Forum Moderators: not2easy
[edited by: engine at 7:24 pm (utc) on Jan. 11, 2004]
[edit reason] no specifics [/edit]
The marketing presentation, whether it is web-based or printed, is a different story. If it is sloppy, then one presumes that management is not paying attention or the organization is too small to have anyone who cares. I've known people who were capable managers but couldn't write well - because they were good managers, though, they recognized this limitation and made sure that someone proofed or rewrote their copy.
I think that's the fundamental difference of opinion in this thread - nobody disagrees that you want a person with great tech skills to manage your hosting; writing skills don't really matter.
Some purchasers, though, clearly expect a level of business professionalism in addition to tech skills. There's a lot more to web hosting than managing servers and network gear - one expects accurate billing, prompt attention to requests for help, courteous treatment, etc. Proper spelling and grammar don't translate into these characteristics, but they don't raise red flags for potential customers.
I've been involved in various technical service companies, and I've observed that technician appearance and demeanor can be VERY important in customer satisfaction. Same person, same skills, but sloppy appearance translate into problems at some customers - because the tech doesn't look professional, the customers are quick to find fault when things seem to take longer than they expected. Not all that different from web pages...
Published websites must have good copy...if you can't read or understand it, how can you buy or use it.
Yet again...not everyone speaks English! I applaud the people that do not speak our language and do their best to provide us with quality products. A dear (international) friend of mine asked me the other day after reviewing his site, "Is there more than one way to write English?" YES! Even people who speak our language may not be able to communicate well in writing. ( Try writing a content article, then switch to marketing ad copy...very difficult).
None the less, native or not, if a company doesn't take the time to be sure their sites grammar is top notch...it puts a doubt in your head about the rest of their services. To me, the one that sounds the most reliable will win.
The other day, I spotted the word "contibute" on the main page. It had been there for a long time. Another time I spotted the word "childrens." I know how to spell, but sometimes, it's impossible to see some typos. It's like I'm blind or something.
When you write one article every six months, it's easy to get someone to proof read. However, when you produce a lot of copy. It's very hard. I'm thinking about getting a paid proof reader, but it's very expensive.
I would think that most people here would understand that most sites are owned by one person with limited resources. Personally, being in that condition, I'm very liberal with typos and all.
I'm always committed to the best copy possible, but mistakes happen, and I'm not going to lose sleep over that. When I do spot them, they are corrected at once though.
most people here would understand that most sites are owned by one person with limited resources
That's exactly my point, Harry. If I'm buying software or signing up for web hosting, I want to believe that there's a large, well-financed organization behind the site - systems engineers, CISSPs, MBAs, sales pros, etc. This may be an illusion, but it's a comforting one.
When I see a site with plenty of errors, I immediately visualize one guy pounding out copy in between server reboots and tech support calls. That's probably an illusion, too, but it's not a comforting one.
Who the heck do they think they are to set the rules?
According to the introductory linguistics course I took, there are two fundamental ways to understand grammer: it is either prescriptive or descriptive.
I prefer the latter, grammar should be understood as the way people form sentences not the way they should according to some "authoritative" source.
Now if you wanted to discuss poor communication, that is a different matter.
I really don't try to make typos. Like I said, as soon as I find something, I correct it quickly. But I know that missing typos has nothing to do with me being sloppy, unsafe or making bad products in my case. It's just a lack of resources, even if I do twelve hours days.
I try my best.
Harry, no ofense, but missing typos is sloppy. If it's not sloppy, what is it?
If you're a small business or not makes no difference. You are measured against your competition. Some people are clearly turned off by grammar errors and typos. Those people probably don't care if you're a one man show or a mega-corporation.
A few errors, typos or mistakes on other sites don't bother me at all. Chances are, I read right through them without noticing.
One Webmaster thanked me and said he'd get on with those corrections right away! He didn't. Not a peep from the rest, and 60 days later not a single correction had found its way to any of their critiqued Web pages. I couldn't believe it. These were not small companies.
Needless to say, that business plan hit the bricks. <Raughing out roud>
<"bothered by the lack of grammar">
Lack of grammar? Do you mean the lack of words...sentences...ink...or perhaps the lack of good grammar? That reminds me of a time when "quality" was never good nor bad until qualified as such. Grammar is grammar...if it's there, it's not lacking!
Surely the point is, as mentioned, to get the message across clearly, to be credible, and then to be creative!
"lack of grammar" is not incorrect.
But... let's not sidetrack things...
Wattsnew, your story is interesting. Clearly, those webmasters didn't share the concerns expressed by some here.
Sometimes I shock myself when I look at my own sites and realize just how bad I can be at times.
Mack.
The brain has a strong tendency to synthesize information and fill in gaps, and with your own writing you'll often see what's supposed to be there instead of what IS there.
There's no substitute for a fresh pair of eyes to look at a piece of text. If you can't afford to pay for proofreading help, at least try to leave the work alone for a few days so that when you read it again your own eyes will be a bit fresher. You'll usually spot several things to fix or polish that you missed the first time round.
