Common Writing Mistakes: Not Proofing

June 10, 2015

At JETPUBS we work with a lot of manuals, and as we do we spot some common mistakes that can easily be avoided. These mistakes slow down the revision process and put an intended meaning at risk of misinterpretation. One mistake that confuses many an editor is failing to proof your own document.

It’s true that any intelligent person can make a typo, and it is unlikely that anyone has memorized the proper spelling of every word in our ever-changing language. And as riveting as our high school English classes were, there were probably a few days when we, despite our usual laser-like focus, missed an important grammatical concept. All of this is a part of being human. However, this is no excuse for not reviewing your own work. Every bit of writing that we do, from lengthy technical documents to tweets, needs to be proofed. In carpentry they have a saying: “measure twice, cut once.” In writing, it should be “write once, proof twice.” Reviewing your own work gives you the time that you need to fix obvious mistakes and look up spelling and grammar rules so that you can be sure you are presenting your ideas in the best way possible.

To be honest, I’m not sure why people don’t proof their work. Perhaps they think it isn’t necessary (“It’s only my friends on Facebook”) or perhaps they think the spell check will catch mistakes for them, but both viewpoints are wrong. First, consciously or unconsciously, people will judge your intelligence level by your writing, so if you want to be thought of favorably, check your work. Second, if you remember nothing else from this essay, dear reader, remember this: Technology will not proof your documents for you. If you need convincing, see the examples I’ve provided below:

Proofed	Not Proofed
Spell Check
Although Spell Check can help you identify some spelling errors, it cannot read your mind and tell you the best way to communicate your point. When an author looks at a blank page, they often start by typing whatever comes into their head and then need to review and edit it later for flow. Sometimes the author even feels it is necessary to replace an entire sentence. Spell Check cannot do these things for you. Also note that although Spell Check can tell you if a word is spelled correctly, it cannot always tell whether you are using the correct homophone. Furthermore, Spell Check often has trouble with names, so you’ll need to proof those letter-by-letter anyway to ensure accuracy. In conclusion, please remember that Spell Check is a program, not a thinking human being.	Although Spell Check can help you identify some spelling errors, it cannot read your mind and tell you the best way to communicate your point. When an author looks at a blank page, they often type out whatever comes into their head and need to review and edit it later. Flow is not quite there yet. It needs a little editing to come together. Spell Check cannot do this for you. Also, although Spell Check can tell you if a word is spelled correctly, it cannot always tell whether you are using the correct homonym. Furthermore, Spell Check often has trouble with names, so you’ll need to proof those letter-by-letter anyway. Basically, just remember that Spell Check can’t read.
Autocorrect
As any mediocre comedian knows, autocorrect can be a great source of comedy. Far too many people have made the mistake of sending a text message without first correcting their phone’s “corrections.” The consequences can be devastating, but humorous.	As any medicated Coe Dian knows, ago correct can be a great sliced of comedy. Fat too many people have made the mistake of sending. Text message without first correcting thrier phones A “corrections.” The consequences can be devastating, but hum outros.
Speech Recognition
Although speech recognition software has come a long way in recent years, it is important to realize that the technology is still fairly new, and failing to proof the computer’s interpretation could be disastrous. Speaking clearly, like a radio announcer, helps, but does not eliminate the problem of misinterpretation. Playing telephone with a live person is challenging enough, but playing telephone with a computer could leave you interesting results.	Of the speech recognition suffers from a long way in recent years, it is important to realize that the technology is still fairly new, and failing to prove to computers interpretation could be disastrous. Speaking clearly, like a radio announcer, helps, but does not eliminate the problem misinterpretation. Plain telephone with a white person is challenging enough, the plane telephoned the computer to begin interesting results.