Hey "Peg Crits," You're the Pits!: A Lesson in the Perils of Automated Text Generation

So before I begin my little rant, I should set the scene.

On July 15th, I went to Philly for the afternoon.  :::"Philadelphia Freedom" plays in background::: 

At any rate, I decided to duck into my alma mater's library to quickly check my e-mail.  I had applied to several jobs on the 12th (oh, the fun of unemployment!) and hoped to get some more interview requests.  I had gotten one on the 12th, and the high from that instant gratification hadn't worn off yet. 

In short, I was *not* prepared for what awaited me in my Gmail inbox.

Upon signing in, I found an e-mail from "Peg Crits" containing a link to a free resume critique from JobFox.  For the uninitiated, JobFox is a job search site that makes you fill out a long and meaningless application before presenting you with a list of mostly outdated job listings.  Because I had yet to figure out those little tidbits of information, I took their offer of a resume critique at face value and clicked the link in the e-mail.

As I read the "critique," I could feel myself getting red in the face.  I may have even broken out in hives, as that sometimes happens when I get extremely agitated.  Not a good look.

I'll share with you some excerpts from the "critique" (an *unsolicited* one, I might add), as well as my reactions to them.

"Dear Natalie,
I'm the JobFox resume expert who was assigned to evaluate your resume..."

So, you're a resume expert, and you're giving people evaluations that they didn't even ask for?  In this economy?  I take it, then, that people aren't exactly knocking down your door to get your opinions on their resumes.  Oy vey.  Go ahead...

"I should warn you about my style: I'm direct and to the point, so I hope you won't be offended by my comments."

Hope springs eternal.

"Your resume needs a boost from a visual, content, and overall writing standpoint to engage the reader.  It needs to make them want to learn more about you.  I didn't find it to be exciting, and it didn’t make me want to run to the phone and call you.  In short your resume is effectively sabotaging your job search."

You think my resume is supposed to make you feel excited?  And that it's supposed to make you want to run--not walk--to the phone and call me?  Lady, this is a resume, not a personals ad.

"The appearance is not polished, and it doesn't say 'high potential Copy Editor.'"

Well, that's a good thing, because I'm not applying for any Copy Editing positions (I try not to make the same mistakes twice).  I enrolled in a Masters program toward the end of my Copy Editing stint so that I wouldn't have to take another job like that, or did you not notice that in your "evaluation"?

And, btw, "high potential" should really be hyphenated...unless you think that I'm a potential Copy Editor who's high.  Well, I *did* feel a high of sorts from getting an interview so quickly, but now it's gone.  Way to kill my buzz, Peg.

 "As I was reading your resume, I was trying to imagine myself as a hiring executive, looking for that ideal Information Technology Professional."

Wait a minute.  Didn't you just tell me that my resume was supposed to say "high[-]potential Copy Editor"?  And now you're telling me that it should make me look like an "ideal Information Technology professional"?  This former Copy Editor is starting to think that you're just blindly pulling stuff from that hideously long application you JobFox people made me fill out.   Maybe you're a "high potential resume writer."

[At this point in my reading, I could feel my blood pressure begin to return to normal.  Then, I could feel myself start to blush at the embarrassment of even briefly taking this "Peg Crits" person seriously.  People passing by were probably wondering what my problem was.  (Job)Fox hunting, anyone? ]

"Your resume didn't include a summary section."

How high do you have to be to not notice the "Skills" section *summarizing* my skills at the top of my resume?  Unless...you're not a real person and are just a bot that spews out "critiques" so that people will feel sufficiently bad about their resumes to have them rewritten by someone (hopefully a real person this time) at JobFox?

*DING-DING-DING-DING-DING!!*

"Your resume is selling you short, and I recommend that you make the investment in having it professionally rewritten."

By you?  HA!

"To encourage you to make the investment now, we are offering our best price on our resume writing services in the first 7 days after you view your resume evaluation. Save 30% off our price of $499. In addition, we are the only resume service that offers the option to pay for your resume in installments. We spread the cost over six months to make our service affordable for everyone." [emphasis Peg's]

Is this some kind of sick joke?  You would charge $499 to rewrite a one-page document?  The one that just got me an interview? 

While my resume could always be improved, I wouldn't dream of shelling out anywhere close to $499 to some so-called professional who works for the company that has just insulted my intelligence with this poorly written, automated, sorry excuse for a critique.

(image source)

I should also mention that a quick Google search for "Peg Crits" reveals that countless others have received critiques that are 98% identical to the one I got.  Check out the examples on Complaints Board.

