Terriable spelling

02 Sep 2008 in Computing by Enoch Lau | 4 comments

I wouldn’t rate their art­icle as “ter­ri­able” but their rat­ing sys­tem may very well deserve that honour.

No related posts.

Tags:

  1. Daniel’s avatar

    Daniel on 02 Sep 2008 at 6:54 PM

    Copy-​​proofing stand­ards at the smh have been drop­ping and drop­ping — even in head­lines on the front page.

    Reply

  2. Enoch Lau’s avatar

    Enoch Lau on 06 Sep 2008 at 11:25 PM

    I haven’t been read­ing the actual paper, just the online ver­sion… I won­der if the copy­ed­it­ing has gone down on its print ver­sion as well.

    Reply

  3. Jeff’s avatar

    Jeff on 20 Sep 2008 at 5:51 AM

    You will be happy to know this has now been fixed.

    The rat­ing func­tion was made by web developers not edit­ors. Obvi­ously a lot of developers lack the copy proof­ing stand­ards that writers and edit­ors adhere to .

    Reply

  4. Enoch Lau’s avatar

    Enoch Lau on 20 Sep 2008 at 8:00 PM

    Thank you for your com­ment, and I’m glad to hear that you care about con­tinu­ally improv­ing your systems.

    Reply