Comments on: Readability Scales and Writing http://grammarsource.com/2008/03/15/readability-scales-and-writing/ Bring your curiosity and questions about English and let's find answers Tue, 02 Aug 2011 10:37:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: grammarbloggerhttp://grammarsource.com/2008/03/15/readability-scales-and-writing/comment-page-1/#comment-303 grammarblogger Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:51:11 +0000 http://grammarsucks.com/readability-scales-and-writing.htm#comment-303 That they're nonsense fragments and rated highly readable by Flesch-Kincaid is, of course, the whole point. That they’re nonsense fragments and rated highly readable by Flesch-Kincaid is, of course, the whole point.

]]> By: Mister Thornehttp://grammarsource.com/2008/03/15/readability-scales-and-writing/comment-page-1/#comment-302 Mister Thorne Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:36:30 +0000 http://grammarsucks.com/readability-scales-and-writing.htm#comment-302 RE: "Acuity of eagles whistle truck kidney. Head for the treacle sump catch and but. What figgle faddle scratch dog and whistle?"Here's why you can't measure the readability of that sample: it contains no sentences. Not one!And, if you don't like Flesch-Kincaid, then try Dale-Chall.That Microsoft picked a readabilty formula for Word (or a default typeface) doesn't make it the right one to use. RE: “Acuity of eagles whistle truck kidney. Head for the treacle sump catch and but. What figgle faddle scratch dog and whistle?”

Here’s why you can’t measure the readability of that sample: it contains no sentences. Not one!

And, if you don’t like Flesch-Kincaid, then try Dale-Chall.

That Microsoft picked a readabilty formula for Word (or a default typeface) doesn’t make it the right one to use.

]]>