The Internet Needs an Editor

I pulled this sentence from this article:

"Below are ten social computing technologies that I believe will be actively developing or maturing this year and either worth exploring or otherwise watching closely for 2010 and beyond."

and cut it down to this:

"Ten social computing technologies that are worth watching."

Which one is more effective? Which one did you read?

Tychi Systems

An absolutely stunning example of horrible introductory text. See if you can read this entire paragraph without zoning out:

Tychi Systems' mission is to bring world-class biometric technology to the consumer. We are the first company to design biometric products specifically for the home and small business owner starting from a clean drawing board. The products are not adapted from military or government experiments, or from complex corporate systems. Starting with knowledge of the most advanced biometric technology, Tychi Systems analyzed needs of the cost-conscious consumer within the home and business environment and applied the technology in a refreshingly simple and functional manner. Having both the technology access afforded by its location in the Boston area and direct connections to the highest quality manufacturing resources in China, Tychi Systems benefits from an optimal combination of global teamwork.

That's a mouthful. And yet, after so many words expended, we're still no closer to the answer to my question, "What does your company do?" I've read this intro text three times already and I still have no idea. Something with "biometrics."

I like how Tychi assures me their mystery product(s) will be useful to me somehow as a "homeowner who is starting with a clean drawing board." Seriously, did they outsource the writing of this? It sounds like it was written in Chinese and translated using Altavista Babelfish.

What is most galling about this description is the third sentence which explains what Tychi Systems is not - "The products are not adapted from military or government experiments, or from complex corporate systems." That's good to know, thanks. Whenever I describe things to people, I first tell them what it is not. When I describe an elephant, I say, "It's not a parrot, a hippo, or a zebra." It makes it more fun.

Do you remember those times back in junior high school where a kid who obviously didn't do the required reading was called upon to answer a question about it? He said things like "Treasure Island is a book by X. It is X pages long" and other pure filler. Tychi System's text reminded me of those moments.

Here's the translated, improved version:

Tychi Systems manufactures a door lock system that unlocks using a fingerprinting.

That's about 100% more powerful. Don't dilly-dally when explaining your product. People don't have the time.

Academic Papers

I came across this article under the headline, "Being rich lowers men's attractiveness to women." Huh, I thought, sounds interesting enough. Totally contradictory to what I was lead to believe, I'd like to read more about that.

This potentially interesting topic was presented as this:

Empirical evidence concerning human mate-choice preferences suggests that females should select partners on the basis of cues to genetic quality and/or ability to contribute resources to childcare. Paradoxically, while high levels of both factors should be an attractive combination to females, they might also dissuade females from entering into a relationship with such males since, by definition, they are likely to be highly attractive to other females, and therefore might increase the likelihood that such a male may cheat or desert the relationship. If so, females should be wary of entering into long-term relationships with physically attractive, high status males as compared with males of lower physical attractiveness or status. We asked females to rate a number of different males in terms of attractiveness as a long-term partner. Females were presented with attractive, average and unattractive male faces paired with lonely-hearts advertisements implying high, medium or low socio-economic status. Highest ratings were consistently given to attractive males of medium status rather than high status. We suggest that females see physically attractive, high status males as being more likely to pursue a mating strategy rather than parenting strategy. Under particular circumstances, high socio-economic status in males can be subtly counter-productive in terms of attractiveness as a long-term partner.

How far did you make it before you zoned out? I got to "genetic quality." On the second attempt, I made it to "paradoxically." These words are tip-off that this is going to be one long, boring article. It also sounds like the writer is putting on airs to impress their peer group, of which I am not a member. That's awesome, I love that. If there is one thing I want when I'm reading, it is to be alienated.

Let's relive that barnburner of a lead-in one more time:

Empirical evidence concerning human mate-choice preferences suggests that females should select partners on the basis of cues to genetic quality and/or ability to contribute resources to childcare.

Seriously, who the hell talks like this? And if there are people who talk like this, who wants to hang out with them? The use of this stilted language is the reason Americans are hostile to intellectuals.

Now, I'm not utterly stupid. I know what "paradoxically" and "dissuade" mean. But to throw "empirical" with "human mate-choice preferences" and "genetic quality and/or ability to contribute resources" into the same sentence is to make a soup by throwing every ingredient in the kitchen into the pot.

There are two ends of the spectrum in bad writing, Hollywood hackery and academic hackery. If Hollywood is sometimes guilty of building enormous commercial enterprises around the most vapid of subjects (ex. "The Simple Life", "The Anna Nicole Show"), academia is sometimes guilty of taking potential interesting topics and making them arcane and inaccessible, bleeding them dry, embalming them in a textbook, and sealing them up in an ivory tower. I attack Hollywood hackery by writing movie reviews of movies I have not seen and I attack the obscuration of interesting information here at the DeJargonator.

There is a rule in writing - if you are having fun writing it, more likely than not, it will be fun to read. The reverse of this rule is also true (ie. if it's fun to read, the writer had a good time writing it). Judging by the amount of fun I had reading this article, I would guess the author wrote it while imprisoned at Abu Ghraib with electric shocks being applied continuously to his genitals.

And as far as impressing the scientist's peer group, this kind of tortured prose is completely unnecessary. Richard Feynman was one of the most brilliant physicists in history. The man helped invent the atom bomb and his recorded lectures are still used by physics students everywhere. Here's a key line explaining why he was loved and widely read from his Wikipedia entry:

"Feynman is sometimes called the "Great Explainer"; he took great care when explaining topics to his students, making it a moral point not to make a topic arcane, but instead accessible to others. His principle was that if a topic could not be explained in a freshman lecture, it was not yet fully understood."

Here's my attempt at rewriting the above paragraph. It communicates the same ideas but loses significant Scrabble points:

To most observers, it would appear women select mates based on the genetic qualities the man can pass onto their children (good looks, physical strength, etc.) and the amount of resources he can contribute in raising children. However, it is possible these traits turn away women as these attractive qualities make these men more attractive to more women and consequently raise the likelihood the man will cheat or break off the relationship. If this is true, women should be careful to enter relationships with good looking, high status men (now there's some shocking advice). To test this conjecture, we asked several women to rate a number of different men in terms of attractiveness as a long-term partner. The women were presented with attractive, average and unattractive male faces paired with lonely-hearts advertisements implying high, medium or low socio-economic status. Highest ratings were consistently given to attractive males of medium status rather than high status. Based on the results of this experiment, we suggest women see physically attractive, high status men as being more likely to pursue a mating strategy rather than parenting strategy. Under particular circumstances, high socio-economic status in males can be subtly counter-productive in terms of attractiveness as a long-term partner.

Not bad. Still not overly smooth but it's functional. I even used "conjecture" which sounds science-y. To be fair to the original writer, I lifted the last couple sentences from his work verbatim. Those were actually usable. I only discovered them after pushing my way through the muck.

Also, please, as a rule, don't use the word "empirical" as the first word of your essay. Think of the children.

DeJargonator Success Story

From Sterling W. “Chip” Camden regarding a write-up the DeJargonator™ did about one of his clients:

Dave, Synergex actually saw your write-up first, and asked me for my opinion on it. After rereading the original copy, I had to agree with you. They’re in the process of redoing much of their communication, focusing more on customer success stories (which is what they do best) rather than the specific technologies involved. Thanks for the additional kick in the pants to keep that moving forward.

I am glad to hear it had a positive effect in the organization! Revising their copy will do nothing but improve their business (see my original review).

I wish them nothing but the best. Excellent work Synergex!

Advice to corporate websites

Seth Godin's advice on making a successful brochure can be applied to corporate websites:

use less copy. Half as much. use testimonials. With photos. Short captions. It's hard to have too many of the good ones. make it funny enough or interesting enough or, hey, remarkable enough that people will want to show it to their friends. show, don't tell. Don't say you have a tranquil setting... I won't believe you. and most important, make sure you leave several obvious things out... so that people need to talk to you.

From the majority of corporate websites I have seen, the goal is not to convey information but to overwhelm readers, to somehow wow and baffle them into submission. This just drives readers away.

Given a limitless amount of information, I'm going to gravitate to the sites I can understand quickly. The moment writers start using words I don't use and don't understand, I leave. Web readers will not stick around unless you give them what they want to know.

If you are a writer for a corporate webstie, write a single sentence that describes what the company does. Now shorten that sentence to contain the least amount of words possible. That's the first sentence which should appear on the front page.

