MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Just had a report handed back to me. There a few valid points he's made so I'm fine with that. However, the phrase "The carriageway is 7.5 metres wide." has been changed to "The carriageway measures 7.5 metres in width." Are they not both a clear and understandable statement of fact?
I asked what the reason was behind that particular chage and all he could offer was because it was a technical report. He clearly didn't want to be pressed on the matter. Have I missed something or is he just "one of those bosses"?
Edited for spelling (which spell check picks up on the real thing)
well he might just be one of 'those' bosses but [i]measures[/i] usually does not have a double 's' in the middle.
You could point that out - but it may lead to a P45
I always thought 'Carriageway' was one word with an 'e' in the middle?
And carriageway has an e in it.
Surely?The carriageway[s]s[/s] is 7.5 metres wide.
Measures implies a level of accuracy I suppose (we didn't just assume it, we [i]measured[/i] it).
To be honest though he sounds like a cock.
I would side with your boss on this one and given the limited context we have to go on his rationale sounds like a reasonable one.
The carriage ways is 7.5 metres wide
makes no sense
The carriagway meassures 7.5 metres in width
technically better but spelling is shocking
Well they are 'carriageways' not 'carriage ways' and also if you term them in plural it would be 'are' not 'is'.
I don't think he is being overly pedantic.
His is better english and clearer IMO Carriageways (plural) is ( singular)
Not important tho - he sounds like he is one who likes language to "sound professional"
The [b]carriage ways[/b] is 7.5 metres wide.
That makes no sense - why two words? If it is "ways" you should be using "are" not "is". I'm a fine one to speak though!
Has he explained why he chaged it yet?
The carriageway is 7.5 metres wide.
My boss (and previous) change stuff that's equally inconsequential.
Some folk need to change stuff so it's in their style...I've found myself having the same urge, and try to resist!
Where is this carriageway?
His is better english and clearer IMO
How would you know TJ? You speak jock-anese.
No idea why your bosss is change it......
Okay, can we overlook the spelling mistakes please? They were not there in the original. I know my spelling isn't great so I stick it all through the spell check. One of the reasons I prefer Firefox as a browser is that it checks stuff like this as I go. I'm much safer on STW when I post from home. 😉
The suggestion that "measures" sounds like we did something is reasonable. Just wonder why the boss couldn't have said that.
Your boss is better.
You're fired.
😆
If it has to go in a document where preciseness is required and people expect certain specific working his version is probably better
Just wonder why the boss couldn't have said that.
Perhaps he felt uncomfortable with such a small change being questioned by one of his employees in an equal measure to how you feel about him telling you to change it in the first place.
Guys, you might be missing the point of my post. I just wanted you guys to call him a few names and say he was being petty, or come up with a valid reason why his works better and then call him names for being too important to explain why his was better.
If he's got a good reason for it and an explaination, I can use that to trigger me doing it differently next time. This place has a nasty habit of change for the sake of it.
Do you have any Bombers to hand? It'd settle the argument in your favour?
People who know how to manage their bosses often put a couple of clunky bits of writing in their reports just so the boss will have something to change.
That way, everybody's happy.
hes totaly a dik hes probibly jelus u shuld tel him to stop been a dik
He's not (necessarily) being petty.
Stating that a value has been surveyed, measured, reported, or analysed as x, y, or z gives a whole lot of additional meaning, without the use of a lot of extra words... it gives the reader [i]confidence[/i] - it helps to [i]convince[/i] a perhaps sceptical audience of the strength of your argument.
Reviewing technical reports is the bane of my life. It seems to take grads about 5-10yrs before they learn to compose a good technical report.
A technical report needs to be [i]concise[/i] and [i]precise[/i]. The least possible words should be used to convey the greatest possible meaning and with clarity.
There should be no room for "reading between the lines" - that's the space were the lawyers make their money, because the meaning that you want to convey may not be the meaning that a reader takes from your writing - and that reader may not be your client it may be (and often is)a third party who might not appreciate, or care, about the brief that you were given...