Seriously, Job Fox: how dumb do you think people are?

My advice: avoid these people like the plague.  If you feel that your resume needs professional rewriting, there are many legitimate services out there that will treat you with respect and won't use emotional manipulation to make a quick buck from the unemployed.

If you're the do-it-yourself type (like I am), you can pick up a book on resumes at your local bookstore or online.  I just bought Knock 'Em Dead Resumes and Knock 'Em Dead Cover Letters by Martin Yate, C.P.C., both of which are a thousand times more nuanced and better written than the e-mail I got from Robo-Editor.

Although I decided not to let this little episode ruin my daytrip to Philly, I spent way too much time reading the e-mail and Googling "Peg Crits" afterward.  That's the last time I check my e-mail while I'm away for the day, at least until I knock someone dead with my cover letter and resume.

Wow, that was a long post.  Oh well: an epic post for an epic fail.

Reactions?  Similar experiences?  Share them below.

Extreme Makeover: "Wired for Writing" Edition

As previous visitors to this blog have undoubtedly noticed, I've made some drastic changes to its appearance recently.  After using my own variations of a basic Blogger template for almost a year, I've decided to update my blog's layout with Blogger's new Template Designer feature.

(image source)

Template Designer comes preloaded with an assortment of layouts, background images, and color schemes.  While I would like to one day create my own images from scratch, for the time being, I'm content to work with what Blogger has given me.

Originally, I tried to find a background image that was directly related to writing, technology, or psychology, but I couldn't find one that really fit the tone and subject matter of this blog.  I like the energy of the current background image, and it coordinates nicely with the color scheme of my portfolio.

Looking for a job, taking a course in Social Psychology (fun stuff), and finishing up my graduate work have taken much of my time recently, hence the lack of blog posts in recent months.  But I do enjoy blogging (and writing, in general), so I will try to stop being an absentee blogger.  In fact, I have just written a post, which will be published later today after I proof it.

I really like what I've done with the place, but what do you think?  Leave some feedback below.

Editing for Design: The Happy Meeting of Editing and Creativity

 
In an earlier post, I talked about how the primary principles, support principles, and elements of design can be analyzed in a creative visual work.  Here, I will discuss how those same concepts can be applied in the editing of printed documents and web pages, creating a compelling intersection between art and practicality.

Here's a list of the aforementioned aspects of design:

PRIMARY PRINCIPLES

• Unity
• Hierarchy
• Variety
• Proportion

SECONDARY PRINCIPLES

• Scale
• Balance
• Rhythm
• Repetition
• Economy
• Proximity

ELEMENTS OF DESIGN

• Shape
• Space
• Line
• Size
• Color
• Texture
• Typography

(image source)

(How many principles of design can you identify in this set of way-finding icons?  What sorts of edits would you make, if any?)

Some of these ideas overlap, and some are more applicable to our current discussion than others.  Specifically, the following questions should be asked by both designers and editors when creating or analyzing documents on paper and the web:

Unity: Do all the aspects of the work toward the same purpose, or are some of them "at odds" with each other?

Hierarchy: Are elements of the image or document arranged in such a way that suggests that they should be interpreted in a certain sequence?  Is that sequence intended by the creator?

Scale: If diagrams or figures are used, is there a point of comparison to a known scale (such as a human scale) provided?

Balance: Is any asymmetry that appears in the work's layout intentional?

Rhythm: Do the elements promote reader/viewer eye movement in a desired manner and direction?

Color: Do the colors used convey the emotions intended by the creator?

Texture: Do the textures used in the images have the dramatic and aesthetic effects that the creator intended? Will the intended textures be perceivable in the work's medium? Do the textures used obscure the meaning of the image or document?

Prior to my work in usability and design, I had never given much thought to the overlap between aesthetics and usability/practicality.  I'd be interested on hearing your theories about why this intersection exists.

The Usability Wars: Chicago vs. MLA

 
Since my focus in this blog is usability and topics directly and tangentially related to that field, and I'm studying the finer points of technical editing, I think it's high time that I write about the usability of the two editing guides that I’m using in my editing work: The Chicago Manual of Style and the MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing.

(image source)

VS.

