AutoCrit (formerly AutoCrit Editing Wizard)

And here I am sitting here and editing my 200+ page manuscript manually like an idiot. I'd better go for a premium level membership.

This could revolutionise the whole publishing process! Just think of all the editorial salaries that can now be cut, and how much money it will save!

Right.

If they could only come up with one that will write the stupid thing, they'd have a gold mine.

Oh, come on, Haggis, the writing's the EASY part. That's what you have editors for. It's the ideas that are difficult.

(At least, that's what someone told me today, via email. Bless.)

Old Hack said:

Oh, come on, Haggis, the writing's the EASY part. That's what you have editors for. It's the ideas that are difficult.

(At least, that's what someone told me today, via email. Bless.)

Click to expand...

I had an idea once. It was back in '53, I think.

The sad truth, you know, is this will probably be on Google's most searched list tomorrow.

This type of post has turned up several times. Anything Autocrit can do for a fee can be done free.

I'm not going to search the techie forum again to add the information here but in there, around January 2008, is a request from a member asking for betas to test a program (Analyzer) just as good as Autocrit. Of course, it may no longer be a free program.

Sorry, just lazy, I guess. If I come across it again I'll post the link here.

You mean this thing is for real? Jesus, I thought you were joking.

Found it on page 19 of the techie forum. "Beta Testers Wanted."

I see the member is banned so I don't know if any of the links work any more.

Maybe they'll partner up with Publish America as a new editting service for PA authors who want to perfect their books before sale.

BenPanced said:

AutoCrit Editing Wizard!

Lazy? Got money to burn? Unwilling to learn how to hone your craft? Copy and paste your way to a clean manuscript!

Different levels of membership available, so the more you pay, the more information you're privvy to!

Click to expand...

I kinda like the idea of being able to search for "overused words" thing. Similar tools have helped me realize I was overusing certain words (although nothing beats reading it myself of course). But ... there are free macros on the web that will help you flag overused words, terms repeated too closely together, etc. Just go to the Tech Tips page on Roger J. Carlson's web site.

Opinions on Autocrit (merged into BR&BC thread)

I noticed in another thread an AW'er mentioned this membership. It intrigued me a great deal so I went on over to the website to check it out.

Curious what other's think. I really don't think it's worth the membership price. I pasted in 800 words from my current manuscript for a free "edit"

I have to say I wasn't overly impressed.

https://www.autocrit.com/

So everyone, offer up some thoughts

It's wonderful, if you don't believe anything it tells you.

I think it's not a good tool for a beginner. My major experience is seeing a newbie come here. He had a perfectly good story--if flawed by the usual things--and tried AC. It flagged the word was as being used the most, and he took that as a call for action that the use was bad and removed the word. The problem was he didn't have the writing skills to make the sentences work without 'was' (can be done--David Gerrold did an entire book without--but it's very difficult and challenging). The result was that, by using AC, he made the story unreadable.

I wouldn't pay for it, but I actually did fine the sample crit useful as a gentle reminder to watch my word usage, and I found a few places where I could improve the sentences by changing up some frequently used words. I could see it being really bad for a newbie, though, who wouldn't know to take it with a grain of salt, like any advice.

I would be curious to know why it says was/were is overused (17 times - recommending 6 go), and have (7/2), but not had (14).

I checked out the free sample one time when someone else posted about it. I wouldn't waster my time on the free one, or my money on the full version or whatever it is. Real eyes are what's needed to catch errors and overuse, not some computer program.

The best test of such software is not with your own writing, but with writing that's pretty much universally credited with being very good. If it finds all sorts of mistakes with that writing, and AutoCrit has with every piece I've tried, you don't want to let it near your own.

Nor is a word overused just because you used it ten times, or fifty times, or five thousand times.

As a rather amusing side note, the creator of Write or Die is now beta testing something he's calling EditMinion: http://editminion.com/ which has a similar concept, but is 100% free.

I'm really curious how it determines "slow pacing." How can a computer program tell something like that, when it lacks any actual understanding of what's been written?

I like these sites, not for actual editing, but for the help of getting my brain into the editing space where I can get all my reference books and think about each thing as a concept as opposed to "Ack, passive! Cut it!"

More like that's passive, but it makes sense there. this is passive and it weakens the sentence.

I think they're handy training wheels. and like training wheels, you need more then just the one tool to learn to ride a bike (write a book).

DancingMaenid said:

I'm really curious how it determines "slow pacing." How can a computer program tell something like that, when it lacks any actual understanding of what's been written?

Click to expand...

It can't. It doesn't actually have a clue about anything it tells a writer. It can't even tell you that a word has been used too often.

Even listening to what it says can get writers in trouble. Software simply does not exist that can tell good writing from bad.

Even grammar check programs do not actually check grammar, which is why they're wrong so often.

But when any software tells you that universally acclaimed writing has serious problems, and AutoCrit does this every time I try it, regardless of the writer, then the one guarantee is that using it will make your writing worse, not better.


What AutoCrict says is wrong with some of the best writing out there is frightening.