I am forever trying to convince other people that the quality of writing is as important as the quality of the science or engineering content in a report. The report is the shop window, it may be all that the client gets for a very substantial fee. If the spelling, grammar and construction is poor, the report will give the impression that the content is also poor - even if it is not.... and that's before we get to unintentional changes of meaning resulting from poor English....
+1 for the above.
Saying 'it measures X' says you went out and measured it, hopefully in an appropriate manner. Saying 'it is X' implies it's guaranteed to be X at all times. It could vary.
You could've merely [i]specced[/i] X and then are assuming it actually is X, for instance.
See, if there's a reason, I don't mind. I just think he sould have taken a moment to share that thinking with me.
did you measure it?
I did measure it, it was 7.5 metres wide.
Sounds like all of the management at my place of work (don't mean to sound like some kind of 70's work shy union member).
See, if there's a reason, I don't mind. I just think he sould have taken a moment to share that thinking with me
Hmmm - a good boss would sit down and go through a report review and explain why they have changed or want you to change bits... that's the way that you learn, and the boss / organisation benefits from your increasing capability.
BUT, some bosses are quite happy to maintain a differential between them and you. If they explain to you how to write a good report, you might soon end up doing it better than them: good for you, good for your clients, good for your organisation - and good for your boss if it enhances their team capabilities... but bad for a small minded boss who wants to keep you in you place.
Post up the whole thing, before and after his changes, and we'll tell you who the better man is 😈
Like I said at the start, I can see the reason behind most of his changes and he's being doing these things over 20 years. This was my second one. I'm not going to claim to be better at it than him. I'm feeling like rkk01 has hit the nail on the head.
He's also a consultant so possibly workjing extra hard right now to justify his position.
[chuckles at akira]
As far as I'm concerned, those two constructions mean exactly the same thing. I'd use "it is Xm wide" but if it's a convention of technical writing in your discipline to use the other construction then I'd roll with that.
Lesson from a secretary I once knew - she'd always deliberately leave some "low hanging fruit" typo/phrase in something like that, just so the boss would notice it and be happy, if she didn't then he'd find something else that actually had nothing wrong with it, and it would end up with her having to do a load more work to rewrite it just so he'd proved his worth...
I disagree with most of the above.
"The carriageway is 7.5 wide" is clearer, shorter, in the active voice and in particular doesn't use "measures" to refer to the thing being measured instead of the thing doing the measuring which is OK English but a bit bizarre.
---
Having said that, having written shitloads of reports in consistent style under pressure and having to teach some people that had real difficulty writing in sentences, I'd be tempted to say - just hang tight. Some stuff will make sense to you over time, and the other stuff is just style, some of which you can change when you call the shots on reports and some of which will be corporate style.
---
Everyone who reads or writes for a living should read Orwell's classic essay [i]Politics and the English Language[/i]: http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit
I think the following rules will cover most cases:
* Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
* Never use a long word where a short one will do.
* If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
* [b]Never use the passive where you can use the active.[/b]
* Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
* Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
[i]Never use a foreign phrase[/i]
The carriageway measures 24' 7" wide.
🙂
As far as I'm concerned, those two constructions mean exactly the same thing.
Possibly. To a critical audience, possibly not.
"The carriageway is 7.5 metres wide."
Is this established fact, opinion, estimate, conjecture, annecdotal??
"The carriageway measures 7.5 metres in width."
For one additional word this statement conveys a totally different meaning. The cynical / unconvinced reader will now want to seek out the appendices with the verifying survey / data / measurement that backs up the statement.
Yep I feel that your statement implies that the road way was specified to be 7.5m wide (though you could argue that if that was what you were saying you would have said "nominally 7.5m" or "specified at 7.5m". His though asserts that the carriageway has been measured as being 7.5m. Though you could then argue that you would have to specify the point(s) where it was measured as being that dimension.
While I agree that solicitors make their money reading between the lines even his statement could be shot down in flames IMHO. If there was some legal case being answered they could still ask "at what point(s) was the carriageway measured as being 7.5m wide?"
If it was me I'd be asking what length and at what intervals of carriageway did you measure? But then I know I'm pedantic.
But then again it does depend on the reason for the writing of the report. Does the reason indicate a level of accuracy required in measurements and subsequent reporting?
All of your carriageway are belong to us.
😯
fu(k it you should have just said "it's <..........................> this wide", then stick your fingers up and fart in his direction.
both sentences have the same credibility, except one is using more words than necessary - you see this in essay's where it must be a min of three million gazillion words long, on how to cross the road.. if the facts can be presented in a clear legible format of minimal discription, then that's all that's needed.
i blame women, they talk so much the world thinks you need more words to explain something - Q"how you feeling?" man= alright, women= well im.........................................................
next time you need to write a bone report stick in 20fig grid references!
Note that Sui is a fluffer from Dorking, so may not be fully qualified to answer your question...
You have materially changed your OP! what was [b]carriage ways is[/b] has become [b]carriageway is[/b].
Make your mind up - are you just changing things for the sake of it?
😉
You are correct.
Your boss is wrong - the carriage way doesn't measure anything, a man or possibly a woman with a tape measure or some such device, measured the carriage way. The carriage way IS 7.5 metres wide. The fact that you aren't just guessing that is implicit.
Your version is clearer. But one thing I have learned about bosses is that they rarely if ever admit to being wrong, so don't sweat it. You now know you are smarter than your boss, you can use that !
Oh yeah and it's a road.
Yep I feel that your statement implies that the road way was specified to be 7.5m wide (though you could argue that if that was what you were saying you would have said "nominally 7.5m" or "specified at 7.5m".
No. "The carriageway is 7.5m wide" means that the carriageway is 7.5m wide. It doesn't mean it was specified at 7.5m wide, will be 7.5m wide, should be 7.5m wide, was 7.5m wide or anything else. It means there is a carriageway, it exists now and the person writing the report knows that that carriageway is 7.5m wide.
What other material/facts is there to suggest anything else? Convince me otherwise!
Your version is clearer
It is now he has changed it, making most of the first page of posts irrelevant!
thebunk - Member
Note that Sui is a fluffer from Dorking, so may not be fully qualified to answer your question...
busted 😳
yeah but when asked how big i say <....................................> this big not, it measured... 🙂
maybe;
"the carriageway was measured and is 7.5m wide"
at least shows you bothered to go there with a tapemeasure, pigeon step it or whatever?
Sui - That's so far from the mark that it is not even funny
I think your boss is being pedantic - your version is easily understood.
Had a boss once who changed a couple of things in a report I did for the organisation's Board and then replaced my name as the author of the report to his - what a twunt!
How about "[i]I'm sure the carriageway is 7.5m wide, because I've checked and everything, alright?[/i]"?
Clear, technical, precise and with a contemporary feel. 🙂
Philby
Had a boss once who changed a couple of things in a report I did for the organisation's Board and then replaced my name as the author of the report to his
Blunt??
or am I being overly sensitive?
You're being overly sensitive, dear. Have a cuppa and try and relax 😀
If you've ever bought a piece of 2"x1" timber you will know that it is never 2"x1". That's the nominal sze, and it's always less than that in real life.
If I was told that it measured 2" in width, I would have reason to believe that.
"The carriageway is 7.5 metres wide." has been changed to "The carriageway measures 7.5 metres in width." Are they not both a clear and understandable statement of fact?
I think your's is a statement of an actual fact for which you cannot be certain of, the amended version adds a human element to the statment that could imply you might be wrong (you might have in accurately measured it but it could be measured again and be 7.6). He has entered a caveat that YOU measured it to be 7.5m and not that it IS 7.5m
I would change it again after re-measuring, this time three separate sections and averaging the result and stating that over X meters, the carriageway measured 7.75m on average for example. But I suppose this depends on what was asked of you!
The use of the term wide suggests that the carriageway is "wide" as opposed to narrow.
The width is quantifiable.
For instance you could create a cycle lane half a metre wide.