[bmelton]

I don't know if it's fair or not, but I always feel like the conversation at HN is somewhat... academic, for lack of a better word. The nature of the community seems to encourage one's best behavior, or at least better behavior than I would exhibit in some other places perhaps.

Grammar correction is somewhat a conundrum. On the one hand, it IS sort of rude to point out the faults of another, especially as it can often be attributed to expedient typing. On the other hand, if I made a mistake and didn't realize, I'd REALLY REALLY want someone to point it out to me, so that I could learn from it.

Completely aside though, it's interesting to me how poor grammar seems to spread. Until about two years ago, I had honestly NEVER seen anyone use "should of" in print, and now it seems to be a prevalent mistake.

[basugasubaku]

> Until about two years ago, I had honestly NEVER seen anyone use "should of" in print, and now it seems to be a prevalent mistake.

There is no way that is true:

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=&as_epq=&...

[bmelton]

While I don't understand how that relates to the truthiness of what I've said, it looks like almost all of the results of the linked page are from 2006 forward.

Regardless, while I may be fuzzy on the timetable, it is a recent phenomena for me.

[basugasubaku]

Google is ranking by date because they have the same relevance. You can play with the date ranges in the search box. I picked Jan 1 2007 as the end date because you said you "NEVER" saw this construction in text until a "about two years ago".