Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Improper use of the word 'had' in articles

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    299

    Default Improper use of the word 'had' in articles

    Dear Phoronix,

    Reading some of your articles, I've noticed that you use the word had in many places where it's either clumsy or flat out wrong.

    See two examples, from today and yesterday.

    Great Linux Innovations Of 2008

    As developers voiced concerns over TTM and its complicated API, the Intel team led by Keith Packard had announced GEM, or the Graphics Execution Manager.
    had adds absolutely nothing to that sentence. had is only useful there if the sentence began with something like By the time that.

    AMD Releases Open-Source R600/700 3D Code

    Just hours before the start of FOSDEM 2008 in late February, AMD had released their R500 3D programming documentation.
    Again, it's clumsy at best, and wholly unnecessary.

    I thought I was just going to have two examples, but while looking for one that I specifically remembered, I found some more.

    From the previous article.

    The first revision added in just four pages while the second had detailed their command processor.
    Two weeks after the initial R500 3D documentation release, AMD had released an R300 3D register guide.
    Again, entirely superfluous and annoying to read.

    It looks like three out of every four hads in your articles are not needed. They also make articles annoying to read (Yes, annoying beyond all the flashing adds, self referencing links, terrible bar graphs and multi-page articles.)

    Surely you don't talk like that. Similarly, it doesn't sound good written.
    Last edited by mattst88; 12-30-2008 at 01:03 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Uhm, lol

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattst88 View Post
    Similarly, it doesn't sound good written.

    *cough**cough*

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo
    Quote Originally Posted by mattst88
    Similarly, it doesn't sound good written.
    *cough**cough*
    rotflmao!!!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    But it looks good said though. :P

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    299

    Default

    Sound well.

    Honestly though guys, the purpose of this thread is to improve the quality of the articles. I'm not being a pedantic ass hole here.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Albuquerque NM USA
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Y4s, you are. But it's OK because we all know you mean well.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rbmorse View Post
    Y4s
    *cough**cough*
    No, that's being a pedantic ass hole.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattst88 View Post
    No, that's being a pedantic ass hole.
    No, if you are going to correct on grammar you should be at least using correct grammar yourself. Also your grievance could have been just as easily been handled by a polite PM, instead you chose to grandstand in a public forum thus making yourself open to critique as well.

    PS: asshole is one word.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    No, if you are going to correct on grammar you should be at least using correct grammar yourself.
    I think that we could agree on a simple fact: the writer of articles published for profit should be held to a higher standard than the lowly forum member.

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Also your grievance could have been just as easily been handled by a polite PM
    As could each and every thread filed in the Site Discussion forum.

    You know, the forum where users Provide feedback on features and changes you would like to see.

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    instead you chose to grandstand in a public forum thus making yourself open to critique as well.
    I'm sure that you attempted to belittle all others who created relevant threads in this forum?

    Grandstanding? Really? The purpose of this forum is to provide feedback -- in a public forum.

    You are right about one thing though. I should have used the private messaging system for this. With a bit of foresight, I would have realized that constructive criticism would degrade into this.

    So, give yourself a pat on the back for your self-proving comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    PS: asshole is one word.
    Webster says it's either.

    But I guess you would know.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •