Is Grammerly a replacement for Proofreading?

[Deleted member 219055]

Is Grammerly a replacement for Proofreading?

What do you guys use? This software or a professional?

 

[rafark]

No, not really. It helps but there's nothing like checking it yourself (or any other human). In fact, sometimes grammarly wrongly corrects some tricky words/phrases that were never wrong. It's useful, but I wouldn't blindly trust it.

 

[TheBizCat]

Based on the fact that it's Grammarly, not Grammerly, I'm going to go ahead and say no.

 

[lewwy789]

Is Grammerly a replacement for Proofreading?

What do you guys use? This software or a professional?

Not really because it won't pick up on on badly phrased writing that sounds wrong just on spelling, grammar and some phrases.

 

[TheBizCat]

Not really because it won't pick up on on badly phrased writing that sounds wrong just on spelling, grammar and some phrases.

Right, It doesn't check sentences for parallel structure or just plain out bad writing.

 

[Azaan]

Based on the fact that it's Grammarly, not Grammerly, I'm going to go ahead and say no.

what

 

[TheBizCat]

what

Look at his title. He put Grammerly, and in reality the extension is Grammarly. Thus proving his lack of proofreading.

 

[Azaan]

Look at his title. He put Grammerly, and in reality the extension is Grammarly. Thus proving his lack of proofreading.

Totally missed that, I thought you were trying to say it should be Grammerly

 

[LeadCloak]

No, it's not a replacement for proofreading.

 

[Flacko]

No software will ever be a replacement for proofreading.

It can be helpful though for the first edits, but you can’t rely on it solely.

 

[solononforever]

No software will ever be a replacement for proofreading.

It can be helpful though for the first edits, but you can’t rely on it solely.

You underestimate software

 

[Doctor Sleep]

Grammarly is very good tool, but it's not replacement for proofreading. And yes, Grammarly make mistakes.

 

[Stitches and Burns]

I've used Grammarly premium and although it's useful for catching minor errors like misspellings, it's not perfect. It doesn't fix bad writing.

It's good for basic English content where nobody will critique your work.

No software will replace a human who has studied English for years. AI will advance to that point many years from now, but right now, nothing compares to an eagle-eyed proofreader.

 

[MaxGuard]

Grammarly is a great tool for catching misspellings, basic sentence structure etc but can't match a proofreader.

But if you just need to post content on a web2.0 property - grammarly would do just fine.

 

[MisterF]

I've has sample articles sent and it's clear they have not been manually proofread. Clearly the person has used an online spell checker, but there were errors.
Then when they ask if they are getting hired, I explain to them that when I ask for manually proofread articles, that's what I expect.

Grammarly is fine to use when putting articles together, but don't go by just that.

 

[InfinitySeeker]

No, Grammarly don't come even close to a proofreading service.