Details matter because they can substantively change the meaning. Consider the difference between "a man eating fish" and "a man-eating fish".
You can talk the grammar issue into the ground, but the truth still remains, nobody questions grammar unless it is wrong. Why create the added doubt about your credibility?
Anything that causes a reader to stumble over your content is a distraction...too many of these and they will leave with a bad impression of your product. Why risk it, just fix it!
I have had people email and let me know of grammatical errors on our site and I am extremely thankful. Nobody is perfect, but it is better if you try to be...for business sake!
When detail orientation matters
Yep. If you can't get your spelling and grammar right, then you are not very professional.
By the way, if anybody needs help from an English major, I know someone who works cheap. :P
Lizzie -- most professionals judge a successful communication by what it achieves, not by the rules that it follows. If we judge the success of a WebmasterWorld topic by the length of the thread then with 40+ posts your topic has been one of the most successful in this forum that I've seen.
To get back to your original question, the buyer’s perception of copy quality effects buyer’s trust of the vendor and this effects sales.
I think that adults have evolved built-in filters to flag "unnatural communication" (whether it follows official rules or not). These flag will not always hit everyone's immediate consciousness but I feel it certainly effects everyone's buying patterns to one degree or another. There was a fairly long discussion about it here: [webmasterworld.com ]
Rigidly following rules though won’t be a route to successful communication. The English language, unlike others, has a flexible approach to its rules. Some of these can be bent. Others broken. In fact, when writing English copy, I rarely follow all the "rules" as this impedes effective communication. Especially in short sales copy!
For English to survive as a language it has had to change and morph over time. I do think that the English propagating throughout modern society is, however, rather poor. SMS and emails have changed the language for the worse.
But, as retailers and content providers we should remember that it is not ourselves we are selling to, it is the masses. Good grammar is imperative in order to instill confidence, but at the same time the language used must be plain and accessible for all.
It is important, I for one do not like the prospect of a language full of coloquials - "wot r u at?" etc. Not exactly elegant!
They lose credibility with me. Definitely.
If a website doesn't have the resources for proof readers, etc, at least they could run a copy through Word. If websites aren't even willing to add that step, then it seems they don't want to take the time to improve how they are viewed by their readers. Who can be bothered with a website that doesn't care about their readers?
Every site doesn't require professional copywriters to be effective, but they should make some effort to present their information with few mistakes.
However I deal with IT department staff and new trainee's and can only say that I am horrified by the lack of quality and understanding in written English by school leavers today.
Some articles/memos I have seen are barely understandable.
17. In letters compositions reports and things like that we use commas
18. to keep a string of items apart.
Thanks for posting this. (I misplaced my copy a couple of years ago.)
Minor point: It looks like the two above are originally just one point, inadvertantly split into two by a carriage return (with some help from automatic numbering of list items by Word).
A badly worded site is like a poorly designed site - it says, "your business isn't important enough for me to do this in a professional way." Or, even worse, "I can't tell the difference between a hack job and professional work."
I used to be somewhat fluent in Spanish, but it would never occur to me to put out a document I had written myself - I knew that even if I had a dictionary and grammar book at hand, whatever I wrote wouldn't be mistaken for the work of a native writer. After bad results with document translation from English, I settled on writing documents in Spanish myself and then having a native speaker correct and, if needed, rewrite them.
Sites targeted at an English-speaking audience written by non-English-speaking writers don't need John Updike to edit their prose; they just need someone who managed to get an "A" in high school English to correct spelling, grammar, usage, and meaning. There are millions of people who could do this, and one can certainly find a cheap solution by hunting around a bit. An American high school teacher would probably use a website cleanup as a class assignment for free.
I think people are getting fed up with it. I think that companies, and their developers, are finally going to realize that people don't want to see mistakes.
Companies will spend thousands on a brochure, editing it until everything is perfect. However, they won't give the time of day to what they put online, which costs often less, but has a greater readership.
This is my general indsustry statement... If you're selling to a group of people (no matter the language), you must write in their language w/ few mistakes. And if you're selling to the world, your site's native language, and all of its translated versions must be clean.
With the advent of optimization and the importance of content, we're seeing a quick focus on websites that are creating so much content riddled w/ mistakes. However, as this settles down, web content writers and editors will be busy when companies' sales decrease because their content sucks. Eventually it will pan out and I think that companies WILL realize that content is the way to sell. Image is great, but without substance, people turn away. It's been the truth and always will be. You can't sell ice to eskimoes without a convincing sales pitch.
That's my $.02 on this issue.
I'd argue that none of these objections hold water. The clients I've managed to secure seem to take a very matter-of-fact approach. I've come to the conclusion that there's a good deal of defensiveness about this. People know others have a tendency to judge them on their language skills. My feeling is that a key to success in business is to recognize what you need help with and then act wisely on that assessment.
[edited by: rogerd at 10:31 pm (utc) on Jan. 24, 2004]