Next Code

Let's decode Next Code's intro text. It's short enough to analyze sentence by excruciating sentence:

UNLOCK AN ENDLESS POTENTIAL OF DATA REVENUE WITH NEXTCODE.

Unnecessary. Also, nothing makes me stop reading as fast the use of all caps.

Instead of this, tell me how Next Code will do these things. If it's true, I can figure this part out myself.

Let Nextcode help you expand revenues from data services, launch new content and commerce offerings and better satisfy customers.

This is a restatement of the previous (unnecessary) sentence. Readers still have no understanding of the product being offered.

I suppose these first two sentences are included to build up a feeling of suspense in readers. As if people will be clamouring to find out how they can "expand revenues from data services." In reality, everyone glances over these lines and they barely register.

Nextcode’s powerful suite of barcode scanning solutions can work with any camera phone to transform the way consumers access and experience mobile content and commerce.

Ah ha! The mention of the word "barcode" in the third sentence is our first hint of what this company does. We're not sure exactly but we know it involves barcodes. This much we know.

The mention of "camera phone" later in this sentence is obscured by cluttering phrases like "scanning solutions", "transform", "access and experience", and "mobile content and commerce"." These phrases are the equivalent of finding a turd in your soup.

When I'm talking to my grandmother and she asks me, "What does your company do?" I don't say, "We are transforming the way consumers access and experience mobile content and commerce." It would sound stilted, phony, and weird. So why do people write things like this?

Transcend cumbersome keystrokes. Overcome complex menus.

Short. Punchy. Too many big words but these lines had potential. They were the first to tell me something. If I were to rewrite this, I would start here.

Companies should cut out the hype and lay it all out. The only question customers want answered is: What can your company do for me? In the case here, we still don't know anything about Next Code outside of "something involving barcodes."

These short sentences fall in the fourth and fifth slots in the paragraph. We can be assured that no reader has made it this far, except for the poor copy editors who were assigned to check it for misspellings and improper grammar. No one has read this article in its entirety since then.

With Nextcode, just an easy click can turn on a world of new offerings.

And now we come to the concluding summary statement which, as we were all taught in high school, consists entirely of a rephrasing of the previous sentences, which also told us nothing.

So the nebulous whole is drawn into one concluding summary statement which is as vacuous as a black hole. Sentences like these are where meaning goes to die.

Count the Buzzwords

Today I looked for the most buzzword laden paragraph I could find. In pursuit of this, I went to Google and typed in a few of my favorites - "deploy", "solutions", and "web-enabled."

I came across this paragraph from Synergex:

A portable and scalable framework from Synergex, Synergy/DE enables companies to develop and deploy multi-platform, Web-enabled applications that integrate with e-commerce solutions, ODBC-enabled reporting tools, RDBMSs, ActiveX components, wireless devices, and other third-party applications and data. Synergy/DE has a long track record backed by millions of end users worldwide and a substantial presence in a multitude of vertical industries. Through a structured combination of remote or onsite education and consulting services, in tandem with proven software tools and comprehensive technical support, Synergy/DE offers the ability to create dynamic, high-performing solutions to fit your vertical application needs.

I'd like to congratulate Synergex. I didn't think it was possible to cram so many buzzwords into one paragraph. Somehow they pulled it off. The only words that are not buzzwords are the short connectors like "and", "that", "or", "with", or "from."

Nothing kills readership quite like acronyms. Synergex does a good job of jamming in two obscure ones, ODBC and RDBMs. A very small percentage of the population could tell you what these mean and the rest are not going to stick around to find out. My mother is not familiar with either of these terms, so already Synergex has violated Dejargonator Rule #1 - Write it so your mom can understand it.

Can you imagine someone being sold this product and reading this? Try to imagine someone talking to their co-workers and saying, "Well, it is web-enabled and offers us the ability to create dynamic, high-performing solutions to fit our vertical application needs." I can guarantee this phrase has never been uttered to anyone anywhere.

Here's my attempt at translating:

Synergy/DE helps companies to create software. We also offer consulting services.

That's it. No ActiveX. No RDBMs. No "multitude of vertical industries." I threw them all out and this was all that was left. The final result was so spartan it made me laugh out loud.

It's only when you actively dejargonate™ something and throw out all the junk that you realize how vacuous these statements really are. This is the kind of writing high school kids do - puffing up papers that say nothing but meet the minimum number of pages.