Internet dating 2016 review
When we changed the word to “historic,” Grammarly didn’t flag it, which is why, in this part of the test, it got four out of five correct. .), uses the wrong tense of the verb “tell,” and contains an instance of subject-verb disagreement with (they was).In this sentence, there are five mistakes—“tales” has an extraneous apostrophe, “colorful” is spelled the British way, “witch” should be “which,” and “handkerchief” and “playwright” are both misspelled. The question mark at the end of the sentence is wrong, too.It’s a well-established fact that proofreading your writing can be a very painful task.Yes, some writers smirk at the very mention of proofreading—they never proofread their work because their work is the product of the moment.We checked whether it would flag a real serial comma issue: Grammarly flagged the unnecessary comma after “brother.” It suggested “I” instead of “me,” and flagged “would of” with a comment that this phrase, as well as similar phrases like “could of,” are never correct.It also flagged the missing article before time, suggesting that we add “a” or “the.” In this case, Grammarly caught four out of four.
This suggestion would have been correct if we were indeed dealing with a list.
But all of that means nothing unless the product works well in practice, and we want to see just how well Grammarly performs.
So we’ll take it for a spin and see what we can find out.
The contextual spelling tool checks for misspelled words and correctly spelled words used in the wrong context.
We’ll start with a sentence containing a few spelling mistakes that should be relatively easy to catch: Grammarly flagged “grand-mother” as a possibly confused word and suggested “grandmother”; it suggested the correct spellings of “definative” and “sourse,” and it suggested changing “there” to “their.” As for “historie,” Grammarly flagged it as a possibly confused word and suggested we use “historic” instead.