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
had adds absolutely nothing to that sentence. had is only useful there if the sentence began with something like By the time that.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.
AMD Releases Open-Source R600/700 3D Code
Again, it's clumsy at best, and wholly unnecessary.Just hours before the start of FOSDEM 2008 in late February, AMD had released their R500 3D programming documentation.
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.Again, entirely superfluous and annoying to read.Two weeks after the initial R500 3D documentation release, AMD had released an R300 3D register guide.
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 12:03 PM.
rotflmao!!!Originally Posted by deanjo
But it looks good said though. :P
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.
Y4s, you are. But it's OK because we all know you mean well.
PS: asshole is one word.
You know, the forum where users Provide feedback on features and changes you would like to see.
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.
Webster says it's either.
But I guess you would know.