(image source)

Despite its intimidating size (and hefty weight!), The Chicago Manual of Style is, in my humble opinion, much more usable than the MLA guide.  Here's why:

• Text Density: Many sections of the MLA manual are quite long and span several pages, forcing the reader to go read through (or scan, as the case may be) some lengthy passages to find an answer to a specific question.  In contrast, Chicago's text is divided into small, tightly focused sections that cover a single topic. Each of these sections is numbered, which brings me to my next point... 
• Organization of Material: Because Chicago's text is broken up into many small parts, readers can easily look things up and find the information that addresses their concerns.  The short sections also  allow readers to quickly read the appropriate text once they have found it. 
• Number of Examples: While MLA does offer illustrative examples to make its explanations more easily understood, Chicago offers many more, and each example tends to illustrate a distinct scenario mentioned in the text.
• Font Used for Examples: In Chicago, examples are usually set in a font that can be easily differentiated from that of the main text.  The main text is in a serif typeface (Scala), and examples are typically set in a sans-serif one (Scala Sans).  However, in the MLA manual, all text is set in a font that looks like Times New Roman, with the letters in the example text spaced out a little more than in the main text.

In case you're unfamiliar with these guides and how they're used, MLA is commonly used when writing about the humanities, and while Chicago can also be used in those disciplines, it is most often used in historical research and the sciences.  Could it be, then, that the writers of the MLA guide assumed that their readers, who are likely to be extremely well read and not averse to reading long passages, wouldn't object to the layout and organization of the guide?  Or is it an issue of volume?  That is, does the sheer size of The Chicago Manual of Style (956 pages, compared to MLA's 336) demand brief and focused sections?

Have you used either or both of these guides?  Share your thoughts on their usability below.

Do You Suffer From Grammarphobia?

 
For school, I've been reviewing the basics of grammar (punctuation, the definitions of the various verb tenses, etc.).  During my downtime, I sometimes read the material posted by others online in the form of comments and blog posts.  As I reflect on the both of these types of reading, I can't help but wonder if most people block out the grammar lessons of their schooldays, as if they were traumatic, psychologically scarring events.

Don't get me wrong: I'm still learning the finer, technical aspects of grammar, myself, and I make mistakes just like everyone else.  But I've seen the work of many people who don't seem to know what the differences are between commas and periods.  And don't even get me started on apostrophes.

 

(possible symptom of grammarphobia)

(image source)

I know you might be thinking, "Well, you don't know if English is their first language."  That's definitely a fair argument, but I've made the same observations about people whose native language is definitely English.  There has to be another explanation.

In an attempt to get closer to the root of the problem, I reflected on my earliest experiences with learning the ins and outs of sentence structure, punctuation, and the like.  I'm certain I was in grammar school (haha), though I'm not sure of the exact year when I began to become acquainted with grammar.  I do know, however, that I was diagramming sentences in eighth-grade English class.  I also know that I was one of the few people who actually enjoyed it.

I, being the word nerd (and pretty much a nerd all around), loved the idea of pulling a sentence apart and seeing "how it worked."  I thought it was cool to see all the different branches come out of a diagram of a seemingly uncomplicated sentence.  Most of my classmates, however, saw little point in such exercises and moaned that diagramming sentences was "stupid."  Thankfully, none of them had any aspirations to write for a living.

So here are my questions: do most people cringe at the thought of putting together a grammatically sentence because of the "boring," "pointless," or "overly complicated" nature of it?  Or have they truly forgotten how?  I tend to think that part of the problem is attitudinal, but I also think that grammar-related lessons should be included in the standard curriculum during high school years as well as during grammar and middle school.

What do you think?  Do you think a significant portion of the adult population suffers from grammarphobia?  Or would it be more accurately described as apathy?  Discuss by leaving a comment.

I'm baaaack....and ready to edit!

 
Hello again!

I'm back after my little hiatus (otherwise known as Winter Break).  I needed some time to be offline for a while and recharge my mental/emotional/physical batteries.  I think I've accomplished that.

Now it's time for new adventures into the hybrid world that is technical communication/usability/psychology.  I've decided that I'll also discuss editing in some of my posts on this blog.  I think that the editing process is crucial to communicating successfully in any medium, and usability and the reader's construction of meaning are essential elements to consider when editing or revising a product of any kind.

While I have some professional experience editing at the micro level, I'm hoping that, over the course of the next few months, I'll be able to gain a greater appreciation for other (and more interesting) types of editing that both challenge me and enable me to show the utmost respect for the readers of any kind of writing or producing that I will do in the future.

The posts relevant to this topic will be labeled "editing," making them easy to find.

I hope you'll continue to visit me here in the blogosphere (and if you're new here, welcome!).