Why Grammarly Isn't the Ultimate Solution for Writers
Written on
The Limitations of Grammarly
As a writer and editor, I often encounter frustrations—one of which is Grammarly's shortcomings. While there is a clear difference between writing and editing, I identify more as a writer than an editor. Although editing is not my strongest skill, I understand the essential qualities that define a competent editor. Hiring for both roles can be challenging, and there's no foolproof method for doing so.
Having struggled with editing due to mild dyslexia, I've used both the free and premium versions of Grammarly. Countless times, I’ve submitted work through Grammarly in an effort to polish it for my editor (who also happened to be my manager), only to receive comments like, "Have you tried Grammarly? It can be really helpful." This feedback also came from potential clients on writing assignments. I might have missed a few commas and miswritten one word—not ideal, but it was an unpaid task, so I wasn't overly concerned.
I kindly explained to my manager that I had already utilized the premium version of Grammarly before submitting my work and that my mild dyslexia could affect my writing. I promised to improve my efforts next time and made the necessary revisions. I’m open to feedback, having received both positive and negative critiques during my writing degree, but the reality is that Grammarly often leads people to believe they possess editing skills when they do not.
The Flaws of Grammarly's AI in Editing
Ultimately, I need a true editor, not a marketing manager suggesting I rely on Grammarly. While AI certainly has its advantages across various industries, it also has its drawbacks. This is not a new discussion; automation has been a topic of debate since the 1960s when my mother was a teenager.
It's clear that Grammarly has gained such popularity that it is here to stay, much like the spelling and grammar check functions in Microsoft Word or Google Sheets. My primary concern is that Grammarly is often seen as the definitive solution by managers and so-called editors. Its purpose is to support the writing process, not to serve as a one-stop solution.
From my experience with Grammarly (both free and premium), I can usually identify whether feedback originates from the software or from a human editor. Even after running a document through Grammarly, my editor might still find areas needing improvement. Since it is a software tool designed to encourage usage, why do we treat it as the ultimate editor? Perfect writing doesn't exist—any writer will attest to that.
The Appropriate Use of Grammarly
Grammarly should be considered just one step in the writing process, and it serves me well in that capacity. I have found it useful as a secondary review for my work. However, this does not imply that my piece is complete. I need to revisit it, make adjustments, and have multiple editors review it until I am completely satisfied. Running it through Grammarly repeatedly won’t yield the same results as a human editor would.
You may wonder how one determines when a piece is finished; this is a question writers and editors have grappled with for ages, and there is no clear answer.
The Irony of Technological Dependence
Ironically, the same tech companies pushing for Grammarly's use (even when I already do) also provide consulting services, emphasizing the need for human expertise alongside technology. They promote software that is supposed to enhance our work while simultaneously asserting that we require their human specialists to optimize its effectiveness.
They market their products as tools to simplify our jobs, yet they also claim, "You need our human experts to maximize your investment." Why is human intervention deemed essential for implementing and optimizing sales software, but not for editing your writing? The assumption seems to be that anyone can write, except when it comes time to hire someone for the task. Then, all of a sudden, your writing needs to be flawless, and you must run it through Grammarly before publishing it.
It's easy to become disheartened. My issues lie not in receiving constructive criticism about my work but in the reality that, despite editing and using Grammarly, I still require further assistance because crafting prose is a complex endeavor. Striving for perfection has been my goal for 30 years, yet I realize it may be an unattainable pursuit. The truth is that no level of automation can replace the nuanced understanding that a human editor brings to the intricacies of the English language.
Yes, I did run this piece through Grammarly. Feel free to point out any mistakes in the comments below.
In this video titled "Grammarly is Garbage, and Here's Why," the speaker discusses the limitations of Grammarly as a writing tool and its overreliance in professional settings.
The second video, "Grammarly Premium: Is It Worth It?" evaluates the benefits and drawbacks of Grammarly's premium offering, helping viewers decide if it's right for their needs.