Intelligent use of tech: proofreading
Author: Tom Haley
In this mini-series, we are sharing some of the learning from our team who have been testing and trialling new applications as part of our Intelligent Use of Tech forums.
This week we focus on a proofreading tool, Writefull. Whilst it doesn’t have the glitz and glamour of ChatGPT, we spend a lot of time writing (or typing) and our written word is a reflection of you. Given the amount of written word that exits, it is important to stand out by being clear and concise with everything you produce: you should always strive for perfection.
Whether it is an expert report, a claim document, or a LinkedIn article such as this, I will always proofread my work and I find reading my own work can become tedious. I was discussing this with a delay analyst, Matthew Klinefelter BSc IEng MICE MCIArb , and Matt recommended Writefull so, as part of our Intelligent Use of Tech forums, I decided to trial it and I share my thoughts in this article.
The basics
As a tool, Writefull is aimed at academics writing which indicated to me that it is a very formal tool.
I took the free version initially to see what it was all about. This meant the proof reading was limited to some language suggestions and a low quota for al writing widgets. I thought the paid version was a touch on the expensive side at ￡15.37/month albeit the yearly subscription works out at ￡5.46/month when made as a one-off payment.
I used it as a plug-in to Word with the first stage being sign-up and software download at https://www.writefull.com/ .
Using Writefull
Once I had signed up and downloaded the plugin, it featured as an option within the Home ribbon of word. When I clicked the Writefull button, I was met with the following side window.
The widgets reflect the fact this tool is primarily for academic writing as the widgets, such as sentence palette, are structured towards writing up research.
In a Word document I would click ‘Check Document’ which would generate editing suggestions. I found that the free version was very limited and, to properly explore its use I needed to pay for a month at least, which I did.
Practicalities
At first, and for smaller documents, like these articles, I found the suggestions useful. It picked up on minor issues which I hadn’t spotted, and this improved the quality of my written work.
领英推荐
However, the lengthier and / or the more specialist the text was, the less useful I found the tool. I asked the tool to proofread a 30-40 page document and it came back with nearly 200 amendments. It took a lot of time and effort to consider each of the proposed amendments but only 5-10% were helpful.
I felt the time to consider each amendment amounted to more than the time it would have taken me to proofread the document myself, so I asked myself did it add value or create waste and my feeling was probably towards the latter end of the spectrum.
At ￡15/month, I was not convinced I saved that investment in my time.
Further developments
I did think, rightly or wrongly, that once I made an amendment, the tool would start to recognise my preferred writing style. For example, I don’t put a full stop after Mr or Mrs which might not be strictly correct, but it is perfectly conventional.
Once I rejected those amendments, you would think it would generate a new rule and apply this consistently, but it didn’t, which meant laboriously rejecting the amendment which becomes very tedious.
My thoughts were that balancing that personalisation with strict standards would generate a more valuable tool and one where I could see more value in the investment.
Final reflections
Whilst the tool didn’t quite yield the improvement I was hoping, I did learn from the process – what do I need, what works for me, what doesn’t work for me etc. I am motivated to trial another tool, the office suggestion was Wordtune, to see if that tool might become my companion during those long and late hours writing up quantum expert reports.
In next week’s article, our Graduate Quantity Surveyor Ibrahim Khan , will share his Bluebeam learning. Whilst the technology has been around a while, and is used by a number of quantity surveyors, Ibrahim will focus on his experience of using the tool for the first time and what he would recommend other first-time users think about or do.
Keep an eye out for that and, in the meantime, enjoy the rest of your week!
Bringing The science of Quantik? to you
p.s. If anything in this article, or any of our articles, resonates with a challenge you are experiencing, check out our Bringing The science of Quantik? to you initiative where we offer a tailor-made session aimed at helping you tackle your project or business challenge (link below).
Construction Delay | Forensic Delay Analysis | Expert Witness | Director at Planetal Limited
4 个月Good review Tom. It's interesting that your experience differs a bit from mine. I don't use the check document feature for the same reason you mentioned—it pulls up everything at once. I prefer to proofread on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. One pitfall is the tool's understanding of technical jargon, but you get used to it. The main benefit I find is in punctuation, grammar, and rewording to improve flow without losing content. I've noticed my writing improving based on the changes it usually recommends. As a technical person, I find that while I can write a good technical point, the help with proofreading really makes a difference. I always ensure I accept the changes so it remains in my style and the meaning isn't lost. At ￡15 per month, it only needs to make a slight improvement to the report and save a bit of time to pay for itself. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Bluebeam; it's a great tool in my opinion.