Online communication is becoming more popular than face-to-face communication in many companies. Do the advantages of this outweigh its disadvantages?
The prevalence of the Internet has led to the ever-increasing popularity of online communication. It is becoming more common for several corporations to use digital devices to communicate in the workplace. Although there are certain downsides related to productivity and confidentiality, I believe that the advantages of this tendency including cost-effectiveness and avoidance of unfortunate factors outweigh its disadvantages.
On the one hand, adopting online communication in the workplace can trigger many detrimental impacts. The first problem of this kind of communication is associated with companies’ productivity. There are potential misinterpretations due to the absence of facial expressions and body language. Connection problems and device errors can also decelerate the meeting’s progress and interrupt the flow of ideas. For example, camera error causes difficulties to organizers to ensure that no one is distracted or intentionally absent from the meeting. Another negative impact of web-based communication is probably security threats. It is undeniable that storing documents and statistics online is highly vulnerable to hackers and information leaks. This, consequently, damages the firms in terms of finance and reputation.
On the other hand, online communication brings more significant benefits to companies. Economically, online communication is more affordable than face-to-face communication. Domestic employees could avoid anxieties about transportation costs and possible traffic congestions. For many multinational corporations, holding an online conference is more money-saving than purchasing a foreign business trip. Additionally, online communication allows businesses to operate smoothly despite external inconveniences. COVID-19 perfectly exemplifies this as quarantine is of paramount importance leading to the cancellation of several events and gatherings. Fortunately, online conferences can guarantee both employees’ health and the conduct of the events.
In conclusion, from my perspective, the advantages of online communication have more significant impacts than its disadvantages. I would suggest that technologists upgrade their devices to produce optimal efficiency.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, if, so, for example, in conclusion, kind of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 41.998997996 90% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 8.3376753507 240% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1928.0 1615.20841683 119% => OK
No of words: 300.0 315.596192385 95% => OK
Chars per words: 6.42666666667 5.12529762239 125% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.7583625276 2.80592935109 134% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 176.041082164 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.643333333333 0.561755894193 115% => OK
syllable_count: 623.7 506.74238477 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.1 1.60771543086 131% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 16.0721442886 124% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 20.2975951904 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.2728316594 49.4020404114 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.4 106.682146367 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.0 20.7667163134 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.45 7.06120827912 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.413318343404 0.244688304435 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101045327222 0.084324248473 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105573260437 0.0667982634062 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.219039535995 0.151304729494 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0534289190502 0.056905535591 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.0946893788 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 13.95 50.2224549098 28% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 19.42 12.4159519038 156% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.33 8.58950901804 132% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 78.4519038076 168% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.1190380762 79% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.