I donтАЩt generally think typos should be pointed out unless 1) they significantly alter the meaning or 2) theyтАЩre hilarious. I donтАЩt really think they matter otherwise. We all make them.
(Though Freddie, if youтАЩre ever in the market again for another copyeditor, you have my email!)
I think a good method is to have one thread for typos, where the author can delete them as he fixes them.
In practice this runs into problems, because sometimes the author is just pissed and kicks out the user, and other times people want to start grammar debates.
I suggest the idea so Freddie can try it if he wants (and I'll participate if he does) but will otherwise move on with my life.
I think they should be fixed because they FAIRLY OR NOT can make a bad impression. We may not care, because we're paying subscribers and already fans, but for the public posts in particular I would like them to look as though they were read once over before hitting "post" and less like an email, ONLY because of the fact that people are judgmental, even when they think they aren't. Respectability politics!
I disagree. First, there are actually very few typos This is a very long piece and there are maybe three obvious ones. Most unfiltered writers (not all, but most) would have more errors in an article of this length. Second, the typos contribute to the fresh, vibrant, hot-off-the-press, no-fucks-given feel of this substack. Third, this guy is unique in the quantity, quality and frequency of his posting - I wouldn't want to dull that energy.
Should we inform you about all the other typos?
There were so many that I lost track, but I'd happily add to a list if I have any that others missed. Or whatever.
I donтАЩt generally think typos should be pointed out unless 1) they significantly alter the meaning or 2) theyтАЩre hilarious. I donтАЩt really think they matter otherwise. We all make them.
(Though Freddie, if youтАЩre ever in the market again for another copyeditor, you have my email!)
I think people are pointing them out in a friendly spirit. As you say, we ALL make them.
I think a good method is to have one thread for typos, where the author can delete them as he fixes them.
In practice this runs into problems, because sometimes the author is just pissed and kicks out the user, and other times people want to start grammar debates.
I suggest the idea so Freddie can try it if he wants (and I'll participate if he does) but will otherwise move on with my life.
I think they should be fixed because they FAIRLY OR NOT can make a bad impression. We may not care, because we're paying subscribers and already fans, but for the public posts in particular I would like them to look as though they were read once over before hitting "post" and less like an email, ONLY because of the fact that people are judgmental, even when they think they aren't. Respectability politics!
I disagree. First, there are actually very few typos This is a very long piece and there are maybe three obvious ones. Most unfiltered writers (not all, but most) would have more errors in an article of this length. Second, the typos contribute to the fresh, vibrant, hot-off-the-press, no-fucks-given feel of this substack. Third, this guy is unique in the quantity, quality and frequency of his posting - I wouldn't want to dull that energy.