Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Yeah, but what about the need for proofreaders...?

Speaking of growing needs for certain types of skilled professionals, I'm pretty sure that there's a lot of places that desperately need people who are excellent at editing and proofreading. Whether companies are hiring for these sorts of positions or not, I couldn't tell ya...but hell, just this tiny little blurb (missed hyphens, periods instead of question marks, typos...eek!) demonstrates a need for more editors and proofreaders.

I guess the good news (for whoever wrote the article, not for us) is that they didn't screw up public by omitting the l...which, admittedly, was the error I was hoping to find when I clicked on the article. Pubic/public errors are funnier than the errors shown in this picture. And c'mon, a picture that dealt with a pubic relations specialist position? You know that would've been hilarious. Damn them for being crappy with their editing, but not that crappy. Sigh.

12 comments:

Walter said...

Hold on. I'll call the pubic relations specialist. He'll know how we should talk to your groin.

THE GRAMMARPHILE said...

Hahaha! :)

Brian said...

I work part-time as Pubic Relations Specialist.

It's not all it's cracked up to be.

You do get encouraged to think outside the box but sometimes it takes some convincing to get the client to go along with your ideas.

I can't tell you how good it feels though when it all comes together. You get a real feeling of satisfaction.

It's important to keep the client satisfied so they keep coming back. Otherwise they're going to leave you for your competition.

This is the type of job where experience can really pay off.

THE GRAMMARPHILE said...

Very punny, Brian!

ChicagoLady said...

I'm not really sure that's a missed question mark. It doesn't really read like a question to me.

THE GRAMMARPHILE said...

I'll agree to disagree with you on that one. ;) When I see a sentence that says something like "If you..., why not then...", I'll definitely put a question mark at the end of it. Just doesn't seem right to me to put a period at the end of that, because the word "why" in this contest seems to indicate a question.

Katharine O'Moore-Klopf said...

With all of the technological advances today that make speedy and widespread publishing possible and accessible to more peopple than ever before, you would think that there would be more job ops for editors and proofreaders, wouldn't you?

But no. The fact that anyone, anywhere, can be instantly "published" by blogging has just led more people to think that they know all they need to know and don't need the help of professional word wranglers.

The reality is that every writer everywhere—whether they're putting together an annual report on the job or composing literary fiction—needs someone else to review their work. Even editors like me need editors. But writers' egos tend to get in the way. And the bean counters at places that are hiring are looking to cut costs; they always see professionals such as editors as just needless, expensive frills. They don't realize how foolish misspellings and poor word choices can make a company look.

Katharine O'Moore-Klopf said...

I just proved my own point. Did you spot my typo? ;-)

THE GRAMMARPHILE said...

That's so true, Katharine--and so sad!

By the way, I love your phrase "professional word wranglers"...I totally want to have THAT job title someday! ;)

THE GRAMMARPHILE said...

Ha! I did--but I always purposely overlook typos from the fabulous *people* who read this blog. ;)

Brian said...

"I always purposely overlook typos from the fabulous *people*"

Oh, I guess it must just be me: Tell us, what the hos' are possessing Brian?"

Oh. Fabulous people. Never mind.

I'll tell you what they got but you're not gonna like it.

Katharine I glad you brought up that sentence because even though it can be correct: "Why not then take your..."

Poor structure. "Then why not take what you've learned" Is my take on it.

Anyone, speak up if you think I'm mixing pudding with a shotgun here.

THE GRAMMARPHILE said...

So sorry--I must have forgotten to include the caveat. That sentence should have read: I always purposely overlook typos from the fabulous people who read this blog...unless they're wise-asses, in which case, their typos are fair game! ;)

(Do not tempt me to go back and count the number of typos/misspellings/errors I have purposely ignored in your comments. That would be a difficult endeavor, since I don't have enough fingers and toes to count 'em!)