Thursday, October 27, 2016

Softpedia writers

Occasionally the templates that Softpedia employs as examples for it's writers appear in very clear terms.  My favorite and most recent example of this is GazeRecorder.

Here's text from what is obviously their "scientific entry" template:

While conducting various scientific experiments can be rewarding since you can make ground-breaking discoveries, running many of them would not be possible without appropriate tools.

However, thanks to the ever growing interest for technology, nowadays it is possible that you can choose from a wide palette of software solutions that can simplify your work.

You don't say!

I also love how the final paragraphs in Softpedia reviews all have variants on "As a conclusion".  Sigh.

As websites and journalism sources increasingly can't afford good writers, I've been seeing more and more awkward writing and badly-used templates like this.  I do love Softpedia but wish they'd forego their write-ups and reviews.

1 comment:

  1. For me Softpedia has been changing for the worse fir quite some time- the last thing I spotted was that they changed the commenting- now it is required to log in in order to leave a comment. So far so good (or at least tolerable) but with the new template they wiped off all the previous comments saved for years and these comments are unrecoverable. There were really thorough and valuable comments. So community knowledge accumulated in years is lost- I have read not just insightful but also ironic and funny comments and I am sorry I didn't copy at least some of them.

    About Softpedia Editors reviews- they are a joke. For example- they usually call programs that don't have installers portable and don't even think to bother checking the registry or the AppData for traces. Once I left a comment about a program they claimed to be portable and as a result they deleted my comment and edited the review (as far as I can remember).