Absurd english being used in Editorials must be avoided. Please have a grammar verifier for editorials too

I was going through this editorial:

https://discuss.codechef.com/questions/91508/mixflvor-editorial

Only to encounter sentences like this:

we can easily supporting add new elements and deleting the element which is added most recently by using stack such that each element of the stack is the sequence of elements

Now, I totally understand that the author of the editorial may be a great programmer from a primarily non-English speaking country. It would be wrong of us to criticize him for having made grammatical errors when writing out the editorial, but Codechef grammar verifiers could at least understand that and give it a read and fix such blatant errors.

Not doing so results in Codechef users having to do a 2 step process:

  1. Convert absurd English to proper English

  2. Then understand the algorithm

It would be awesome if you could ensure the users only have to do step 2. It looks kind of unprofessional on your part to just post editorials without having such basic checks.

2 Likes

Okay, I went through the editorial.

The English was not as bad as you are making it sound to be. I am sorry to say this dear, but when I read your Q I felt that the used English is something incomprehensible. It is not so.

Also, please appreciate this fact that despite having grammar verifiers (which codechef has), 1-2 sentences MIGHT get misplaced/overlooked/absurd.

Basic check is done, but slip-ups happen. The best thing to do is to report this at editorial page immediately and request them to clear up the explanation. Thats all I want to say buddy! :slight_smile: Writing Editorials, I can personally warrant, is an exhaustive job. Lets try to appreciate and understand Editorialist’s POV. Its tough job writing long editorials. Really, really tough.

The English is good until the 2 lemmas are explained. After that, when Supporting Deleting latest-added element sub topic is started, you wont be able to make head and tail of it. The author of the editorial has already put in a lot of effort in coming up with the question and then providing an editorial to the best of his abilities. All the grammar verifier has to do is read it, and make the parts that are ambiguous and incomprehensible clear and lucid and he can always consult the author and get immediate response from the author to understand what the author wants to convey. Thats his job!!

Ok. Noted your point. Yes, I noticed the sudden fall in grammar. I also see your point. Yes, grammar verifier could have done a better job. I am sorry for misunderstanding your frustration being directed towards editorialist.

(And lol, I have had to make head and tail of grammatically much worse things when I used to judge online writing competitions XD. So perhaps I might not be right person to make remark on grammar.

I sincerely hope your query gets resolved. :slight_smile:

@vijju123 . Hey, as a side note, I did go through your editorial here. https://discuss.codechef.com/questions/92733/feb-17-maketri-editorial-unofficial . Really good job!!! Thanks for it.

Thanks for your appreciation dear! Its the community which motivates and inspires me to grow :slight_smile: