof-reading takes place at all, not even by the originating journalist.

Could part of the problem be that so much proof reading is on screen these days? I found it much easier to read and digest lengthy/complex documents when I was able to print them. I am not able to print currently due to enforced Working From Home, and I find it more difficult to follow documents on screen, perhaps because I can't scribble on them, turn over page corners and so on.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Could part of the problem be that so much proof reading is on screen these days? I found it much easier to read and digest lengthy/complex documents when I was able to print them. I am not able to print currently due to enforced Working From Home, and I find it more difficult to follow documents on screen, perhaps because I can't scribble on them, turn over page corners and so on.

I agree with your point re printed vs electronic but suggest that, in many cases, there is quite simply no proof reading taking place.

The boss gives an underling a task, the underling completes and distributes without reference back up the chain. The underling may have a good grasp of written communication in which case all ends well.
In an alternative scenario the underling passes their (poor) work up to the boss, who themselves do not have a good grasp of written communication, or do not have the time to check it / correct it, or simply don't think it important, so it gets distributed despite a quality control being in place.

 

[AndyPJG]

I get stuff sent to me that is "proofed" which patently hasn't been. Running a spell check in Word isn't proofing (especially as stuff in text boxes and diagrams isn't included!) Like many things, proofing is a skill which requires time (and therefore some expense) and companies do not feel like it is worth it. Unless they get some mug like me to do it for them even though it isn't really part of their job!

Agreed. Running a spell checker, or even a grammar check, is no substitute for an actual 'proof reading' - one of the commonest errors is with the misuse of "its" and "it's", "its" being the possessive and "it's" an abbreviation of it is; one of the worst corporate serial offenders being the BBC News web site.
Spell checkers can't differentiate between the correct use of "their", "there" and "they're" for example.

 

[pdeaves]

Agreed. Running a spell checker, or even a grammar check, is no substitute for an actual 'proof reading' - one of the commonest errors is with the misuse of "its" and "it's", "its" being the possessive and "it's" an abbreviation of it is; one of the worst corporate serial offenders being the BBC News web site.
Spell checkers can't differentiate between the correct use of "their", "there" and "they're" for example.

That's right, a spell checker is not a context checker. I have previously 'had a go' (in a friendly way) at a colleague (in a previous employer) for a very poorly written report. They seemed to think it doesn't matter. I pointed out that if you know no different it doesn't matter, but if you do it is essential so get it right.

 

[1955LR]

When I started working for the British Motor Corporation ( BMC) in the middle 1960's. all external correspondence went through the typing pool or the Managers Secretary , both being professionals. This meant glaring errors were corrected or queried and all the legal aspects were correctly applied. No slap dash texts sent out.

 

[SuspectUsual]

In a previous job, I was driven to distraction by one particular colleague whose correspondence was riddled with errors. Her standard excuse was "Word didn't put a red squiggly line under it so I thought it was OK". When I asked her if she remembered any of the relevant lessons from school she just looked blank.

 

[pdeaves]

When I asked her if she remembered any of the relevant lessons from school she just looked blank.

Sounds a bit like a finance assistant I met about 20/25 years ago who needed a calculator to multiply by 10. Presumably 'we' (society) is so wedded to asking the electronics to do everything that we can no longer see where the limitations are. 'Computer, he say...', etc.

 

[Jimini]

Could part of the problem be that so much proof reading is on screen these days? I found it much easier to read and digest lengthy/complex documents when I was able to print them. I am not able to print currently due to enforced Working From Home, and I find it more difficult to follow documents on screen, perhaps because I can't scribble on them, turn over page corners and so on.

Good points. Whenever I venture down to the editorial floors here when heading towards off-stone o'clock (national press), the sub-editors -- as a general rule -- have everything printed out in front of them with their heads down, poring over the content. Very few work on-screen, even now.

 

[Ediswan]

I am still trying to decide whether the grammatical error in the opening post is deliberate.

 

[py_megapixel]

I am still trying to decide whether the grammatical error in the opening post is deliberate.

The answer is probably not; this is an excellent illustration of the fact that organisations should be having anything important proofread by someone other than the writer. I know it's often the case that the writer can become blind to their own errors having been staring at the passage of text they are drafting for some time!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I am still trying to decide whether the grammatical error in the opening post is deliberate.

It's a social media post, not a formal communication.

The answer is probably not; this is an excellent illustration of the fact that organisations should be having anything important proofread by someone other than the writer. I know it's often the case that the writer can become blind to their own errors having been staring at the passage of text they are drafting for some time!

So very true. Familiarity with the text, after multiple drafts, will lead to skim reading. Proof-reading should be done by someone fresh to the text.

 

[alxndr]

So very true. Familiarity with the text, after multiple drafts, will lead to skim reading. Proof-reading should be done by someone fresh to the text.

Failing that, leave it some time and come back to it later, maybe even reading aloud or at least making an effort to consciously read every single word. I also prefer to print the final draft and/or change the font.

 

[Gloster]

Having had to proofread my own work for many years I will say that it is a lot more difficult to do than it seems. I have found simple spelling errors in items that I have missed on dozens (quite literally) of previous readings. I found that missing letters or words are the main problem: reading it slowly aloud usually eliminates most grammatical and repetition errors. However, the writer needs to be competent: I could name at least two local papers where junior journalists, who might be covering breaking news out of hours on their own and without checks, seem at times unable to write sentences that can be understood by the reader. And this is ignoring the bad spelling, poor grammar and wrongly used words (*) that mean that a simple news item may need to be read several times to be understood.

* - We all like to impress others with our large vocabulary, but a journalist should have got this out of their system before they start. Clarity is everything.

