Why it’s so hard to catch your own typos (2014)(wired.com)
wired.com
Why it’s so hard to catch your own typos (2014)
https://www.wired.com/2014/08/wuwt-typos/
43 comments
Because the solution is hidden behind "subscribe to wired to keep reading"!
I find reading the text back in a different font often helps, particularly switching from mono-spaced to variable or vice-versa, though I'm not sure why. Perhaps I remember the shape of the words as correct because that is what I just typed, and when all the words have a different shape I'm forced to think about it differently. It is why I often immediately spot a typo without even really looking after hitting "add comment" here, or flip down to look at the preview of a stack exchange post. The effect seems less pronounced when both texts are in view the whole time as with some markdown editors I've tried, which is why I think an unconscious "it looks like what I saw as I typed so is correct" thought is a factor.
Some time ago I tried having my posts read back to me via TTS but found the low quality voices and mispronunciations of actually correct phrases irritating enough to run any productivity gain. I should try that again, as I get the impression from posts here & elsewhere that freely available TTS options have improved significantly in recent years.
I find reading the text back in a different font often helps, particularly switching from mono-spaced to variable or vice-versa, though I'm not sure why. Perhaps I remember the shape of the words as correct because that is what I just typed, and when all the words have a different shape I'm forced to think about it differently. It is why I often immediately spot a typo without even really looking after hitting "add comment" here, or flip down to look at the preview of a stack exchange post. The effect seems less pronounced when both texts are in view the whole time as with some markdown editors I've tried, which is why I think an unconscious "it looks like what I saw as I typed so is correct" thought is a factor.
Some time ago I tried having my posts read back to me via TTS but found the low quality voices and mispronunciations of actually correct phrases irritating enough to run any productivity gain. I should try that again, as I get the impression from posts here & elsewhere that freely available TTS options have improved significantly in recent years.
> the solution is hidden behind "subscribe to wired to keep reading"!
Archived copy: https://archive.today/ziE8c
Archived copy: https://archive.today/ziE8c
Or just changing the textbox width (if possible) like changing the window width.
I noticed this mainly with emails, where after pressing send I would quickly read it again and spot errors that didn't catch before. If you read a text several times your brain "learns" the position and pacing of the ideas, so it skips words. By changing the layout (on emails this happens because the "write" screen is different than the "read" one) the brain treats the text as new.
I noticed this mainly with emails, where after pressing send I would quickly read it again and spot errors that didn't catch before. If you read a text several times your brain "learns" the position and pacing of the ideas, so it skips words. By changing the layout (on emails this happens because the "write" screen is different than the "read" one) the brain treats the text as new.
> I find reading the text back in a different font often helps, particularly switching from mono-spaced to variable or vice-versa, though I'm not sure why.
A related technique I use with LaTeX documents is to proofread the output PDF. Of course, that only works if you use LaTeX or similar.
A related technique I use with LaTeX documents is to proofread the output PDF. Of course, that only works if you use LaTeX or similar.
Bingo, all we have to do is map every valid sentence to valid LaTeX :D
Today we can use very natural sounding TTS. I always validate my text with TTS because any problem just stands out immediately, not just typos.
In languages where a lot of errors are due to capitalization as in german it won't help so much as you would have to do 2 passes (read and listen).
For code, I review my solution both in the IDE and on the review page (e.g. In github). The different layout and font helps me better spot errors/typos.
I do a lot of proof reading for my own and other people's papers and decks. When I started out I found I was incredibly hit and miss at spotting issues. I now have a few rules that help me catch (most of the) issues:
Start by finding somewhere quiet and reading the document out loud yourself, you will catch so many issues this way (though you still risk your mind filling in blanks or missing your common errors). Ideally this will be to someone else, they can help you find issues or question where things aren't clear - but even alone you will get value if you take your time.
As others have said, I then use a 'read aloud' tool such as the one in review in Word, sadly PowerPoint doesn't have the same tool.
Do a search for things you know get missed - one for us is double spaces and using a hyphen or minus sign - in place of a long dash —
Search for all common abbreviations and replace with the full word
Make sure there is a single date format throughout the deck
Check bolding, alignment and fonts
...
The list could go one, but I find that just concentrating on one thing at a time really helps - don't try to look at a whole page and find all the issues. And don't stop - make sure you keep reviewing as the final edits go in, the worst thing is someone pasting an update in from an email and messing with fonts/alignment etc. Just before you submit.
And give yourself time - maybe 20 percent of my time is spent writing a deck, 80 percent is spent editing, refining, validating and getting levels or approval.
The point of a great paper or deck is to be respectful of your audiences time. Make sure that you don't offer them the chance to get distracted by something - you want to keep their focus on delivering the answer you are looking for.
In the past I've seen so many meetings thrown as people get hung up on errors in the materials which eats into their confidence with the presenters - wasting time and focus.
Start by finding somewhere quiet and reading the document out loud yourself, you will catch so many issues this way (though you still risk your mind filling in blanks or missing your common errors). Ideally this will be to someone else, they can help you find issues or question where things aren't clear - but even alone you will get value if you take your time.
