Board Thread:Administration/@comment-2240864-20140808225958/@comment-17758905-20140812003756

Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:

Forestfleet wrote:

Xelrog T. Apocalypse wrote:

Forestfleet wrote:

Cartoon Reaper wrote: Happy B-day CPW it's been fun. Also I think that there should be some way to make separating the good pastas from the bad easier. Like some system that can find grammatical errors and then put it in the marked for review, then there will be less of these problems were people get there pastas removed and then try to argue it by saying that there are worse pastas on the site. There will be NO excuses! Though maybe this is asking a bit much so ya, any way I think that the idea for Skype or something to replace chat like maybe google+ would also be cool. The problem with that is, what if it's just a pasta with merely one grammatical error that wasn't caught yet was excellent? I mean, even if we had such advanced technology, it could end up being detrimental. If it has more than three, it's not excellent. Add a counter.

Anyway, I find a much better and easier solution to butthurt users is to ignore them. Four grammatical errors does not make a story terribad. It simply means it has four errors. It might be four slip-ups with commas or unnecessary punctuation.

I said that four errors means it's not excellent. The "bad" threshold is maybe 7 or 8 errors, and the "terribad" threshold is any more than 12. Yes, because 12 minor errors makes a pasta horrible even if it has 50,000+ words and it's things that only someone actually looking for errors would find.

Ultimately, grammar will not make a story like Psychosis bad as long as it is easily readable without having to strain to decipher it.