3 Reasons Grammarly Can’t Edit Like a Human

If you write on a computer, you’re probably using Grammarly to edit your work.

It’s a great tool—and one I suggest you use—but it’s a mistake to think it can do everything a human content editor can do.

It absolutely can’t. Here’s why.

Grammarly Can’t Find Everything

Grammarly is an impressive software tool. One could even call it an early version of artificial intelligence.

Its sole job in life is to analyze everything you write and point out the mistakes. Now, isn’t that the same job description as a human website editor?

Well, yes.

But it’s not in the job description where the discrepancies lie—it’s in the performance. (As usual, the devil is in the details.)

It’s a mistake to think Grammarly can do everything a human content editor can do.

Simply put, Grammarly can’t find everything. How do I know? Because I use it every day in my own editing and writing.

It’s quite good at finding and fixing some of the most basic errors:

• Most misspelled words
• Basic typos
• Missing periods
• Extra spaces

But the bulk of my work as a content editor involves going far beyond Grammarly’s recommendations. I haven’t tracked metrics, but if Grammarly catches 30 percent of the mistakes in a blog post, I’d be surprised.

As smart as it is, it’s just not smart enough to catch every issue. And I wouldn’t want to entrust my written content to a tool with a 70 percent fail rate.

Would you?

Grammarly Gets It Wrong As Often As It Gets It Right

But wait, it gets worse.

Even for the mistakes Grammarly does catch, whether or not it gives you the correct option to fix it is a coin toss.

The tool will sometimes suggest corrections that are just wrong. For instance, compound adjectives don’t need a hyphen if they follow the noun they modify, but Grammarly constantly tries to “correct” this “mistake.” 

Grammarly will also flag an error and then give you a multiple-choice test if it doesn’t know what to do with the mistake.

Let’s say you’ve written the phrase “I work at a non profit company” in a draft blog post. Grammarly will very likely give you two choices to correct “non profit”: “non-profit” and “nonprofit”. But which choice is the right one?

Hint: it doesn’t know. (It’s “nonprofit” BTW.)

This is definitely a major limitation of Grammarly. Would you be satisfied with an editor who told you, “You’ve misspelled this word, and I don’t really know how to fix it. Here are a couple of options—good luck!”

Grammarly will flag an error and then give you a multiple-choice test if it doesn’t know what to do with the mistake.

Subject-verb agreement in particular seems to be its Achilles’ heel. The tool often has a difficult time determining which noun is the subject, especially in a phrase like “one of these two items that is not like the other.” One is the subject, hence the singular is, but Grammarly often wants to change is to are. 

Grammarly Is Only As Good As the Person Using It

At the end of the day, Grammarly is a tool, and tools are only as good as the person using them.

You, the writer, still must know enough about grammar, style, and spelling to decide whether to accept or reject the changes that the tool suggests.

And in cases like some of the above, the tool may not even be right.

This means if you don’t have a good grasp of the English language, using a tool like Grammarly could actually introduce errors into your work. 

All that is not to say that I’m against Grammarly, believe it or not. I continue to use it as a part of my own editing process because it ensures I don’t somehow miss certain glaring errors.

And the tool does help me to stop and think about the right grammar and style rules when it does perceive an error.

You still must know enough about grammar, style, and spelling to decide whether to accept or reject the changes Grammarly suggests.

I want to be clear—I have absolutely no problem if you utilize software like Grammarly. (Again, I do.) I promise I’m not trying to denigrate it. I just want you to know its limitations.

Running your work through it before publishing or sending it off can be a good idea, and I certainly won’t pass judgment, especially if that’s all you have time to do. (Sometimes those deadlines sneak up on us—I get it.)

But it’s critical to remember that Grammarly is software, and software has not yet progressed to the point where it can accurately understand the nuance and minutiae of written English. There are just too many rules—and variations of those rules—to consider. 

Moreover, there are elements of style—aka the human touch—that make editing both a science and an art.

Expert website editors go beyond the simple checks that tools can provide to find creative ways to apply the rules of English to make your written content resonate with your audience. 

Additionally, some things are technically wrong but emotionally right. (Can you imagine Mick Jagger singing “I can’t get any satisfaction”? Me neither.)

And there are other turns of a phrase that may not be the most efficient way to say something—or even grammatically correct—but are the best option in a specific context. These cases require judgment calls, a uniquely human ability.