Improper use of the word 'had' in articles

[mattst88]

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.

[RealNC]

Uhm, lol

[deanjo]

Similarly, it doesn't sound good written.

*cough**cough*

[sabriah]

Similarly, it doesn't sound good written.

*cough**cough*

rotflmao!!!

[RealNC]

But it looks good said though. :P

[mattst88]

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.

[rbmorse]

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

[mattst88]

Y4s

*cough**cough*

No, that's being a pedantic ass hole.

[deanjo]

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.

[mattst88]

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.

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.

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.

PS: asshole is one word.

Webster says it's either.

But I guess you would know.