For those unaware "Grauniad" is a decades-old nickname for The Guardian, used particularly by satirical mag Private Eye in reference to its reputation at one time for typos and the like.
I was recently moved to write to them on encountering the following completely unparsable sentence:
"People of ethnic group membership can change over time and with age."
They fixed it eventually (though I doubt it had anything to do with my comment).
There was also the following opinion piece, which still makes the utterly absurd claim that Jesse Jackson campaigned for the capitalization of 'African American':
(I hope the fact that both of my examples happen to relate somewhat to race doesn't make me sound like an alt right troll. I'm sympathetic to the article. It just seems that there was a major fact checking or editing fail.)
Honestly I don't see that many typos in other papers; grammatical issues, sure. But it would appear that not knowing what the squiggly red underlined words are is a requirement of being a Graun writer or editor.
It is true they were notorious. Sufficiently so for it to be the standing joke of their name in Private Eye. It is also true that probably, some of the time, it was in-crowd joking.
I have a deep antipathy to Murdoch press, having said that they used to have remarkably high editorial standards in the Australian flagship newspaper (called "The Australian") and when News Ltd went on a cost cutting drive, around the time of the collapse of their main competitor, Fairfax Ltd (caused by Warwick fairfax, who basically wrecked the empire: he now consults in the USA on .. how to be a successful entrepreneur!) It merged a huge amount of sub-editor functions into a JV with Fairfax, which subsequently basically failed in-place: They sacked the good staff, and kept an out-source agency which had no clue. The Oz, is now pretty U/S for basic grammar AND spelling.
They also routinely now do pun leads. This was funny for about half a second, ever. The Graun also does far too many pun leads. I think all newspapers wind up there.
A good fictional account of news headlines and the journalistic pressures of newspaper writing in happier days is in "leaven of malice" by Robertson Davies: a fictional Canadian newspaper, beset by a cruel trick played in "hatches, matches and dispatches" -"The Shipping News" has its moments too.
Probably worth taking into account their line in that article about how good they are at fast-turnaround journalism. Typos are always going to happen in that environment I’d guess.
3. I still regularly see trivial grammar errors (repeated words, etc) in opinion pieces on the Guardian, not just breaking news and liveblogs. I guess some of those opinions pieces might be treated as "fast-turnaround journalism", AKA "hot takes". The rate of simple typos there makes me wonder about more important things like factual accuracy.
Edit to add: reading the article more closely, it sounds like they've only started using this new system quite recently, so hopefully it will help them improve. I stand by my opinion that in recent years the rate of typos and grammar errors has been higher on the Guardian than most other comparable news sites.
It's worth noting that Typerighter doesn't include a dictionary yet – it only helps our journalists with style-guide related errors. A dictionary is on the roadmap, though.
As a college student (nearly 20 years ago) I built a tool for our student newspaper that caught frequent violations of the Associated Press style guide. Later, working as a newsroom copy editor, I was shocked at how few tools there were available to enforce style. Really awesome to see this Typerighter tool do it right.
This is wonderful. I love to see technology enhancing experts' ability to do what they already do, but faster/more accurately.
Also, I'm a big fan of regex. I think -- probably thanks to jwz's famous quote -- a lot of younger programmers avoid them but they're fantastic for MATCHING. Using them in a Google sheet is a killer MVP to prove out something like this.
I'm good at reading/writing regex and use them a lot, but I always worry about their maintainability. They're a common source of hard-to-pinpoint bugs.
I suppose I still use them because I don't know of a better way to do things.
We were amazed at how far we were able to get with them – if solving a problem with a regular expression produces two problems, we should now have 13,000 problems. The fact that they worked so well is due to the work of the subeditor who compiled (and still maintains!) the rule corpus – as well as the sheer volume, there are quite a few carefully ordered rules. Because style guide matches are reasonably sparsely found in content, and usually reasonably specific as to what matches (even if it's difficult to produce a correction) it turned out to be a surprisingly tractable problem to produce something useful with regular expressions alone – but we'd never have discovered that was the case unless someone had spent literally years doing it!
General maintainability is a priority, and we'd like to improve our rule management tooling to make the process of rule maintance generally accessible to editorial staff. We're also working on making noisy rules match more specifically, which usually involves migrating the initial regex into Languagetool for e.g. pattern-matching on part-of-speech.
Relying on purely on regex misses so much context available from a document. I've been working on some tooling [1] in this space recently and a core epiphany was noting you can model written language as an AST and then reason about it in this form rather than opaque blocks of text (or flat, sequential text fragments as with Typerighter). An even better realisation was that others had already noted this too and built a mature ecosystem based on this concept [2].
This is definitely true – in this sense, our initial corpus of regexes are the booster stage for this project, in that they enabled us to produce something useful for journalists in a reasonable timeframe. Typerighter's built as a platform for matching text, so we're not tied to regex – at the moment, we're migrating many rules to LanguageTool, which is a part of our pool of matchers and has a more sophisticated set of NLP tools. (And a great project – thanks LT maintainers!)
Thanks sharing these projects, other suggestions are very welcome – we'd be interested in adding new matchers based on different tech if they were a good fit for the use case.
Taking a look at the corpus, the rules we have currently migrated are very specific to our style guide, and we'd likely be unable to contribute large chunks of the corpus for IP reasons. But this certainly seems possible for more general grammar or style corrections if there was a need – although LT's lists of rules are already quite comprehensive!
I had this same thought, but I wonder if it really matters for this use-case. The rules are actually quite simple much of the time – they're spelling and stylistic corrections.
I suspect the biggest problem with using regexes is over-suggestion, trying to correct American English spellings in a quote for example, but I suspect this is a pretty good balance of features, usability, and correctness.
One issue that comes with more complex systems like you mention is that the bugs become more complex. I'd imagine it's fairly easy for a journalist using this tool to know why an incorrect suggestion has been made, and that makes it easy for them to disregard it. While the error rate may improve with more complex analysis, those errors that do still happen are likely to be less understandable.
This project reminded me a proselint, which appears to be a similar style checker. Sadly, that project appears to have been inactive for at least three years.
I saw a journalist share Typerighter on Twitter and was intrigued, so I'm looking forward to reading this.
It's a bit surprising that the engineering blog appears to be embedded in the main site, though. I've worked at a news org in the past (admittedly much larger) and the engineering/meta blogs were entirely separated from the main news section. Obviously it doesn't make sense to reinvent your stack, but I'm surprised the surrounding site scaffolding isn't at least distinct to show this isn't primary news output.
Is there a link to a list of the style rules their checker tests for?
I've always felt automated checks + fixes for grammar and style are miles behind where they should be by now. Checking over and over e.g. long emails for problems before you send them is super time consuming, and that's not even considering help with tone and the overall message.
Funny, though I am unshocked that they have figured out a way to automatically generate cant.
What does make it interesting is if it were applied as a GPT-2/3 module, and let loose as a reddit comment bot to train a model for engagement and provocation. Editors are essentially model supervisors, and if the object is to provoke and flatter people to sell advertising, it seems more like a compute problem to distill this process into a business.
Human writers creating organic content aren't really necessary for that, and very soon we should be able to generate content and then attribute it to loyal personalities that we stand up as minor celebrities, not unlike the old Hollywood studio system from the early 20th century, where talent was well kept, but still very much kept.
I think the "20th century" solution to letting many users in different locations run regexes would probably have been to write a cgi-bin script in Perl, and have users paste text into a box on an HTML form.
The results page generated by the script could have checkboxes to mark each suggestion as useful/not-useful/incorrect and a submit button, with this feedback saved in MySQL.
(I'm not sure whether this qualifies as "without ... services")
https://wordhistories.net/2017/06/05/origin-of-grauniad/