 

[SteveP29]

I have a promo leaflet for Dorset from South West Trains from a couple of years ago, the grammar is atrocious, will post a scan of it when I'm able.

 

[RSimons]

Many years ago I applied to an American university to do a higher degree. They informed me that, as a non-American (from the UK), I would have to take the Test Of English as a Foreign Language but in the letter there was an awkwardly phrased sentence and two grammatical errors. I wrote back that I was not the one who needed training in English and dropped that university from my list.

 

[The North Briton]

The TOC I used to work for ran an advertisement which must have slipped through all the usual checks and actually appeared on the sides of buses with Edinburgh spelled 'Edingburgh'. Of course, they blamed the agency!

 

[Strathclyder]

Many years ago I applied to an American university to do a higher degree. They informed me that, as a non-American (from the UK), I would have to take the Test Of English as a Foreign Language but in the letter there was an awkwardly phrased sentence and two grammatical errors. I wrote back that I was not the one who needed training in English and dropped that university from my list.

The definition of 'do as I say, not as I do' if ever I've seen it. You can't make this stuff up sometimes...

The TOC I used to work for ran an advertisement which must have slipped through all the usual checks and actually appeared on the sides of buses with Edinburgh spelled 'Edingburgh'. Of course, they blamed the agency!

Did they also misspell Glasgow as 'Glascow'? lol

 

[Inversnecky]

It's thoroughly depressing when you see letters even from school staff unable to use an apostrophe correctly. I often think I was part of the last generation taught how to use it correctly. I struggle when I see both correct and incorrect usages in the same phrase: "We sell apple's and oranges here".

I have been increasingly aghast to see the abomination 'could of / would of / should of' creep into usage - a solecism unknown in my youth! You would think a moment's thought would reveal how nonsensical such a construction is.

I must write to Points of View - is that still on the go?

But so-called spell checkers can be a nightmare - Microsoft Word's is generally excellent, but I find Apple's version for the iphone utterly hopeless: it is constantly changing its to it's etc.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I have been increasingly aghast to see the abomination 'could of / would of / should of' creep into usage - a solecism unknown in my youth!

You would of thought that a proof reader or spell checker should of known that the word "of" doesn't normally ever follow the word "could" (!)

 

[pdeaves]

You would of thought that a proof reader or spell checker should of known that the word "of" doesn't normally ever follow the word "could" (!)

There could, of course, be an exception somewhere!

With apostrophes used in plurals, someone once told me that there should be an apostrophe 'because the word ends in S'. What are the rules taught in schools now?!

 

[Bayum]

That is very true, and rather annoyingly one of the worst organisations I know of for poorly written e-mails with spelling and basic grammar mistakes is the school my son goes to... virtually every e-mail or newsletter contains at least one glaring howler, and often more.

That surprises me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2022 ==

Unfortunately, in the 2014 curriculum there was a massive push for spelling, punctuation and grammar (SPAG) to be taught in England’s primary schools and is tested for at the end of Key Stage 2. This leads to some schools teaching SPAG very much ‘out of context’, as the sorts of questions children will be tested on aren’t always everyday use of language and grammatical errors etc. once children get to secondary school, there is no mandatory SPAG element to be taught. Yes, there are marks for correct use of SPAG in longer assessed pieces as there always has been but very little taught otherwise at this age range.

 

[Smethwickian]

Good points. Whenever I venture down to the editorial floors here when heading towards off-stone o'clock (national press), the sub-editors -- as a general rule -- have everything printed out in front of them with their heads down, poring over the content. Very few work on-screen, even now.

I concur, having spent 30 years as a journalist, half that time as editor of a weekly newspaper series and later sub-editing regional dailies. Whatever the different systems for knocking copy into shape, designing and laying out pages on-screen, the key proofreading stage was then always, always done by printing out the page for a different sub to read on paper, on the desk in front of them, just as described above.
The large well-known national transport firm for which I now work employs people in customer relations and complaint handling whose standards of English, grammar and spelling are truly atrocious. Responses to customers are frequently made up from cut-and-pasted chunks of stock replies, complete with existing errors - more errors then being introduced as they attempt weld them together - resulting in barely literate emails and letters that rarely address the issues raised or bear much relevance to the customer's query. The emphasis seems to be on speed of response and disposing of as many cases as possible, rather than accuracy.

 

[Fyldeboy]

I work for an SME (not rail) that can be involved in lots of email communication. Our GM seems to have a poor grasp of English grammar and frequently uses wrong words (or invents bullpoo) - though if I'm being generous it could be a time issue as she obviously doesn't re-read them - only for them to be ammended 10 minutes later.
However, this filters down - my former manager totally ignored red squiggly lines, meant nothing to him and most of my colleagues will be happy with 2 line replies to customer emails. I wonder how they would feel if Barclays emailed them in the same manner - wouldn't give a professional impression, would it?

Caveat - grammer errors in this post are the fault of my Grandma

 

[Ediswan]

more errors then being introduced as they attempt weld them together

Should that be 'to weld'. Not a complaint. I estimate that around 50% of my contributions show 'Last edited' after I fixed one of my own mistakes.

 

[johnnychips]

It's thoroughly depressing when you see letters even from school staff unable to use an apostrophe correctly. I often think I was part of the last generation taught how to use it correctly. I struggle when I see both correct and incorrect usages in the same phrase: "We sell apple's and oranges here".

I have been increasingly aghast to see the abomination 'could of / would of / should of' creep into usage - a solecism unknown in my youth! You would think a moment's thought would reveal how nonsensical such a construction is.
.

Rose-tinted glasses, I fear. These mistakes were very common in the sixties when I was at school, otherwise we wouldn’t have always been told not to make them. Indeed, I would say that using apostrophes to make a plural has declined a lot in the thirty-odd years I’ve been marking books.