Alternative to Grammarly for Checking Content Quality
- Thread starter rsheng
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2019
- Messages
- 24
- Likes
- 33
- Degree
- 0
I am a native English speaker, and I use Grammarly as an aid when checking over the work of my writers. Grammarly is quite helpful, but if you follow every little suggestion, the end result will be robotic.
There's no formula for creative English writing.
Grammarly is excellent at picking up spelling errors, typos, repeated words, excess commas, and the like. But it's not so good at actually structuring your text, and many of its recommendations should be ignored. As you're not a native speaker, it will be difficult in these edge cases.
If the article submission is supposed to be personalized and written with character and style, Grammarly will have a hard time. If it's straight informational content, Grammarly will be more helpful.
In my case, I don't ask writers for grammar revisions. If their grammar is a real problem, I end the relationship with them and find someone new. When I receive an article submission, I edit the piece with the Grammarly free plugin running. Grammarly helps me pick out typos, repeated words, non-parallel structure, etc. But ultimately I'm the one doing 95% of the editing.
If you are incapable of judging whether the work your writer submits is grammatically correct, you have a few options:
If you choose option 3 and then actually follow every one of Grammarly's recommendations, it's unlikely that your article will be WAY worse than the original submission. But it could be less interesting to read than the original, and that's a risk you'll have to take if you choose that option.
There's no formula for creative English writing.
Grammarly is excellent at picking up spelling errors, typos, repeated words, excess commas, and the like. But it's not so good at actually structuring your text, and many of its recommendations should be ignored. As you're not a native speaker, it will be difficult in these edge cases.
If the article submission is supposed to be personalized and written with character and style, Grammarly will have a hard time. If it's straight informational content, Grammarly will be more helpful.
In my case, I don't ask writers for grammar revisions. If their grammar is a real problem, I end the relationship with them and find someone new. When I receive an article submission, I edit the piece with the Grammarly free plugin running. Grammarly helps me pick out typos, repeated words, non-parallel structure, etc. But ultimately I'm the one doing 95% of the editing.
If you are incapable of judging whether the work your writer submits is grammatically correct, you have a few options:
- Trust the writer, and go with their writing as is.
- Hire a proofreader or editor who can be an independent reviewer.
- Use a program like Grammarly or Hemingway, and accept that the end result may be an improvement, but it may potentially be harmful.
If you choose option 3 and then actually follow every one of Grammarly's recommendations, it's unlikely that your article will be WAY worse than the original submission. But it could be less interesting to read than the original, and that's a risk you'll have to take if you choose that option.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Messages
- 337
- Likes
- 225
- Degree
- 1
Are you having the writer use grammarly? Maybe there is a grade threshold you can give them. For example, an 80% is acceptable. That way the instances where grammarly suggests something incorrect or strange sounding, they can ignore it.
I think option 2 is your best bet though.
I think option 2 is your best bet though.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2015
- Messages
- 493
- Likes
- 873
- Degree
- 2
I rate grammarly pretty poorly as anything other than a 'self-aid' to avoid making sloppy mistakes. When it comes to evaluating work generally I've seen stuff that has passed pretty well (presumably by a writer who uses it) that to native speakers sounded like total gibberish in parts and incoherent at best in others.
Having said that we switched from TextBroker and various other of the big shops to using WordAgents (@stackcash) on here a good year and a half ago or so and the difference in quality is significant. With so much competition these days I doubt TB is your best option - I'd see it more like the equivalent of using a PBN provider with a sloppy network or someone hacking links instead of using clean outreach. You likely have 10 better choices than that out there...
Having said that we switched from TextBroker and various other of the big shops to using WordAgents (@stackcash) on here a good year and a half ago or so and the difference in quality is significant. With so much competition these days I doubt TB is your best option - I'd see it more like the equivalent of using a PBN provider with a sloppy network or someone hacking links instead of using clean outreach. You likely have 10 better choices than that out there...
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2014
- Messages
- 4,343
- Likes
- 8,856
- Degree
- 8
I agree with @Steve Brownlie and @Noisegen above. A situation where TextBroker would be okay at is filler explainer content, versus content that you need to really connect with a user - storytelling or something that needs a personal touch to convert users, you need more experienced writers, copywriters at some point - however not knowing the language natively is a HUGE disadvantage.
In your own language you can tell when a tourist or a non-native attempts to communicate cause there are small pieces of the conversation that are awkwardly put together - you understand it yet it is still awkward. It's the same thing with using software like Grammarly to "correct" writing. You need a proofreader that's native AND understand the tone and reasoning for our content creation. I recommend WordAgents (@stackcash) cause you are at a point where the writer in your message above is 100% right - and that means you are at a point you need to elevate another level up.
In your own language you can tell when a tourist or a non-native attempts to communicate cause there are small pieces of the conversation that are awkwardly put together - you understand it yet it is still awkward. It's the same thing with using software like Grammarly to "correct" writing. You need a proofreader that's native AND understand the tone and reasoning for our content creation. I recommend WordAgents (@stackcash) cause you are at a point where the writer in your message above is 100% right - and that means you are at a point you need to elevate another level up.
bernard
BuSo Pro
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 2,587
- Likes
- 2,298
- Degree
- 6
You should being by properly capitalizing words in the English language.
The first letter after a stop is always capitalized in the English language.
It sends a poor signal, when you are that sloppy, but expect writers to live up to various external standards (Grammarly).
I second the suggestion to get an independent proofreader. I found one who was excellent for $20 on Fiverr.
The first letter after a stop is always capitalized in the English language.
It sends a poor signal, when you are that sloppy, but expect writers to live up to various external standards (Grammarly).
I second the suggestion to get an independent proofreader. I found one who was excellent for $20 on Fiverr.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 776
- Likes
- 1,164
- Degree
- 3
Thanks guys!
