Here's the story:

Yesterday, Grammarly (a site that promises to be your best grammar check resource), posted an article titled <a href="http://www.grammarly.com/blog/2015/5-authors-who-died-old-maids/?lf" target="_blank">"5 authors who died old maids" </a>to Facebook (unfortunately, I was not quick thinking enough to take a screen shot). I did a double take when I saw that on my timeline. Old maids? What year is this? Who calls unmarried women "old maids?" I commented on the post that it was sexist and ageist to use the term, and that Grammarly should rename the post. Many others had similar comments and sentiments.  Some ( minority) thought using the term was perfectly ok and that the rest of use were too easily offended.

Then, I went to Twitter where I posted this:

<span style="color: #ff0000;">When was the last time you heard the term "old maid?" Well, @grammarly thinks it's perfectly fine to call unmarried women by that name.</span>

I remind you that Grammarly is a site that claims it offers a "better way to write."

No word from Grammarly on Twitter or on Facebook. No comment whatsoever.

This morning, <a href="http://www.grammarly.com/blog/2015/5-authors-who-died-old-maids/?lf" target="_blank">the post</a> is gone from Facebook and from the Grammarly blog.

Clearly, Grammarly is not standing by the term old maids. They have erased it from Grammarly post history. But Grammarly has not admitted that it may be offensive (not to mention hopelessly old fashioned) to use this term. It simply removed it without acknowledging anybody's comments about it.

And ust this past weekend, in the <em>Washington Post Magazine,</em> Gene Weingarten had this to say about Grammarly:
<blockquote>In short, as a sleuth, Grammarly is top-notch. As an editor, however, it is of the prissy, arbitrary, rule-besotted sort whom good writers want to kill. Under the circumstances, I would do it slow and ugly, like what Dave the astronaut did to HAL.</blockquote>
Do yourself a favor and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/gene-takes-grammarly-to-school/2015/05/22/a3bf6a56-f4dd-11e4-b2f3-af5479e6bbdd_story.html?postshare=8761433118311597" target="_blank">read the whole piece.</a>

Grammarly can't erase Weingarten's piece as easily as it can erase it's own mistakes.

Now, is Grammarly in crisis, even of the fleeting social media kind? No, of course not. But in my book at least, it has a damaged image. Between Weingarten's criticism and Grammarly's uncaring attitude, I am not keen to promote or use the service. And no amount of erasing posts (would this also be called white-washing? I am not sure) and ignoring comments is going to fix that.

What would you recommend that Grammarly do, if anything? Oh, and had you even heard of Grammarly before or am I doing it a public relations favor by mentioning it?

&nbsp;