Writing/Grammar Checkers

[robertobajo]

I'm looking to introduce an enhanced grammar/spell checker into my best practices before publishing.

I'd like to use one that I can access from a number of PCs and/or is web-based for that reason.

I've seen WhiteSmoke and WriteRight but wanted to get some feedback prior to purchasing.

Any help is appreciated!

 

[Stitch]

I wouldn't buy one. Nothing is better than your own eyes.

 

[Azrael]

Hire a copy editor.

 

[CR19]

I wouldn't buy one. Nothing is better than your own eyes.

Exactly. It may not be a bad idea to take a NewsU revision course.

 

[robertobajo]

Hire a copy editor.

Hire a copy editor.

Wanted to and was turned down....

 

[Stitch]

Hire a copy editor.

Hire a copy editor.

Wanted to and was turned down....

If you're working at a paper, quit and then they can hire someone who can write.

 

[robertobajo]

Nice, really positive approach.

I've been test driving WhiteSmoke and have been impressed.

Hire a copy editor.

Hire a copy editor.

Wanted to and was turned down....

If you're working at a paper, quit and then they can hire someone who can write.

 

[Stitch]

I'm just being a realist. This a human-based business. If you can't write or can't check your work, you don't deserve to be in it. Computers can only do so much.

 

[robertobajo]

Yeah, we should still use typewriters and typesetting machines, too. Let's forego computers, spell checkers, AP Stylebooks and all tools that might help a writer.

Or I suspect that they also "can't write, or can't check their work."

Get off your high horse. You don't know all.

I'm just being a realist. This a human-based business. If you can't write or can't check your work, you don't deserve to be in it. Computers can only do so much.

I'm just being a realist. Thiis a human-based business. If you can't write or can't check your work, you don't deserve to be in it. Computers can only do so much.

 

[EagleMorph]

Spell checkers don't help writers, they hinder them. Because you can spell something correctly and still be wrong. It prevents people from actually proofreading their work, from actually reading how the story flows.

Computers, AP Stylebooks, yes, they improved our business. Spell checkers and grammar tools have made us lazy. It's okay to use them, but they should be just the first step in the review process.

 

[robertobajo]

I never minimized the importance of self-editing and--just as important--having someone else proof before submitting. This is just a tool to get from point A to B.

Computers, AP Stylebooks, yes, they improved our business. Spell checkers and grammar tools have made us lazy. It's okay to use them, but they should be just the first step in the review process.

Spell checkers don't help writers, they hinder them. Because you can spell something correctly and still be wrong. It prevents people from actually proofreading their work, from actually reading how the story flows.

Computers, AP Stylebooks, yes, they improved our business. Spell checkers and grammar tools have made us lazy. It's okay to use them, but they should be just the first step in the review process.

 

[mediaguy]

Spell-checker is a crutch. Nothing reeks of laziness quite like a story with a "form" instead of a "from" written by a writer who thought their copy was clean because the spell checker said it was. Weak.

 

[Mystery Meat II]

Spellcheck is a crutch for ****ty reporters, but it doesn't really make them any more ****ty than they already are. Good reporters already know not to rely on it, but sometimes things slip through. It happens to the best of you. It's no big deal if a computer program makes that catch.