Does Tool Exist to Spellcheck/Grammarcheck by Category?

[Tex2002ans]

Just saw this article linked over on The Digital Reader:

Grammarly vs. Hairston

which tests Grammarly vs. the difficult sentences in this PDF:

"Not All Errors Are Created Equal: Nonacademic Readers in the Professions Respond to Lapses in Usage" by Maxine Hairston

Of course, the running theme throughout the article is that most Grammarly "corrections" were hidden behind the paywall. And many of its free "corrections" were not good.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

Just saw this article linked over on The Digital Reader:

Grammarly vs. Hairston

which tests Grammarly vs. the difficult sentences in this PDF:

"Not All Errors Are Created Equal: Nonacademic Readers in the Professions Respond to Lapses in Usage" by Maxine Hairston

Of course, the running theme throughout the article is that most Grammarly "corrections" were hidden behind the paywall. And many of its free "corrections" were not good.

Well, the idea that most of the corrections were behind the paywall doesn't faze me. It's a commercial product, and they're entitled to make some dough. The parts that don't work are more problematic. I use it--but for a typo-catcher in my browser-based typing. :-) Works GREAT for that.

Hitch

[Doitsu]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

Just saw this article linked over on The Digital Reader:

Grammarly vs. Hairston

I pitted LanguageTool against the Hairston sentences. It flagged only 12 of the 67 sentences in grammar mode*.

Spoiler:

16. The situation is quite different than that of previous years. ►Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style. Suggestion(s): from
34. Him and Richards were the last ones hired. ►Please check whether the nominative 'He' should be used. Suggestion(s): He
36. These kind of errors would soon bankrupt a company. ►Did you mean 'this kind' or 'These kinds'? Suggestion(s): This kind, These kinds
37. My favorite quotation is, " Take what you want and pay for it. ►Unpaired symbol: '"' seems to be missing
37. My favorite quotation is, " Take what you want and pay for it. ►Use a smart opening quote here: '“'. Suggestion(s): “
40. If Clemens had picked up that option, his family would of been rich. ►It's never correct to use 'of' after a modal verb. Use 'would have', or, in informal register, 'would've'. Suggestion(s): would have, would've
40. If Clemens had picked that option, his family would of been rich. ►Did you mean 'have'? ('would of' is probably an incorrect use of the verb phrase 'would have'; as contraction "would've" sounds like "could of") Suggestion(s): have
41. Its wonderful to have Graham back on the job. ►Did you mean 'It's' (='It is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)? Suggestion(s): It's, It is
42. Calhoun has went after every prize in the university. ►Note: went is a past participle of "wend". Did you mean 'gone' (past participle of "go")? Suggestion(s): gone
43. Next year we expect to send a representative to China (if Peking allows it. ►Unpaired symbol: ')' seems to be missing
46. State employees can't hardly expect a raise this year. ►Double negatives are discouraged in standard English. Can you reformulate this phrase or is a comma missing? Suggestion(s): can hardly
48. Although the candidate is new to politics she has a good chance of winning. ►“Although” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
56. The interruption will not effect my work. ►Did you mean 'affect'? Suggestion(s): affect
62. When we was in the planning stages of the project, we un... ►Use first person plural verb with 'we': 'are', 'were'. Suggestion(s): are, were

@Tex2002ans Can you please check the Hairston sentences with Antidote 9?

* I disabled the built-in spell checker for my test.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Doitsu

I pitted LanguageTool against the Hairston sentences. It flagged only 12 of the 67 sentences in grammar mode*.

Spoiler:

16. The situation is quite different than that of previous years. ►Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style. Suggestion(s): from
34. Him and Richards were the last ones hired. ►Please check whether the nominative 'He' should be used. Suggestion(s): He
36. These kind of errors would soon bankrupt a company. ►Did you mean 'this kind' or 'These kinds'? Suggestion(s): This kind, These kinds
37. My favorite quotation is, " Take what you want and pay for it. ►Unpaired symbol: '"' seems to be missing
37. My favorite quotation is, " Take what you want and pay for it. ►Use a smart opening quote here: '“'. Suggestion(s): “
40. If Clemens had picked up that option, his family would of been rich. ►It's never correct to use 'of' after a modal verb. Use 'would have', or, in informal register, 'would've'. Suggestion(s): would have, would've
40. If Clemens had picked that option, his family would of been rich. ►Did you mean 'have'? ('would of' is probably an incorrect use of the verb phrase 'would have'; as contraction "would've" sounds like "could of") Suggestion(s): have
41. Its wonderful to have Graham back on the job. ►Did you mean 'It's' (='It is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)? Suggestion(s): It's, It is
42. Calhoun has went after every prize in the university. ►Note: went is a past participle of "wend". Did you mean 'gone' (past participle of "go")? Suggestion(s): gone
43. Next year we expect to send a representative to China (if Peking allows it. ►Unpaired symbol: ')' seems to be missing
46. State employees can't hardly expect a raise this year. ►Double negatives are discouraged in standard English. Can you reformulate this phrase or is a comma missing? Suggestion(s): can hardly
48. Although the candidate is new to politics she has a good chance of winning. ►“Although” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
56. The interruption will not effect my work. ►Did you mean 'affect'? Suggestion(s): affect
62. When we was in the planning stages of the project, we un... ►Use first person plural verb with 'we': 'are', 'were'. Suggestion(s): are, were

@Tex2002ans Can you please check the Hairston sentences with Antidote 9?

* I disabled the built-in spell checker for my test.

On those occasions when I've run Grammarly as a Grammar-checker, rather than a typo-catcher (as it works in browsers, which is where I do 99% of all my typing throughout the day), I've noted that it "stacks" errors. In other words, if you have sentence X, which contains 3 errors, it won't display all 3. It displays the highest-level mistake, the most common/simplest one, and then works "down" to the 3rd mistake. IOW, it starts with something simple like a typo and then drills down into punctuation and construction errors.

My point being that her test--isn't. She didn't see most of the errata that Grammarly may have caught, because she's on the other side of the paywall, firstly, and never drilled down, secondly. I'm certainly not saying that Grammarly is a viable substitute for knowledge, or a proper edit, but it works a bit better than she's crediting.

Offered FWIW.

Hitch

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by Doitsu

@Tex2002ans Can you please check the Hairston sentences with Antidote 9?

Missed: (49/67)

Correct: (14/67)

19 (company's)
30 (fee, however,)
35 (anyone)
36 (kinds)
40 (have)
41 (It's)
42 (gone)
46 (can)
53 (is)
56 (affect)
61 (predict)
62 (were)
63 (its)
65 (doesn't)

Bogus: (1/67)
17
--- It thought "french" and "german" were unknown words. Although it's strange, because other books I tested on it lets me know French/German are usually capitalized.

Potential: (1/67)
50 I was last employed by (Texas Instruments) company.
--- It knew "texas instruments" should've been capitalized. I could see how a strange proper noun like that could throw this sentence off.

Wrong: (2/67)
21 When Mitchell moved, he (bring) his secretary with him
58 Senator (davits) (come) from (New York)
--- I had no idea "davits" is even a word.

Originally Posted by Hitch

My point being that her test--isn't. She didn't see most of the errata that Grammarly may have caught, because she's on the other side of the paywall, firstly, and never drilled down, secondly.

Yeah, I would definitely want a true apples-to-apples comparison.

And the formatting on that article was absolutely atrocious. All the images made is absolutely impossible to follow what was what. Would be helpful if there was a nice formatted list at the end.

Mind running it through paid-for Grammarly and see how it fares on the Hairston examples?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

Missed: (49/67)


Yeah, I would definitely want a true apples-to-apples comparison.

And the formatting on that article was absolutely atrocious. All the images made is absolutely impossible to follow what was what. Would be helpful if there was a nice formatted list at the end.

Mind running it through paid-for Grammarly and see how it fares on the Hairston examples?

Um....as long as I can take my time doing it, no, I don't mind.

Hitch

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Um....as long as I can take my time doing it, no, I don't mind.

I need it NOW NOW NOW!

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

I need it NOW NOW NOW!

Lotsa luck with that, buddy. :-)

Hitch

[BetterRed]

Just an Update on Word's Editor Panel. I recently stumbled on the following, of course it's possible it's been there all along.



It allows one to focus on each type of error, which makes quite a difference.

But you still can't type corrections in the Editor box itself And most of the "Refinements" don't offer any suggestions.

BR