Phrases/words that set your teeth on edge.

[cloughie]

They come from just across the waters and tend to leave Needles lying around, but they're really all Wight.

Isle believe you!

[Serial_Apologist]

Isle believe you!

[teamsaint]

“ Four times less” instead of a quarter. And similar .

[oddoneout]

“ Four times less” instead of a quarter. And similar .

Yes, I've noticed what seems to be a trend towards tortuous ways of expressing figures. When I first read " up to just under..." I thought it was a one-off but have seen it several times since; what's wrong with "nearly" for heaven's sake? Surely now more than ever it's important for numbers, quantities etc to be expressed simply and clearly - having to do a mental arithmetic calculation of "four times less" or similar doesn't serve - even if one can unpick what is actually meant!

[Pulcinella]

Yes, I've noticed what seems to be a trend towards tortuous ways of expressing figures. When I first read " up to just under..." I thought it was a one-off but have seen it several times since; what's wrong with "nearly" for heaven's sake? Surely now more than ever it's important for numbers, quantities etc to be expressed simply and clearly - having to do a mental arithmetic calculation of "four times less" or similar doesn't serve - even if one can unpick what is actually meant!

I think that I first spotted this sort of statement on the side of a bus (no, not that one!), trying to explain the frequency of service: up to every 12 minutes.
Not much help when you've been waiting half an hour!

[kernelbogey]

up to every 12 minutes

Yes, that one's come up here before.

The BBC newsroom - perhaps other journalists, too - has a conviction that listeners/viewers are unable to absorb a number such as (say) 8,973. Such will invariably be presented first as 'almost nine thousand' (etc, etc). The actual figure will then appear later in the piece. I imagine this must be taught in journalism courses, and wonder if there is any evidence that people can't understand anything other than round figures at a first hearing.

[cloughie]

“ Four times less” instead of a quarter. And similar .

What’s wrong with 25%?

[teamsaint]

What’s wrong with 25%?

Well quite.
And you can write it in a fraction of the time.

[kernelbogey]

Well quite.
And you can write it in a fraction of the time.

I always give such matters of style 110%.

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, that one's come up here before.

The BBC newsroom - perhaps other journalists, too - has a conviction that listeners/viewers are unable to absorb a number such as (say) 8,973. Such will invariably be presented first as 'almost nine thousand' (etc, etc). The actual figure will then appear later in the piece. I imagine this must be taught in journalism courses, and wonder if there is any evidence that people can't understand anything other than round figures at a first hearing.

I've often wondered if retailers' habit of priciing items at e.g. £9.99 instead of £10 assumes the public to be thick.

[LezLee]

I've often wondered if retailers' habit of priciing items at e.g. £9.99 instead of £10 assumes the public to be thick.

It always used to be to make sure there were no arguments about how much money had been tendered to the cashier, so that correct change was given.

[LeMartinPecheur]

It always used to be to make sure there were no arguments about how much money had been tendered to the cashier, so that correct change was given.

The reason was even more pointed and goes back to the earliest days of cash registers in the US. If an item was priced at $10 and the customer tendered a £10 bill, the assistant could fail to ring the sale through the till and pocket the bill leaving no paper trail. At $9.99 the sale had to be entered on the till in order to open it for change. No necessary imputation about customers' IQ

[kernelbogey]

The reason was even more pointed and goes back to the earliest days of cash registers in the US. If an item was priced at $10 and the customer tendered a £10 bill, the assistant could fail to ring the sale through the till and pocket the bill leaving no paper trail. At $9.99 the sale had to be entered on the till in order to open it for change. No necessary imputation about customers' IQ

Fascinating - never heard that explanation before. (Though I do think the 'psychological' explanation that the customer thinks more £9 than £10 must be behind its persistence, and has presumably been market-tested.)

[Bryn]

Fascinating - never heard that explanation before. (Though I do think the 'psychological' explanation that the customer thinks more £9 than £10 must be behind its persistence, and has presumably been market-tested.)

I can confirm that the origin described by LeMartinPecheur is that which I have heard most often, though I was not aware of the US connection. However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_register makes that link clear.

[oddoneout]

Fascinating - never heard that explanation before. (Though I do think the 'psychological' explanation that the customer thinks more £9 than £10 must be behind its persistence, and has presumably been market-tested.)

I always understood that the opening of the till was the reason, but the " less than..." aspect of being under the higher or rounded-up figure also now has considerable influence I think, as card transactions have removed the importance of the till element. An advert can loudly claim "under £150" and then in tiny print say "£149" without falling foul of the law.