Get your spelling wrong and lose money
I've just stumbled across this. If poor spelling on a website has a
detrimental effect on that site's sales, then I wonder if the same
is true of sites selling e-books. It certainly would be for me, if
I bought them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14130854
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14130854
Comments
Subscribe
Visitor counter
Blog Roll Centre
Blog Hints
20 Comments
The frst team decided on a Mexican theme as it was 'hot' at the moment. Leaving aside the fact that the food was actually cold, sloppy and served in cardboard cartons, the name they decided on - because it had a good Mexican sound - was Caracas. It was, eventually, pointed out to them that, far from being Mexican, this was actually the name of the capital of Venezuela (like, you know, a totally different country, guys) howevere nobody, but nobody, remarked on the fact that they had spelled it 'Caraca's'!
The second team settled for the 'novel' concept of English fast fast food - obviously never having heard of fish and chips - and came up with 'My Py'. (Groan)
All the pies should be named after famous English explorers, amongst whom they chose Sir William Drake and Christopher Columbus! When asked by one of His Serene Sweetness's aides if Columbus was English a female member of the team re-assured him. "Yes, I think so."
One chap - can't remember whether he was a pie or taco man - was asked by Sir A, what their projected revenue was, based on how much they had taken in one hour at lunch time. "We served seventy people, at an average spend of six pounds," replied the luckless individual. "So that's £4800," he confidently affirmed until, seeeing raised eyebrows quickly corrected this to, "Er... I mean £4200."
Oh World!
All together now . . ."We don't need no education . . ."
The answer for me, is no - a sole mistake wouldn't put me off, I'd put it down to a typo, but the next would be a flag. Sorry. I do know there are good reasons sometimes and I'm in awe of dyslexic writers who must find it difficult; I'm just saying how it strikes me.
P.S. Mike, I spotted the mistake (now corrected) in your post - I thought you'd done it deliberately! Tee hee.
I know I’m not stupid, but I also know that some people reading my stuff would think that I was or that I was lazy.
But even knowing this I still find myself turned off by other people’s spelling mistakes. It makes me feel hypocritical but if I read something and it’s riddled with poor spelling, bad grammar and badly formed syntax then I tend to disregard it. Which I think is cruel of me considering my ‘insiders’ understanding to bad spelling. Yet it is an unconscious reaction, which is my overall point. People react to bad spelling and grammar instantly, without even thinking about it and you only get one chance at a first impression.
A lot of problems can be solved with a proof reader and I think for something like a web page, MS etc it is a worthwhile investment as you only get one chance to make a first impression.
There is, as has been suggested already, a big difference between writing an email (unless its a covering letter for a job application) and a book or the copy for a website. In my professional opinion there is no excuse for spelling or grammar errors in the latter.
If I come across a typo on a retail website the alarm bells go and I'm already assuming I'm being scammed! How can they expect me to part with my hard-earned if they're too mean or slip-shod to publish something without proofing it? Same with a book, really.
Proof-reading is one of those areas which has suffered during the 'popularisation' of publishing. Ok, its great that anyone can publish and I'm not picky if I happen to be reading someone's personal website about their cat... erm... ok, I'll revise that. I am picky because I wouldn't read it in the first place. :P
Leaving typos and grammaticals in 'professional' copy suggests you don't give a damn what your potential reader thinks about you... big mistake.
However, this process might override the formatting (bold, headings, etc), so I can understand why some people might update content directly onto the website: they save on reformatting, but run the risk of spelling mistakes. I'm sure no one with a spell-check tool would overlook the accusatory red squigglies.
Aside from that, there is usually a boss-man or boss-woman who wants more, more, more, now, now, now. Perhaps poor spelling and grammar go hand-in-hand with increasingly busy workplaces.
A boss-man in the background is the very thing I'd distrust if that boss-man is more concerned about your time-sheet than my purchase!
The relative ease with which we can publish something nowadays can make us sloppy, I fear.
I don't know if anyone saw this video (from Nicola Morgan's blog) but it is truly mesmerising and if it were this much bother to produce a book we'd make damn sure it was perfect before sending the copy anywhere. No chance of altering your commas with this method - and it wasn't so long ago, either. http://kottke.org/11/06/how-books-are-made-circa-1947
I do agree that work really should be checked for spelling, typos and gramatical errors. I'm always making spelling mistakes - not just typos, which are not the same thing, but equally need to be spotted and corrected (I can easily spell the same word differently twice in the same sentence. And, Katie, it's nothing to do with intelligence, as you rightly imply. Of course you're not stupid. People with dislexia have a particular disadvantage. I'm not sure what I have. I'm just a bad speller - or a careless speller would probably be fairer and more accurate. But whatever the reason - and poor education would be another (again, nothing to do with intelligence) - our finished, published writing must be as close to error-free as it can be, if we expect people to read it and be entertained or informed by it.
I don't agree that if we have a particular disadvantage which makes us 'bad spellers' for example, then allowances should be made for our output. It just means extra effort has to be made, possibly by third parties, to bring our work up to scratch. We wouldn't expect an audience to 'make allowances' for a pianist with arthritic fingers who could not deliver an accomplished performance. Of course there will always be examples of individuals who overcome terrible disadvantages to perform amazingly well - albeit not ranking with the best - in their field, when allowances will be made. But for the run of the mill writer, one way or another, we need to ensure our output is near perfect if we possible can.
And, btw, it's probably worth saying again: spellcheckers and grammar checkers are not proof-readers. They can help. I use them to draw my attention to something - and then decide what correction, if any needs to be made. But even then, of course, there can be all sort of mis-spelt words missed altogether, because they actually spell another word.
(I've corrected a few words in this as I've gone along and normally I would go back now and try to spot the ones I've missed. But I won't this time - to give you all a laugh.)
Trafalgar, I'm astonished by your story of The Apprentice. I'm so glad I didn't watch it because I'd have got completely incensed!
And as I've said before, spellchecks and grammar checks can't be relied upon because they are often wrong themselves. The only answer is to look up the word in a dictionary or consult a book on grammar. But I suppose if you don't know that the word is spelt wrongly (although the red squiggle underneath it in Word is a big clue!), you don't know that you need to find the correct spelling.
Odd to be forced by this blog to admit that.
OFP
Part of my sales techniques is to send a polite and friendly email to sites that have errors...
Interesting that you have blogged about this :)
Web sites, with a relatively high turnover of content (eg Amazon, Maplin etc.), seem to have a lot of issues. Or is it that they are most visited, so I notice.
e Books do seem to come through with errors and I find them irritating too. I am blessed with a Kindle and still wonder why. With e books there is a secondary issue, I think. Some of them must be scanned in using OCR. Some of the mistakes I see are unlikely typos, but could well be scan errors.
A quick google brought up this article, whch is not too old and may be of interest http://entropicalparadise.blogspot.com/2006/10/one-small-step-for-grammaticians.htm
And Kiki, good luck with your new venture. I hope people recognize a good idea when they see it.
Back to Alan again, scanning errors are a whole new ballgame. I once had to proofread a manuscript where the copy had been scanned in. Don't worry, I was told by the editor, it's all been scanned in and there probably won't be a single typo. Hah! The book wasn't so much littered with them as encrusted with them. Chunks of text even went walkabout or popped up elsewhere.
There is a (probably apocryphal) story about Neil Armstrong and his neighbour when he was a small boy. And now, just when I need to remember it, I can't. And I shouldn't be on here anyway. I should be working.
Spangles and AlanP - you are not alone.
One error is one too many, and betrays a lazy mind. Harsh? Maybe, but why not aim for perfection?
Click here to sign up now.