Editing Gunning fog index (section)

==Limitations==
A high fog index is a good measure of hard-to-read text, but it has its limits. Not all complex words are difficult to understand. For example, "interesting" is not generally thought to be a difficult word, although it has three syllables (excluding the common -ing suffix). On the other hand, short words can still be difficult if they are not often used. The frequency of word usage also affects the readability of a text.<ref name="Seely2013">{{cite book |last=Seely |first=John |title=Oxford Guide to Effective Writing and Speaking: How to Communicate Clearly |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hVEGAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 |year=2013 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-965270-9 |pages=120–123 |chapter=Chapter 10: Audience}}</ref> Additionally, the fog index is primarily applicable to English and may not accurately reflect readability in other languages.<ref>{{cite conference |last1=Antunes |first1=Hélder |last2=Teixeira Lopes |first2=Carla |title=Analyzing the Adequacy of Readability Indicators to a Non-English Language |conference=Experimental IR Meets Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Interaction - 10th International Conference of the CLEF Association, CLEF 2019 |date=2019 |location=Lugano, Switzerland |hdl=10216/133321}}</ref>

Until the 1980s, the fog index was calculated differently.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Technique of Clear Writing |last=Gunning |first=Robert |publisher=McGraw-Hill |year=1952 |pages=36–37}}</ref> The original formula counted each clause as a sentence. Because the index was meant to measure clarity of expression within sentences, it assumed people saw each clause as a complete thought.

In the 1980s, the calculation method changed. From this point onward, the clause counting step was left out in counting the fog index ''for literature''. This might have been because it had to be done manually. Judith Bogert of Pennsylvania State University defended the original algorithm in 1985.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Bogert |first=Judith |title=In Defense of the Fog Index |url=http://bcq.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/48/2/9 |journal=Business Communication Quarterly |volume=48 |number=2 |pages=9–12 |year=1985 |doi=10.1177/108056998504800203 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20161024205424/http://bcq.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/48/2/9 |archivedate=2016-10-24 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> However, a review of subsequent literature generally recommends the newer method.<ref>{{cite book |editor-last=Brucker |editor-first= Carl |title=Arkansas Tech Writing, 12th ed. English 2053: Technical Writing |url=http://www.atu.edu/worldlanguages/texts/ATW12th.pdf |date=June 2009 |page=109}}</ref>

Nevertheless, some argue that a series of simple, short sentences does not mean that the reading is easier.<ref>Referenced in the 2 November 2006 entry [http://notorc.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html guide to readability].</ref> For example, in Gibbon's ''[[The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]]'', the fog scores using the old and revised algorithms differ greatly. A sample test using an automated Gunning Fog calculator on a random footnote from the text (#51: Dion, vol. I. lxxix. p.&nbsp;1363. Herodian, l. v. p.&nbsp;189.<!-- THIS REFERENCE NEEDS CLARIFICATION AND MOS -->)<ref>[http://gunning-fog-index.com/ Fog Index Calculator]</ref> gave an index of 19.2 using only the sentence count, and an index of 12.5 when including independent clauses. This brought down the fog index from post-graduate to high school level.<ref>{{cite web |title=Clear Writing: How to Achieve and Measure Readability |publisher=Poscripts |work=The Writing Clinic |date=2006-11-02 |url=http://notorc.blogspot.com/2006/09/devils-in-details-measuring.html}}</ref>