# Editing



## KarenHayesMitchell (Sep 3, 2012)

There's a website I use on a daily basis for my editing. It has been a godsend during my final editing phase, I hope you find it useful too. Pro Writing Aid - Free Editing Software


----------



## CupofJoe (Sep 3, 2012)

I just tried it out on something I was playing with today... "American" has too many syllables... you can't win.


----------



## KarenHayesMitchell (Sep 3, 2012)

It's one of those things you have to decide what you want to change. I primarily use the Overused Words section but I look to see what the others say. And you can unselect some of the items. I doubt anyone would have a complete novel and not have something on the list.


----------



## CupofJoe (Sep 3, 2012)

I think even Roget would fail... but i hadn't realised that I had used "had" so much. and it spotted a tense change i had missed [there's that damn word again...]


----------



## KarenHayesMitchell (Sep 3, 2012)

It's amazing how many errors there are in a piece of work. I put in a chapter at a time and in my current chapter I use the word 'was' 76 times in 11 pages.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 3, 2012)

Fantastic tool.  Spotted several issues.  Thanks!


----------



## ThinkerX (Sep 3, 2012)

'Request Error'...

Just my luck.

Ah...meant my piece was to long.  

Looks like I'll have to work on my adverb use.  

Not sure why using the same word or phrase twice in two thousand words counts as 'overused' though.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 3, 2012)

ThinkerX said:


> 'Request Error'...
> 
> Just my luck.
> 
> ...



It's definitely a "take with a grain of salt" kind of thing.  Extremely useful for pointing stuff out, but you've got to make good choices about what suggestions to take.


----------



## ThinkerX (Sep 3, 2012)

'Grain of Salt' indeed.  Another sample I ran through that thing was calling me out on capitalization issues.  I have an area termed the 'Free Cities' which turned up several times in the characters conversations, along with a discussion of slavery, in which 'free' was also used.  

Then there is the 'ending the sentence on a preposition' bit.  This occurs almost entirely in dialogue, and not just normal dialogue, but with a character given to flamboyant statements and actively arguing with another.  So they interrupt each other.

Dang thing also didn't like several of the words I yanked out of my Thesaurus.  It found several ... 'false cliche's' I'm going to call them - phrases usually taken one way but employed entirely differently in my text. Big example here was 'over the top' - in my text the guy was climbing a mountain. '.. hand came down over the top...'

Still...it does look like it would be a real handy deal for the final rewrite and editing end of things.  I'm probably going to make a lot of use of it, just to help with the drudge end of things.


----------



## The Din (Sep 4, 2012)

The perfect editing tool (though by no means perfect). Over-used words, adverbs/passive, repeated phases, consistency, and homonyms are all extremely useful. As to be expected there are a few odd conclusions (one word cliches, prepositions, etc), but as a whole it's a solid program.

Thanks for alerting us.


----------



## SeverinR (Sep 4, 2012)

Tried it, 
It gave a generic over view,
pointed out some things that I might not have noticed,
but also pointed out alot of things that might not be right in every piece, but imo was proper in the work I submitted.

I did like the flag for complex word: "actually" as used in the sentence: "The horns that were actually formed at this point were basically defensive in nature." (parphrased from memory)
I think a reader can handle the occasional 4 syllabol word.
ending with a preposition: 2 and one is in dialog.

I would use it again, like the flags in a word document, use the problems alerted as a possible problem, not as if this program is 100% right everytime.


----------



## Chime85 (Sep 6, 2012)

a brilliant tool, will be saving that one for a quick once over in my workings


----------



## Philip Overby (Sep 7, 2012)

I think this is a great tool as well.  It can really highlight problems you may not see otherwise.  However, it's still just that:  a tool.  I wouldn't completely replace your own editing our peer editing and use this website only.  For cleaning up some issues you may have problems with (especially with a first draft) this can be quite useful.

One of the greatest aspects is the "pacing" section.  It shows when your novel may be dragging from long blocks of text (specifically exposition or introspection).  That I found to really useful.  

Another big thing I want to clean up is use of passive voice.  I tend to use a lot of that when writing a first draft because I just want to get something down.  So I'm hoping this tool will help point out these instances to me.


----------



## Ravana (Sep 9, 2012)

Ran three texts through it, and must say this is a pleasant surprise. Unlike most programs I've seen, this gives feedback that is of genuine use.

Though part of why I was pleased is that it confirmed I'd handled most potential issues already.… 

In particular, I discovered that I successfully managed to overcome two and a half of my three most overused words: "actually" showed up a mere three times in a total of 11.5k words of text; "even" showed up more often, but didn't trip its "overused" filter (it still showed up under "vague and abstract"); only "just" was flagged as overused–and then only in one of the three texts. This feature alone makes it worth using, in my opinion… since most people _aren't_ aware of their personal overuse lists.

