<\/a>In the age of the Internet, you really don’t have to worry about crossing your t’s and dotting your i’s: the keyboard does that for you. It will even put a little red squiggly under words it doesn’t like and give you suggestions about how to correct them, but that doesn’t mean you can shift the old brainbox into neutral and watch as your copy materializes perfectly out of thin air. (See the next news tidbit if you want to know how to do that.) If you are in charge of writing, it still takes a careful eye to catch your mistakes, and one thing that can help both experienced and new writers is a style guide. The two subheadings in Armando Roggio’s article on Practical eCommerce<\/strong> say it all: Style, Spelling, and Grammar are Important, and Style Guides Help.<\/p>\n Read the full article at practicalecommerce.com<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Content farming has a terrible rap, and for good reason. A lot of the articles produced by content farm writers end up incredibly uninformative and difficult to read, because they try to pander to the whims of the search engine gods. Despite keyword offerings and headline dances, the search engine gods have been averting their eyes from content-farmed copy. Now, computers can produce content much more quickly than writers, and Econsultancy<\/strong> poses an interesting question: Could computer-generated content be as good, or even better, than farmed copy? They compare two articles, and lo, the computer-generated one is more informative than the human-generated one. In the end, though, can either version stand up next to a carefully written content? Read on to find out.<\/p>\nA Debate About Farming–Content-Style<\/h2>\n