That's right, it's a paragraph of lorem ipsum placeholder text. Oops.
altogether something
6 days ago
Lorem oopsum
I spotted this Kids Company advert in yesterday's City AM free paper. Click on the image to see a larger version, and then have a look at the text panel in the bottom right:
That's right, it's a paragraph of lorem ipsum placeholder text. Oops.
That's right, it's a paragraph of lorem ipsum placeholder text. Oops.
Circle Line becomes Lasso Line?
Neil has emailed in to say:
Neil's referring to the Circle Line of the London Underground, of course. And apparently (at least according to the Evening Standard) the line is now being referred to as the 'Lasso Line' - hey, at least it alliterates.
The Lasso Line?
I see the Circle Line is extending. It doesn't go in a circle any more - surely it should now be called the 'Spiral Line' instead!
Neil's referring to the Circle Line of the London Underground, of course. And apparently (at least according to the Evening Standard) the line is now being referred to as the 'Lasso Line' - hey, at least it alliterates.
The Lasso Line?
A long time ago, in an ancient time
The voiceover on the current Ferrero Rocher TV ad begins:
Surely most ancient times were a long time ago?
And while repetition can be a powerful rhetorical device, those two 'times' don't do much for me.
A long time ago, in an ancient time
Surely most ancient times were a long time ago?
And while repetition can be a powerful rhetorical device, those two 'times' don't do much for me.
Earths every minute vs Suns every year
From a science feature in yesterday's Metro:
Wow, those figures certainly sound impressive. But I have no idea how many Suns every year make up one Earth every minute - or vice versa. So does the largest known quasar consume matter more quickly than the brighest known quasars? I assume so, but without looking up some figures and getting my calculator out, I don't really know.
Excuse the pun, but things like this matter.
Wow, those figures certainly sound impressive. But I have no idea how many Suns every year make up one Earth every minute - or vice versa. So does the largest known quasar consume matter more quickly than the brighest known quasars? I assume so, but without looking up some figures and getting my calculator out, I don't really know.
Excuse the pun, but things like this matter.
Ghost forest
The website I work for is running a story about a contract to haul dead trees from Ghana to London and then on to Copenhagen.
The trees are being used in an art exhibition called 'Ghost Forest'.
Our content editor explained this to me by saying that the contract was to haul a ghost forest. Slightly confusing!
To make matters worse, I misheard him and thought he'd said that the contract was to haul a 'ghost florist'. That's an unusual load...
The trees are being used in an art exhibition called 'Ghost Forest'.
Our content editor explained this to me by saying that the contract was to haul a ghost forest. Slightly confusing!
To make matters worse, I misheard him and thought he'd said that the contract was to haul a 'ghost florist'. That's an unusual load...
Goodcopybadycopy: 'Scenes from corporate life'
Being interested in language and working for a large company, I find it easy to relate to the 'Scenes from corporate life' cartoons that appear weekly on the goodcopybadcopy blog.
This one is my current favourite:
Goodcopybadcopy: Cartoons
This one is my current favourite:
Goodcopybadcopy: Cartoons
BBC News: 'Thousands of Vicks spray recalled'
I like BBC News, I really do. But I did spot this recently:
"Thousands of Vicks spray recalled" - shouldn't that be 'sprays'?
The headline on the story currently reads "Procter & Gamble recalls 120,000 Vicks nasal sprays" - but "Thousands of Vicks spray recalled" still comes up as a result when you search the BBC website.
Especially on the web, mistakes can be pervasive.
"Thousands of Vicks spray recalled" - shouldn't that be 'sprays'?
The headline on the story currently reads "Procter & Gamble recalls 120,000 Vicks nasal sprays" - but "Thousands of Vicks spray recalled" still comes up as a result when you search the BBC website.
Especially on the web, mistakes can be pervasive.
BBC News promoting unavailable content
So I was reading a Robert Peston blog post on the BBC News website when I spotted what looked like an interesting article being promoted in the sidebar:
Out of curiosity, I clicked on the link only to be confronted with this:
First off, it was a radio broadcast rather than a words-and-pictures article or feature. Like many people I'm much more selective about what I listen to than what I read, simply because I find that audio needs a greater investment of time and concentration. In fact, I wouldn't have clicked on the link had it been clear that it led to a radio broadcast. So I felt slightly misled.
But much worse than that was the message that "this programme is not available to listen again". Why bother promoting it elsewhere on the site, then?
In fact, all the Beeb managed to do was take me away from a blog post that I was fairly interested in reading - in order to give me information on a radio programme that I had already missed, could not catch up on, and probably wouldn't have invested the time in listening to even if I was able.
Out of curiosity, I clicked on the link only to be confronted with this:
First off, it was a radio broadcast rather than a words-and-pictures article or feature. Like many people I'm much more selective about what I listen to than what I read, simply because I find that audio needs a greater investment of time and concentration. In fact, I wouldn't have clicked on the link had it been clear that it led to a radio broadcast. So I felt slightly misled.
But much worse than that was the message that "this programme is not available to listen again". Why bother promoting it elsewhere on the site, then?
In fact, all the Beeb managed to do was take me away from a blog post that I was fairly interested in reading - in order to give me information on a radio programme that I had already missed, could not catch up on, and probably wouldn't have invested the time in listening to even if I was able.
Bacon, Bean et Garlic Soup
I was looking for a nice soup recipe just now when I stumbled across this on Cookitsimply.com:
Yes, that's "Bacon, Bean et Garlic Soup".
So does the et lend a certain je ne sais quoi, or is it just ridiculous? Probably the latter, in my opinion - but it's a sad day when you can't have fun with language.
Wait a minute, I've just spotted another couple of examples on the same website:
What's going on here then? Am I missing something obvious?
Yes, that's "Bacon, Bean et Garlic Soup".
So does the et lend a certain je ne sais quoi, or is it just ridiculous? Probably the latter, in my opinion - but it's a sad day when you can't have fun with language.
Wait a minute, I've just spotted another couple of examples on the same website:
What's going on here then? Am I missing something obvious?