As others have said, I then use a 'read aloud' tool such as the one in review in Word, sadly PowerPoint doesn't have the same tool.
Do a search for things you know get missed - one for us is double spaces and using a hyphen or minus sign - in place of a long dash —
Search for all common abbreviations and replace with the full word
Make sure there is a single date format throughout the deck
Check bolding, alignment and fonts
...
The list could go one, but I find that just concentrating on one thing at a time really helps - don't try to look at a whole page and find all the issues. And don't stop - make sure you keep reviewing as the final edits go in, the worst thing is someone pasting an update in from an email and messing with fonts/alignment etc. Just before you submit.
And give yourself time - maybe 20 percent of my time is spent writing a deck, 80 percent is spent editing, refining, validating and getting levels or approval.
The point of a great paper or deck is to be respectful of your audiences time. Make sure that you don't offer them the chance to get distracted by something - you want to keep their focus on delivering the answer you are looking for.
In the past I've seen so many meetings thrown as people get hung up on errors in the materials which eats into their confidence with the presenters - wasting time and focus.
> I find that just concentrating on one thing at a time really helps
Yes, I do this as well, using a multi-pass approach. E.g. quickly flicking through checking that all the bullet points have consistent indentation and terminal punctuation, then checking headings for consistent capitalisation, checking that all acronyms are expanded on first use, etc. Actually reading the words is usually the last thing.
Yes, I do this as well, using a multi-pass approach. E.g. quickly flicking through checking that all the bullet points have consistent indentation and terminal punctuation, then checking headings for consistent capitalisation, checking that all acronyms are expanded on first use, etc. Actually reading the words is usually the last thing.
Here's my suggestions (I've written a few books).
- Use a tool like grammarly. Use tools to help you.
- Print out your book for editing. Don't edit in the same environment as creation.
- Read it out loud. Use a different part of your brain.
- Use a tool like grammarly. Use tools to help you.
- Print out your book for editing. Don't edit in the same environment as creation.
- Read it out loud. Use a different part of your brain.
Here's the game changer no one has brought up, ChatGPT. You can ask it to proofread your work and point out the changes. You have to be explicit and ask it not to rewrite your text. It will catch typos, missed commas and periods. It does a very good job.
But it doesn't end there you can ask it to re write it and improve it. You decide how much editing it will do for you.
I've never done much writing primarily because I can never be sure how many typos will get through. I'm a horrible proofreader. I feel more confident now and will be doing more writing since I now have a proofreader.
But it doesn't end there you can ask it to re write it and improve it. You decide how much editing it will do for you.
I've never done much writing primarily because I can never be sure how many typos will get through. I'm a horrible proofreader. I feel more confident now and will be doing more writing since I now have a proofreader.
A bit of a tangent but something I've found over the last several years is that my rate of typos involving homophones has skyrocketed. It's become so bad I've started to reread sentences after I type them. I don't need coworkers thinking that I don't know the difference between "to" and "too".
I have no idea why this is happening. I keep wondering if it's tied to aging, our increasingly digital society, something else, or a combination of factors.
I have no idea why this is happening. I keep wondering if it's tied to aging, our increasingly digital society, something else, or a combination of factors.
Slightly unrelated, but when I need to proof read something I listen to it being read aloud by TTS. It's immediately obvious when something doesn't sound right.
I'm curious: what is your way of flagging typos or bad grammar to colleagues? I often just do it without much fluff around it, but sometimes some people think that's harsh or nitpicky, but I really don't think anything bad about them while doing so. Any advice? BTW I'm talking about documents/tickets, not in chats or internal mails or something
One approach is to make typo/grammar annotations only on the first page, or paragraph. Then add a clear note saying that you will only comment on the "big things" later in the document. This avoid demoralizing the author, while still sending a clear signal that something is wrong.
If you make detailed comments the whole way through, you run the risk of encouraging the writer to submit sloppy first drafts. Unless it's your job to be the writer's servant, think carefully before taking on that role.
If you make detailed comments the whole way through, you run the risk of encouraging the writer to submit sloppy first drafts. Unless it's your job to be the writer's servant, think carefully before taking on that role.
It depends on your relationship and where you're coming from. If you are using it as some passive aggressive power trip, then there is no good way. If people feel you're being nitpicky then maybe ask them why? If you're going through documentation that's meant to last a long time, then everyone should welcome fixes. But going through tickets, unless it's egregious, maybe there are better ways to spend your time? If you end up in a situation arguing about the Oxford comma, then step back and think about why.
My personal policy is not to do it unless someone asks for it. I think it’s an ok way to go about things most of the time. If I have ”skin in the game” with that text and it’s important, I try to nicely ask for a permission to edit things. In my experience nothing pisses any person, including myself more than when someone starts editing my stuff and possibly even changes the meaning of things as they go.
Way in the past I remember the absolute most deadly feelings I got when an actual editor for the first time jumped and killed half of my text before I had done any of my own edits on some website copy.
Writing is highly personal, and others, especially in a basic email, might consider you just excessively nitpicky while focusing on all but the relevant stuff at hand.
