Microsofties can't write for toffee
Talking about Hailstorm, btw (not that there’s really too much to add beyond Doc’s excellent commentary and useful pointers in his blog). But one thing in particular stood out for me in going through the official Microsoft materials. Is it just me, or do these guys desperately need to hire some better writers?
This piece, for example.
I have a tendency to be a pedantic little twit when it comes to this kind of thing, but quite apart from the obvious typo’s, that even a five year old copy of Word would have tripped over (e.g. "Microsoft showcasedfive major partners"), the general quality of the writing is just gruesome.
[Self-editor's note: On reflection, pretty much the whole of the mid section of this piece was just really boring. Greened about 60% of it. One great big and well-deserved *snip*]
While we're hurling invective at the Borg, there's many, many more important things to criticize than just their poor writing, I know.
Statements like this one, once you get past the tortured English, are just plain scary: "And rather than risk compromising the user-centric model by having advertisers pay for them, the people receiving the value -- end users -- will be the primary source of revenue. HailStorm will help move the Internet to end-user subscriptions, in which users pay for value received."
I really should be more worried about what they're proposing here than the manner in which they're expressing their intent, but I find it hard. When there's such gaping holes between what I guess they meant to say and what they actually end up saying, the whole thing quickly devolves into bizarre comedy for me.
Saving the best example for last: 60% of the way through the document, there's this extraordinary sub-heading:
"Open Access, Privacy and Security"
Am I the only one to find this unintentionally funny? Do you think they meant the word "open" to act as a modifier on the nouns "Privacy" and "Security"? If so, what exactly is "Open Privacy" and what are the specific benefits of "Open Security"?
Or maybe they're serious - now THAT is really scary.
Maybe someone at Microsoft could write to me and tell me.
Er…on second thoughts…
[CODA: Cruel fate. I posted a link to the tedious ramble above at the Topica/Cluetrain list. Of course, checking back in later on, I noticed a glaring typo in the title of my post, plus I'd got the link URL wrong. Dork]
Talking about Hailstorm, btw (not that there’s really too much to add beyond Doc’s excellent commentary and useful pointers in his blog). But one thing in particular stood out for me in going through the official Microsoft materials. Is it just me, or do these guys desperately need to hire some better writers?
This piece, for example.
I have a tendency to be a pedantic little twit when it comes to this kind of thing, but quite apart from the obvious typo’s, that even a five year old copy of Word would have tripped over (e.g. "Microsoft showcasedfive major partners"), the general quality of the writing is just gruesome.
[Self-editor's note: On reflection, pretty much the whole of the mid section of this piece was just really boring. Greened about 60% of it. One great big and well-deserved *snip*]
While we're hurling invective at the Borg, there's many, many more important things to criticize than just their poor writing, I know.
Statements like this one, once you get past the tortured English, are just plain scary: "And rather than risk compromising the user-centric model by having advertisers pay for them, the people receiving the value -- end users -- will be the primary source of revenue. HailStorm will help move the Internet to end-user subscriptions, in which users pay for value received."
I really should be more worried about what they're proposing here than the manner in which they're expressing their intent, but I find it hard. When there's such gaping holes between what I guess they meant to say and what they actually end up saying, the whole thing quickly devolves into bizarre comedy for me.
Saving the best example for last: 60% of the way through the document, there's this extraordinary sub-heading:
"Open Access, Privacy and Security"
Am I the only one to find this unintentionally funny? Do you think they meant the word "open" to act as a modifier on the nouns "Privacy" and "Security"? If so, what exactly is "Open Privacy" and what are the specific benefits of "Open Security"?
Or maybe they're serious - now THAT is really scary.
Maybe someone at Microsoft could write to me and tell me.
Er…on second thoughts…
[CODA: Cruel fate. I posted a link to the tedious ramble above at the Topica/Cluetrain list. Of course, checking back in later on, I noticed a glaring typo in the title of my post, plus I'd got the link URL wrong. Dork]