On the other hand, it appears I may want to add "could" to _my_ list.… 

I also like the fact that it _appreciates_ a variety of diction: it gave me big green "pass" checkmarks on complex words. It's somewhat less enamored about my sentence length, though it approves of my variety. Most editing programs have kittens, if not cows, at my writing style. Examples:

Story 1 (3k words)
- sentence length: average 15.2 words
- 30-35 words = 13; 35-40 words = 5; 45+ words = 1
- word length: 4 syllables = 50; 5 syllables = 11; 6 syllables = 1
Story 2 (6.2k words)
- sentence length: average 12 words
- 30-35 words = 11; 35-40 words = 7; 40-45 words = 6; 45+ words = 4
- word length: 4 syllables = 119; 5 syllables = 28; 6 syllables = 4
Story 3 (2.3k words)
- sentence length: average 11.9 words
- 30-35 words = 2; 35-40 words = 3; 40-45 words = 4; 45+ words = 1
- word length: 4 syllables = 28; 5 syllables = 6; 6 syllables = 3

That it merely mentioned length as a potential issue, rather than having screaming conniptions over them, is a definite positive. More positive still is that its threshold for "too long" is 30+ words; plenty of other programs I've seen would gripe about 20+ words… some, fewer than that.

Less valuable is the "alliteration analysis." It seems to regard alliteration as a good thing–another item which pleased me–but its analyzer relies entirely on initial letters… which is a problem when it's counting every word that begins with 't', even if the next letter is an 'h'. I have no idea if there's a point past which it triggers an "excessive alliteration" flag; given that I didn't hit it, I'd have to guess there isn't one. (Feeding some of my poetry in didn't trigger one either.) This feature seems largely gratuitous, unless you're dead set on _avoiding_ alliteration as much as possible.

That's one of seventeen categories, however. At least a dozen of the others are useful–and since they're broken out under separate tabs, you don't end up looking at all the flags it places on your text at the same time, leaving you to figure out which is flagged for what reason. Here, you can _see_ which issue you're addressing, and deal with each separately.

Overall, I'd say this is not only useful to writers generally, but something I personally will use. It is a great template for identifying things you want to _check_–as opposed to things it thinks are "wrong." For instance, in one of my stories, it flagged a redundancy which was genuinely redundant: I changed it. (I fully intend to go back and look more closely at its other recommendations later.) For me, anything that can net me a single positive change is worth using. So thanks for bringing this to my–and our–attention, Karen. 

-

P.S. One possible "note, however": I fed the above text in as well–why not?–and discovered it didn't count all that well: one of the 30+ word sentences it flagged has only 28 words, another 29. Both include contractions, though, so probably these are regarded as multiple words, which would bring the totals up to the correct values.


----------



## Ghost (Sep 9, 2012)

This is nifty, KarenHayesMitchell. 

I've wanted Autocrit but couldn't afford it. Pro Writing Aid looks like a better option since it's free (!) and there aren't word limits.

I don't want to rely on a tool like this, but it's useful to paste stories and find common faults. I've got a running list of words to cut during revision, and now I'll be able to add to the list. The section about clichÃ©s might also be helpful. Ignoring the false positives, I have one clichÃ© per story. Ideally, I'd like none.


----------



## Weaver (Sep 29, 2012)

I always have to laugh when someone tells me, "Never use adverbs!"  (_Never_ IS an adverb.)  For some idiot computer program to insist on deleting every adverb in a manuscript because the person who wrote it was taught that adverbs are _eeeviiillll_... *shakes head*

Just to be completely fair, I tested this program using the same story fragment that I have here in my portfolio.  As one example of what the program says I'm doing wrong, here are a list of the words it says are _too long _in my story:

surrendering 
particular
imprisonment
temporary
ordinary
habitation
vegetables
captivity
original
revealed
alternative
isolation
accelerate
considerably
experience
familiar
appropriate
deteriorating
immediate
hallucination


Some of these words are marked as "inflated" - too big for a real person's vocabulary, supposedly.  [insert rude noise here]  The suggested alternatives, however, are all rather flat and lifeless, not to mention _not the right words for what I'm trying to say_.

Y'know what's really funny, though?  _Not once _did this thing complain about my (deliberate) use of sentence fragments.  I guess they're finally learning that it's a valid stylistic choice sometimes.

Summary of findings:  Do yourself a favor and have a human (or other sapient being) look over your writing instead.


----------



## KarenHayesMitchell (Sep 30, 2012)

I agree that you should use a human to edit but this will help find some of the harder to find issues. I don't only use it for my editing. It's just a small step in the editing process and you have to use it like any other edit, only change what works for you. They are only suggestions.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 30, 2012)

Weaver said:


> I always have to laugh when someone tells me, "Never use adverbs!"  (_Never_ IS an adverb.)  For some idiot computer program to insist on deleting every adverb in a manuscript because the person who wrote it was taught that adverbs are _eeeviiillll_... *shakes head*
> 
> Just to be completely fair, I tested this program using the same story fragment that I have here in my portfolio.  As one example of what the program says I'm doing wrong, here are a list of the words it says are _too long _in my story:
> 
> ...



I think you're missing the point as to how most of us use this extremely useful tool: it's to point out things that MIGHT be a problem that you might overlook otherwise.  Everytime I use this on a scene, I find a couple of things that I end up changing.

It is no substitute for your judgment as an author.  To say it doesn't have value, however, completely misses the mark.