The worst thing that the person gets when writing wrong or excessively or whatever is that they will be misunderstood. Eventually it will come back to them in one way or another and they’ll improve and it’s their problem. If someone asks or you ask nicely on the other hand, that’s the way to go, is respectful, friendly and appropriate. Just be careful that they don’t start to keep coming to you with grammar checks :-D
Way in the past I remember the absolute most deadly feelings I got when an actual editor for the first time jumped and killed half of my text before I had done any of my own edits on some website copy.
Writing is highly personal, and others, especially in a basic email, might consider you just excessively nitpicky while focusing on all but the relevant stuff at hand.
The worst thing that the person gets when writing wrong or excessively or whatever is that they will be misunderstood. Eventually it will come back to them in one way or another and they’ll improve and it’s their problem. If someone asks or you ask nicely on the other hand, that’s the way to go, is respectful, friendly and appropriate. Just be careful that they don’t start to keep coming to you with grammar checks :-D
[deleted]
Over the years, I have stopped caring about things like these (and many others). Bad grammar in source control, documentation and tickets is very inconsequential in the big business picture.
What is the return on investment, so to speak, in business terms, of getting your colleagues to fix their grammar in internal systems? If they take the time to do so, will business goals be better achieved? Will it bring the company more revenue? Probably not. It might satisfy your perfectionist tendencies but it is not your colleagues' job to do that.
What is the return on investment, so to speak, in business terms, of getting your colleagues to fix their grammar in internal systems? If they take the time to do so, will business goals be better achieved? Will it bring the company more revenue? Probably not. It might satisfy your perfectionist tendencies but it is not your colleagues' job to do that.
Source code and doc is permanent, so fix it. Errors interrupt flow when working.
Ticket comments are ephemeral, so let it go.
Ticket comments are ephemeral, so let it go.
Ask them if it's important to them and if so, how you should do it.
It's nice and makes it their decision.
It's nice and makes it their decision.
Durable documentation should use good grammar and clear sentences, and there needs to be ways to either submit easy feedback or just correct them. We use Google Docs, and if somethings non-controversial I just fix it, if not then I add a comment with a proposed fix.
I'm less worried about tickets; they're read much less often, and need to be quickly written without lots of thought.
I'm less worried about tickets; they're read much less often, and need to be quickly written without lots of thought.
> The reason we don't see our own typos is because what we see on the screen is competing with the version that exists in our heads
Which is why reading text backwards can help to find typos, or so I've heard. (Typos tend to jump out at me, even in my own writing.)
Which is why reading text backwards can help to find typos, or so I've heard. (Typos tend to jump out at me, even in my own writing.)
I can second this; from my experience reading text backwards greatly helps with finding typos. The reason for this is presumably that in this way it is easier to force our brain to look at every single word in isolation. In normal (forward) reading we process more than one word at a time.
Related:
What’s Up with That: Why It’s So Hard to Catch Your Own Typos - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14003973 - March 2017 (1 comment)
Why It’s So Hard to Catch Your Own Typos - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8177997 - Aug 2014 (19 comments)
What’s Up with That: Why It’s So Hard to Catch Your Own Typos - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14003973 - March 2017 (1 comment)
Why It’s So Hard to Catch Your Own Typos - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8177997 - Aug 2014 (19 comments)
I'm maniacal about correcting my typos before my blog posts publish, going over and over the final product, and yet about 5% of the time I STILL find a typo the next day when the post publishes.
I've concluded that the overnight clearing of my brain cache — as it were — plus seeing the post fresh in its cleanest version, without the publishing markup functions strewn about the draft box, makes those typos visible to me.
I've concluded that the overnight clearing of my brain cache — as it were — plus seeing the post fresh in its cleanest version, without the publishing markup functions strewn about the draft box, makes those typos visible to me.
At first I read this as “catch your own types” and thought it was going to be a bit on exception handling. Kind of ironic.
"Because we are smart"
Then why is having fewer types correlated with generally high IQ? I am not buying this, sorry. It's an interesting theory but typos tend to be indicative of lower intelligence, all else being equal. The smartest writers I know of have very few typos (talking about bloggers, so no editors).
Then why is having fewer types correlated with generally high IQ? I am not buying this, sorry. It's an interesting theory but typos tend to be indicative of lower intelligence, all else being equal. The smartest writers I know of have very few typos (talking about bloggers, so no editors).
I find it useful to have the Mac's built-in text-to-speech read my work. I don't catch misspelling this way, but it does help me to spot repeated/missing words and ungrammatical sentences. It's quick too: the shortcut is CMD-Escape.
Antidote is a great commercial product for that, it's the best I could find in a the market and professionnally the ROI is fantastic.
But if you don't want or can't pay for it, gpt3 is actually also a good proof reader!
But if you don't want or can't pay for it, gpt3 is actually also a good proof reader!
Really interesting information here. I’ve definitely noticed that I tend to write significantly more typos when I’m feeling less brain-foggy or distracted.
Because it's your mental-text-processing machinery that's to blame. And it's hard to audit/edit that.
Doesn't everyone use editors with spelling checkers built in now?
Does anyone else not resonate with this? I ~never miss typos.
Reading aloud in an odd cadence is effective.
https://archive.ph/ziE8c