Comment by BeetleB
3 days ago
> There's nothing inherently better about the edited version.
Easier to read ==> More likely to be read.
No, it's not saying the same thing, especially if the tool is telling you that your statement is ambiguous and should be rephrased.
Easier to read is mostly related with predictability of the text. Any time the brain mispredicts the next word, you'd have to go back and re-read.
Unless you are purposely train on that specific way to expression, it ain't easier to read.
I don't know why this is confusing. If I forget to put the "not" qualifier in a sentence, do we agree that it can confuse (or worse, mislead) the reader?
I never said - confusing. Just not easier to read as in relative term.
I don't think the edited version is easier to read.
I'll ask the same question I asked someone else:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342324
You're saying removing ambiguity does not make it easier to read? You're saying using a word that means nothing like what you meant to say is easier to read than using the correct word?
Really?
What are you referring to? What word did the GP use that means nothing like what they meant to say?
1 reply →
More formal register doesn’t mean easier to read or understand. To many people the exact opposite is the case.
> More formal register doesn’t mean easier to read or understand.
And who is advocating for a more formal register?