Brent Sampson is the frequently inept and dishonest boss of frequently inept and dishonest Outskirts Press. I often write about Brent and his company because they do so many things so badly.
It seems appropriate to try out my new artificial lens in an examination of Brent's writing. What follows is from Brent's blog, published on 5/5:
Toward the beginning of last month [If it was "toward the beginning of last month," it was really at the end of the previous month. What Brent means is "in" or "at" the beginning.] I blogged about a webinar I attended by a “social media scientist” [How the hell did Brent attend a webinar by someone? I attend webinars by computer and by Internet. The sentence would make more sense if Brent inserted the word "conducted" or maybe "sponsored" between "attended" and "by."] who suggested that multiple blog postings throughout the day translates [Since "postings" is a plural noun, the correct verb form is "translate."] to a greater number of blog visitors and better exposure for your company. [Even with the proper verb form, "translate to" is still a poor choice of words. "Result in" or "lead to" are better choices.] [Also: Brent seems to have picked up the word "company" from the webinar. Most authors are interested in promoting themselves or their books, not companies.] [Also, also: it could be argued that "your" is the wrong word, because the webinar scientist was not addressing Brent's readers.]
As a result, I changed my tactics on ["for" is a more accurate preposition.] this blog for the month of ["Month of" is superfluous.] April by writing 3 ["Three" is better.] shorter blog postings throughout the day — one in the morning, one in the middle of the day around lunch, [It's not necessary to specify "around lunch" if something is done in the middle of the day.] and one toward the afternoon. [Here's Brent's silly "toward" again. Actually, the middle of the day, and lunch, are "toward the afternoon." "In the afternoon" would be more accurate.] I agreed with the concept that multiple blog postings provided ["Provide."] an opportunity to present multiple headlines, which would increase the posting’s exposure through RSS feeds and search engines. [Actually, since each posting has just one headline, multiple postings do not increase exposure for each posting -- but might increase exposure for Brent's company and Brent's errors.]
I just wasn’t so sure that the actual results would justify the additional time expenditure. [He could have tried to ask people who tried it, or noticed that very few people do it.] Each day ended up taking me twice as long to post. [You post blogs, not days.] Sure, the postings were shorter, but as you can probably tell by the stream-of-consciousness content, it’s not the “writing” that takes me very long — it’s the mechanics involved in tagging each posting, scheduling it for a certain day at a certain time, etc.
So, did that little social science experiment work? I’ll answer that question tomorrow (which, in itself, might answer that question) with a graph of this blogs ["Blogs" should have an apostrophe.] monthly stats so we can compare April with March.
I guess my altered eye is working better than Brent's brain. I'm not surprised.