It's inevitable in a blog like this that there are going to be mistakes. Sorry about that.
So it's equally inevitable that people are going to point them out. What's interesting is how they do that.
To illustrate this, I've trawled back through all the comments people have sent this month pointing out that I've got something wrong.
I've not included matters of opinion, shades of argument or issues of perception. These are errors I actually made, (or was accused of making), and how people phrased their response. No names, no pack drill.
The polite
The link for <hyperlink in text> does not seem to work.
That <object in photograph> looks more like <not what I'd wrongly assumed it was in the text>.
I'm fairly sure <statement of fact, without explicitly mentioning I was wrong>.
<Factual statement, again not explicitly stating I was wrong>.
<What I should have written>, I think, not <what I did write>. (plus some additional background information)
<Location which I'd failed to fact-check> is not <actual location, sorry>.
I asked about this on TfL internal comms. Apparently <reason I couldn't have known, thanks>.
The concise
<phrase lifted from text> ??
<Just one word from the post, as it should be spelled>
The verbose
The tiniest of corrections: <long explanation running to four sentences and 82 words, including reference to a website where I could confirm my error>
The pedantic
Just in case you hadn't noticed, <minor point of formatting>.
I think that there's a typo in <phrase I didn't believe contained a typo>. Regards.
The flattering
A wonderful summary of <compliment, to sugar the pill>. One tiny thing, <error> should read <correction>.
Lovely! Broken link for <incorrectly copied hyperlink in post> – I guess the missing domain is <correct link, thanks>.
Very much enjoyed the blog as usual. Surely <thing I mentioned> is not designed to <reason I hinted at> but rather <reason I should have given instead>.
Very good, particularly since you’re now in my manor. Two quick comments. First, <critical observation based on incorrect viewpoint>. Second, <74 words of historical geographical discourse>.
The over-cautious
Sorry to be one of those people, but <error which wasn't mine, but originated in the organisation I'd copied the information from>.
In your para about <name of building> you have a link which is titled <incorrect name of building>. Slip of the pen?
Confused but not wishing to be a pedant and therefore sent to the naughty corner, but <observation confused by the misconception I must have been correct, whereas in fact I was wrong>.
You induced a rather premature 'senior' moment during my morning cup of tea when I suddenly couldn't picture, for love or money, <error in post>. Did you mean <yes obviously I meant that, so next time be brave enough to say so>?
The mistaken
I think <lengthy, but fatally flawed, argument>, no?
Except, of course that <erroneous counter-example>.
Have I missed something? <Bemused queries, confirming that yes, they had missed something>.
You said <what I said>. You also said <statement which wasn't the contradiction they hoped it was>.
The unhappy
I note <expression of disgust, querying the professionalism of one particular phrase>.
I think you have been a bit harsh with <editorial opinion, quite possibly based on shaky facts>.
The tone of the article is <somewhat negative>, and I think that is a bit unfair on the apparent factual information.
What about <fact I did not include, because you can't include everything>?
The sanctimonious
<A common error> should of course read <the correct version>. A common error.
Don't you mean <smug explanation, including additional data to prove correctness>? Confusing, isn't it?
<Quote from text>. Don't you mean <more usual terminology for this abbreviation>?
<Rebuttal of fact, using a deliberately erudite word>, not <what I wrote>.
Didn't <inconsistency based on something I wrote last year, pointed out by the knowall who's appeared in this list four times already>?
I churn out a lot of stuff on this blog, much of it supposedly factual, without an editorial team to back me up. There are always going to be mistakes, slips and errors, and I'd always rather they weren't present.
So my thanks to those of you who put me right, including those who politely slip me their thoughts via email rather than in public. But when you do spot something incorrect, and you will, it'd be lovely if you could phrase your response directly, thoughtfully and/or politely. Nobody enjoys a patronising pedant, least of all the recipient of their ill-phrased critisism.