WordAgents guarantees a minimum score of 90% on Grammarly for all of the work we put out. We do this so that we have a single metric to compare our spelling/grammar against.
With that said, Grammarly is just a tool. We don't claim that it's perfect.
However, where it really shines is simply exposing errors. While their suggestions might not always be correct, the errors are popping up because there is most likely a spelling/grammar issue. So, while we might not "accept" every suggestion......... each suggestion usually helps us to quickly find a spelling/grammar mistake that can be fixed manually.
eliquid
Digital Strategist
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2014
- Messages
- 1,164
- Likes
- 2,429
- Degree
- 4
I tell you what I do.
This pretty much only works for me and how my mind works, but I write out what I think I want to say and explain, and then I run it through:
I know things overlap, I know things come out robotic and bland. I'm fine with that because the last step after all that is I read it again and correct those mistakes ( robotic and bland ) manually by hand.
I'm a terrible writer. I can go on and on and on. Plus I misspell and use wrong grammar and punctuation.
Running it through those tools all catches a little something in each. It's either spelling, cliches, passive voice, ly type words, complex sentences, fragments, etc. It catches a lot of technical issues I would skip on my own.
Once done, I go back and read of all the content again and fix the robotic and bland issues manually making sure it all flows right and makes sense. It maybe adds another 1-2 hours to the total writing, but I feel it is worth it personally.
I don't want to wait on an editor or proofreader and when they can get it back to me. Or the back and forth questions they will have that might extend things a couple days. I'd rather fix all the technical issues with tools and use several of them, then go back and fix the emotion, length, and prose on my own immediately afterward in a few spots that might have gotten chopped up in the tools.
In short, I use tools to fix the technical issues and then I proof it afterward to add in or correct the emotion and prose in the few areas it might be chopped up.
Hope that works.
This pretty much only works for me and how my mind works, but I write out what I think I want to say and explain, and then I run it through:
- Grammarly ( Pro )
- Pro Writing Aid
- Hemingway Editor
I know things overlap, I know things come out robotic and bland. I'm fine with that because the last step after all that is I read it again and correct those mistakes ( robotic and bland ) manually by hand.
I'm a terrible writer. I can go on and on and on. Plus I misspell and use wrong grammar and punctuation.
Running it through those tools all catches a little something in each. It's either spelling, cliches, passive voice, ly type words, complex sentences, fragments, etc. It catches a lot of technical issues I would skip on my own.
Once done, I go back and read of all the content again and fix the robotic and bland issues manually making sure it all flows right and makes sense. It maybe adds another 1-2 hours to the total writing, but I feel it is worth it personally.
I don't want to wait on an editor or proofreader and when they can get it back to me. Or the back and forth questions they will have that might extend things a couple days. I'd rather fix all the technical issues with tools and use several of them, then go back and fix the emotion, length, and prose on my own immediately afterward in a few spots that might have gotten chopped up in the tools.
In short, I use tools to fix the technical issues and then I proof it afterward to add in or correct the emotion and prose in the few areas it might be chopped up.
Hope that works.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2014
- Messages
- 251
- Likes
- 272
- Degree
- 1
Isn't Grammarly essentially a keylogger? Is there any typing they don't monitor once you install their software?
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2014
- Messages
- 4,343
- Likes
- 8,856
- Degree
- 8
Don't use the browser plugin version, just use the main interface.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2019
- Messages
- 4
- Likes
- 5
- Degree
- 0
Agree with @CCarter. Plus Grammarly has had some huge security holes, just last year the plugin allowed attackers to grab a ton of data on what you've typed if you visited a dodgy website.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2019
- Messages
- 2
- Likes
- 2
- Degree
- 0
I use Hemingway - it's good for catching passive language and it flags sentences that are too long or too complex. I ask my writers to make sure nothing is highlighted in red and to keep orange sections to a minimum. None of these tools are perfect but I find this helps the writer polish their article slightly and reduce my editing time.
Jared
Breaking the Shackles of a Lifetime of Bummery
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
- Messages
- 436
- Likes
- 350
- Degree
- 2
I've tried both Hemingway App and ProWritingAid. Both work well. If you want quick, simple, and free (the online version, at least), go with Hemingway App. If you want something deeper, and more Grammarly-ish, go with Pro Writing Aid.
If you do go with ProWritingAid, be aware that Stack Social has 1-year ($29.99) and 2-year ($44.99) subscription deals.
https://stacksocial.com/sales/prowritingaid-premium-1-yr-subscription
If you do go with ProWritingAid, be aware that Stack Social has 1-year ($29.99) and 2-year ($44.99) subscription deals.
https://stacksocial.com/sales/prowritingaid-premium-1-yr-subscription
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2019
- Messages
- 20
- Likes
- 16
- Degree
- 0
Great tips from everyone here. I'll share what I've been doing.
First I run the article through Hemingway. I correct all of the "red" sentences, since these are clearly run-ons. Then I scan the "yellow" sentences to make sure there's nothing terrible. I use it more as a flag that this sentence might be bad.
Second I run it through Grammarly. This picks up typos, vocabulary, and errors much better than Hemingway. Like others mentioned, I don't take Grammarly as gospel. I reject a good bit of what they suggest.
Between those two I end up with a solid final product.
First I run the article through Hemingway. I correct all of the "red" sentences, since these are clearly run-ons. Then I scan the "yellow" sentences to make sure there's nothing terrible. I use it more as a flag that this sentence might be bad.
Second I run it through Grammarly. This picks up typos, vocabulary, and errors much better than Hemingway. Like others mentioned, I don't take Grammarly as gospel. I reject a good bit of what they suggest.
Between those two I end up with a solid final product.