I encountered an error message this morning trying to get to a Paper.li page. Talk about corporatespeak!!!
The infrastructure issue impacting the service has been well identified and we are now closing in on a final resolution.
Let’s pick it apart:
Infrastructure issue: Well, points to Paper.li for apparently, sort of, taking ownership of the issue by identifying it as (presumably their own) “infrastructure.” Still, they could be more up front.
Impacting. Please, say “affecting,” the way you would if you were speaking to another human being. Teeth are impacted. People are affected.
Well identified. Ditch the “well.” Either you have identified the problem or you haven’t. And “has been” is the signal that this is a passive sentence. Who identified the problem? Take credit for it by saying “we” or “our technicians” have identified the problem.
Closing in on. I feel like they are a pack of hyenas, circling a victim! How about just, “We’re working on it”?
Final resolution. Redundant; a resolution by its nature is final. And what does that mean to me, the reader? Is there a time lag between “closing in on” the “resolution” and when I can access the service again? Assure me that you are working on it.
No apology. I would have expected that in the first line.
Here’s my suggested rewrite:
We’re sorry you can’t access the page you were looking for. We’re working on the problem and hope to fix it soon.
How would you rewrite it?
Thank you for highlighting the problems with paper.li’s original message. You’re absolutely right – it’s corporate jargon of the worst sort. Perhaps they hoped to sound professional. What they ended up doing was sounding off-putting.
You did a great job analyzing why the original didn’t work. Thanks for inviting us to suggest a rewrite of our own. If you don’t mind, I’d like to point out a few reasons why your rewrite is so good.
First, it makes use of personal pronouns. “We” and “you” make the author and the reader into real people, they’re inclusive, and most importantly, they make the reader feel noticed.
Second, the use of personal pronouns forces the sentences into the active voice. You can’t use passive voice with a subject like “We.”
Don’t get me wrong – the passive voice isn’t bad because it’s “passive.” – That’s what we call equivocation (taking one meaning of a word and substituting it for another.) Passive in this context is just a verb’s voice, not the feeling of sluggishness we get when we read it. But the passive voice does allow the agent of the action to avoid taking responsibility. Active voice means someone has to step up to the plate and say “we’re sorry … we’re working on it.”
Third, your revision uses simple, active verbs with very few auxiliaries – “can’t access,” “were looking,” and “working.” These make the revision more direct and clear than the original: “has been well identified” and “are now closing in on.”
Actually, if there’s anything I would change about your revision, it’s those verbs. I would tighten those up just a little bit: “We’re sorry you can’t find the page you wanted. We found the problem, and we’re solving it now. Please check back in a little while, and thank you for being patient with us.” (I added that last bit because I think it’s important for people to have an action step they can take and a feeling of good will at the end of a communication.)
Hi Michelle,
Thanks for your comment! You picked out exactly what I was going for — the personal, the active, the simple. And nice tweak to my suggestion.
I think you’re right that paper.li was perhaps aiming to sound professional, and they probably didn’t want to place the blame on anyone in particular. Still, that’s no reason to sound so stiff. I always think, “How would you say this to your child/mother/best friend?”