SUMMARY [2]: Overused words and phrases

[Rowena Hart <rhart -at- INTRINSYC -dot- COM>]

Excellent commentary from the venerable John Posada,
who REALLY can say "Been there, done that" -

In looking over the list, it occurs to me that many of what you and
others have denegreated to OW&P, are simply the most accurate means of
phrasing a common business, and many of them are the correct term for a
description...kinda like relagating the word computer to that thing that
take up space on your desktop.

For instance...the terms Best Practices, Business Units, Core Business,
Expert System, or Value Added (just to name a few).

Those terms actualy mean something. Could you come up with a better term
for each, in two words (OK, how about four) that means exactly what that
term means.

The problem I have with "just creating a list" is that there are many
readers on this list that are new to techcomm, and they may actualy keep
this list. Then, the next time they are given input, one or more of
these phrases may be in it, they will look at the list (some actualy
trust the opinions of those on this list), detirmine that the phrase is
overused, and try to come up with an alternative; of which they will
either fail, take too much time, or create material that isn't clear or
accurate.

BTW...how can something be overused if "...I invented this one!)"

From Sean K. -

The use of "multiple" to mean "many and various" has been around since
1647, recognised by both OED and Webster's. I can't see a problem with
it, especially as it well used and understood in the computing industry.

>         "This product runs on multiple platforms."  What's
>         a multiple platform?  A machine that runs both
>         Windows and Linux?  Oh, you mean the product runs
>         on various platforms.  Could've said so unambiguously.

I partially agree with you in your use in the example: specifying the
platforms is useful. However, I think your phrase "...the product runs on
various platforms" is just as useless as that you are  trying to replace.

I usually disagree with broad generalisations about usage in contexts
like this; after all, you are just expressing an opinion that "multiple"
is incorrectly used. My opinion is that "multiple" in this context is OK.
The point is that the important information should be highlighted in the
sentence; in this case, the operating systems that the product runs on.

And from Richard M. -

Check out Robert Hartwell Fiske's Thesaurus of Alternatives to
Worn-Out Words and Phrases. Or, as he calls them, dimwitticisims.

From Jeff E. -

Here's another one:  When Scott Adams' engineer Alice was asked by
management to BENCHMARK a list of World-Class companies to find out how
they compared, she replied that she bet they wouldn't "make verbs out of
nouns"...

But I use and like Best-in-Class.  Our competitors, industry consultants
and cohorts use it regularly.

From Lorin L. -

I was thrilled to see this question being asked. There are many words
that people use without really understanding what those words mean. I
recently offered a definition from Miriam Webster's to an engineer
(without saying it was from m-w), and the engineer actually edited it! I
couldn't believe my eyes. One word he changed was "same" to "similar",
which is a result of miss-understanding their definitions.

Some of the words used today are "marketing speak". For example,
"multiple platforms" is more effective than "various operating systems",
because "multiple" doesn't cause the reader to think as much as
"various" does -- the reader becomes impressed with the former (wow, a
lot of platforms), and questions with the latter (which OS's?). A
problem arises when we use marketing jargon (which we see so often) in
technical documentation.

I'm going to keep this message open all day, and when I come to a word
I'll add it to the list of words I think are becoming jargon (or have
already become jargon), are miss-used, or are over-used.

From Jane B. -

Interesting discussion, this. I hope Eric doesn't kill it yet as it
really seems important to me with so many new tech writers that we
discuss some of these redundancies and overused words in technical
documentation. Unfortunately, I see a trend toward this kind of
writing as marketing and technical documentation grow closer together.
I won't rant and rave about marketing writing...that's a whole other
subject, but I do see it bleeding over into technical writing...and
thus we have one (of many) sources for the problems.

Some of my pet peeves are:

* Using "this" as a subject. For example, "This is the reason...." It
is usually clear as mud what exactly "this" refers to. (Obviously
ending a sentence with a preposition isn't on my list <g>!)

* Using long words or phrases when short ones will do. For example,
"In order to open the xxx dialog" is usually best left at "To open the
xxx dialog..." As another example of long words, just about any use of
the word "utilize" is like hearing fingernails on the blackboard to
me. I say "use" instead.

* Seeing procedures that begin, "Next you need to..." instead of just
using the imperative: Insert  the disk..." The word "next" ought to be
clear if you are correctly using numbered lists.

* Seeing a section title, "Introduction" --- it's about as useful as
the word "Resume" typed on the top line of a resume. What did you
think your reader would suspect it was....an index?

For anyone interested, one of the best books on tight writing is
Joseph Williams book, "Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace." I
think every writer (technical or otherwise) ought to be required to
read this book.

To keep this discussion from turning into a dump for pet peeves, what
are some of the best methods you (techwhirlers) use to keep your
writing tight and concise? Do you ever read it aloud? Do you have a
word list that you maintain as a sort of checklist for editing? Do you
have any good books to recommend? Any great luck with grammar checker
software?

And does anyone find that technical writing makes his/her other
writing better? worse? more difficult?

From Bill P. [in response to Jane B.] -

<snip> Unfortunately, I see a trend toward this kind of writing as
     marketing and technical documentation grow closer together. <snip>

     I agree with Jane here, with one caveat. Remember that too often
     marketing is a profit center while documentation of a product is not.
     Putting pressure on writers to make the text a little more warm and
     fuzzy or snazzy and upbeat for the users.

     <snip> Some of my pet peeves are:

     * Using "this" as a subject. For example, "This is the reason...." It
     is usually clear as mud what exactly "this" refers to. (Obviously
     ending a sentence with a preposition isn't on my list <g>!)<snip>

     This is the reason that... <G>...just joking. I agree.



     <snip> * Seeing a section title, "Introduction" --- it's about as
     useful as the word "Resume" typed on the top line of a resume. What
     did you think your reader would suspect it was....an index?<snip>

     While I think you are right about single documents and smaller
     manuals, I disagree with you here. I have worked on complex database
     management software manuals that ran across volumes. There are places
     for sections titled "Introduction" or "Overview."

     <snip>  what are some of the best methods you (techwhirlers) use to
     keep your writing tight and concise? Do you ever read it aloud? Do you
     have a word list that you maintain as a sort of checklist for editing?
     Do you have any good books to recommend? Any great luck with grammar
     checker software?<snip>

     I will do word searches on the words I am apt to use when my writing
     gets lazy. If I can't justify it in there, then Ctrl+Del. If I see too
     many close together, then I mark that area for rewrite.

     I also read aloud once in a while, (softly so I don't have to duck
     paper clips coming over the wall if the prose is really bad).

     If you find a good grammar checker tell the world!

And from Toni W. -

Not to take up too much space or time with this but I have learned this
distinction between use and utilize:

The verb utilize is used <g> when the object is not being employed as
intended. For instance, utilize a spoon as a shovel but use a spoon to
eat soup.

Just my $.02.

- 50 -


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=