Re:The Economist's Style Guide [pdf]
by stblack on Tuesday April 06, 2021 @01:57AM
(#26708395)
That’s a reasonable question.
I bought The Economist Style Guide shortly after university and I’ve used its recommendations regularly over many years. It’s had a massively positive payback for me. It’s surprisingly versatile advice, whether crafting emails, reports, proposals, or proofing the work of others.
Re:The Economist's Style Guide [pdf]
by pletnes on Tuesday April 06, 2021 @05:49AM
(#26709972)
There are several good style guides around. It might not matter which of the good ones you use. If you use one consistently, though, your writing will improve over time.
Whether this will help you in your concrete work/life for a value >17USD is another matter. Good written communication is helpful in most knowledge work, though.
Re:The Economist's Style Guide [pdf]
by vonwoodson on Tuesday April 06, 2021 @07:14AM
(#26710479)
I always like to take these opportunities to remind my fellow Americans that the US Government has its own writing guide, and that it’s pretty good.
www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/
Re:The Economist's Style Guide [pdf]
by porphyra on Monday April 05, 2021 @09:40PM
(#26707042)
It is interesting that for scientific units it contradicts the SI brochure. For example The Economist recommends no space between the number and the unit (eg, 11kg) but the SI does.
Re:The Economist's Style Guide [pdf]
by samizdis on Tuesday April 06, 2021 @08:19AM
(#26710894)
I've worked in a few places where the space was removed to guard against bad line breaks, where the number could end up orphaned at the end of a line and the unit abbreviation was at the start of the next one. Non-breaking spaces were often too fiddly to deal with, so removal was a decent compromise.
I'm a big fan of the Economist style guide (and Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language, which informs the guide) and have used it shamelessly as the basis for guides I've written in newsrooms over the years.
Re:The Economist's Style Guide [pdf]
by raihansaputra on Monday April 05, 2021 @11:33PM
(#26707703)
I think The Economist would optimize for conciseness of the representation instead of just following SI. Ex: 1.1t of a thing instead of 1100kg is better in the middle of a paragraph.
A google search on "site:cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/store" returns a folder full of Economist Guides, truncated at 15-25 pages.
Full, but perhaps not the current edition, can be found and downloaded on
https://pdfroom.com/books/the-economist-style-guide/kLg8pP1M...
I'm not sure that this version is legal to host, though it is an older version.
I bought The Economist Style Guide shortly after university and I’ve used its recommendations regularly over many years. It’s had a massively positive payback for me. It’s surprisingly versatile advice, whether crafting emails, reports, proposals, or proofing the work of others.
The Economist Guides are all excellent.
Whether this will help you in your concrete work/life for a value >17USD is another matter. Good written communication is helpful in most knowledge work, though.
> Frankenstein: was not the monster, but its creator.
> Short words: use them.
Or if you can't afford to buy it use one of the free style guides!
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/book/ed17/frontmatter/t...
I am not sure what to make of the section on Americanisms, which is quite scathing regarding its usage. I have grown 'overly' fond of some of them.
The Guardian/Observer style guide is more forgiving. https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-a
I'm a big fan of the Economist style guide (and Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language, which informs the guide) and have used it shamelessly as the basis for guides I've written in newsrooms over the years.