I'm not sure what you mean here. Descriptivism is a paradigm of linguistics in which language is analyzed as it is used within a given population and point in time, rather than analyzing it according to a strict and timeless set of rules (a.k.a. prescriptivism). Rather than defining a given usage as right or wrong, it seeks to classify the usage according to what populations and registers it's used in.

That's not to say descriptivism has nothing to say on what language one ought or ought not use, just that the recommendations will be dependent on who your audience is and what setting. Like: using "y'all" in Texas wouldn't raise any eyebrows, but in Wales it certainly would. And using "hoosflaw" to mean "pickles" wouldn't work anywhere.

In the U.S., I'd wager that adverbial 'good' is used quite a bit informal contexts like conversation, texts, or Facebook posts. So it's up the author (native or not) what sort of feeling they want to evoke while delivering their message. Homey and conversational? Authoritative and experienced? Silly and offbeat?

That said, if you're not confident in your command of the language you're using, formal is probably best, since A) it's probably mostly what you've been taught, and B) it'll be comprehensible and acceptable to everyone.

I suppose I was playing a bit fast and loose with those terms, though, and shouldn't have. So, thanks.

Great article, though.

Also, props on how strong and well written the English is in general!

And, most importantly, loved the article. :)

(I thought this whole thread was a good example of how to actually do good feedback. )

I'm pretty sure descriptivism involves some number of people sharing an agreed meaning, not that all speech by all native speakers is OK.

What about things like leet speak, and other Facebook-like lingo?