----------



## Ireth (Sep 30, 2012)

I've used it a few times, and it is pretty useful, though it does have its faults. More than once it's asked me if I want to replace "sighed" with "side", which makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## Weaver (Oct 5, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think you're missing the point as to how most of us use this extremely useful tool: it's to point out things that MIGHT be a problem that you might overlook otherwise.  Everytime I use this on a scene, I find a couple of things that I end up changing.
> 
> It is no substitute for your judgment as an author.  To say it doesn't have value, however, completely misses the mark.



A problem with _any _kind of not-useful advice:  a person who knows enough to spot when the advice is not useful (or downright wrong) is already knowledgable enough to do without that advice and just figure things out on their own.  The program has been set to mark any passive-voice verbs as wrong, for example.  A person knows - or ought to know - that occasionally passive voice works better than a more 'action-y' verb.  It takes more time to filter through the _wrong_ suggestions for the one or two that could have merit than it does to do it the old-fashioned, editing-program-free way.

Under any circumstances, it would be beneficial to people who chose to use this program if the designers had mentioned what reading/writing level it is directing the writer toward, so as to avoid confusion about why polysyllabic words are marked as needing replacement with something short.


----------



## Weaver (Oct 5, 2012)

Ireth said:


> I've used it a few times, and it is pretty useful, though it does have its faults. More than once it's asked me if I want to replace "sighed" with "side", which makes absolutely no sense.



Funniest true story I've ever heard about weird spell-check "corrections":  A university professor I knew said that his spell check always told him to replace his own last name (Mesa-Guido) with "misguided."


----------



## Ireth (Oct 5, 2012)

Weaver said:


> Funniest true story I've ever heard about weird spell-check "corrections":  A university professor I knew said that his spell check always told him to replace his own last name (Mesa-Guido) with "misguided."



That IS hilarious. XDDD


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 5, 2012)

Weaver said:


> A problem with _any _kind of not-useful advice:  a person who knows enough to spot when the advice is not useful (or downright wrong) is already knowledgable enough to do without that advice and just figure things out on their own.  The program has been set to mark any passive-voice verbs as wrong, for example.  A person knows - or ought to know - that occasionally passive voice works better than a more 'action-y' verb.  It takes more time to filter through the _wrong_ suggestions for the one or two that could have merit than it does to do it the old-fashioned, editing-program-free way.



Okay.  Let me see if I have this straight.

There's a service out there that a lot of the authors on here find helpful.

I have stated at least twice in this thread that I find it so.  I'm a pretty knowledgeable guy, and, each time I use it, I end up making a couple of changes.

You state that "it takes more time to filter through the wrong suggestions for the one or two that could have merit than it does to do it the old-fashioned, editing program free way." 

Again, I've found that I catch at least a couple of things each time that I didn't catch the first three or four times through.  Having the words highlighted in red makes me consider them in a way that I didn't before.  Maybe I need to improve my self editing, but it certainly helps me, and I find it to be a good use of my time.

It seems hard to argue that it's not useful when so many people are saying that it is.  The most you can logically say is that it isn't helpful to you.  That's fine.  No one is forcing you to use it.



> Under any circumstances, it would be beneficial to people who chose to use this program if the designers had mentioned what reading/writing level it is directing the writer toward, so as to avoid confusion about why polysyllabic words are marked as needing replacement with something short.



I would not have found that beneficial as I feel I have the ability to make that judgment.

The author needs to take ultimate responsiblity for his work.  I wouldn't take all advice from software or from a beta reader.  I take in the information and make the decision on whether to use it.


----------



## Aosto (Oct 5, 2012)

I find it really helps me with my pacing. Pointing out 'sticky sentences' that nearly stop the reader in their tracks. I hardly notice these until I run it through the program. Then when I read the passage, I see that it does in fact slow the pace down considerably.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 5, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Again, I've found that I catch at least a couple of things each time that I didn't catch the first three or four times through.  Having the words highlighted in red makes me consider them in a way that I didn't before.  Maybe I need to improve my self editing, but it certainly helps me, and I find it to be a good use of my time.



I've used it a few times on a short story, and I find that it's useful too. At the very least, it makes me think over my choices more thoroughly. I think of the red highlighting as the program asking, "Are you sure about this?" If I am, then all is good. If I'm not, it gives me some options to fiddle with until I'm sure what I have down is what I want.


----------



## The Writer's Realms (Dec 31, 2012)

Where have you been all my life? This tool is amazing!


----------



## Meteora (Dec 31, 2012)

I echo the same sentiment as the man above me. What is this sorcery?


----------



## The Writer's Realms (Dec 31, 2012)

^Blood magic!


----------



## Meteora (Dec 31, 2012)

^Built upon the blood of countless writers taken from their corpse!


----------



## SpellcraftQuill (Jan 1, 2013)

If only I had this earlier for my classes... Thanks for the share!


----------



## GregorsMentor (Jan 4, 2013)

Geez, that thing is creepy.  And lord, it hates my writing.   I suppose it will be helpful but what's wrong with seven syllable words?


----------



## Xaysai (Jan 5, 2013)

As with any tool, you need to use your judgement.

I find it to be both fun and useful.


----------

