This is kind of what I was getting at in my post just above, I think that English as a Second Language speakers would be particularly more likely to be confused.
This really isn’t desirable, and if frauded does get widely adopted, it will lead to a situation similar to flammable and inflammable, where people get regularly confused about the difference.
It does almost seem like Monzo doesn’t like “defraud” as it sounds old-fashioned and isn’t edgy or cool enough for their brand. That is just silly when it’s a dictionary word.
In the same way that my understanding it doesn’t prove anything, neither does your friend not prove it the other way.
Defraud and frauded have fraud in them. If you know what fraud means then you’re going to understand it. If you don’t, then there’s not much Monzo can do.
That’s what I mean when I say “almost seems like” - they didn’t use the word for that reason but they have now dug in on using it perhaps for this reason?
You’re right that there shouldn’t be resistance to changing it if a significant number of customers give feedback that it’s unclear.
By the poll in this thread, 90% of customers would rather it changed (and that’s a much more official/scientific source than which words are trending on Twitter).
No, I do get your point but I’m not saying that it would be “simple” for everyone, I just don’t think that it would be significantly “harder” than figuring out the definition compared to any other word a person may not already know…
Especially so for someone who is capable of learning four languages well enough to be fluent in them.
Yes, I have been trying to avoid direct criticism by making constructive suggestions for alternatives but the post by @hashbridge was tone deaf to say the least and totally missed the mark imo.
Sure, but what is the point of making it even just the slightest bit more confusing, or even just allowing for the potential for that. It isn’t desirable.
Also, rarely do we have words that are slightly different, but originate from the same root and mean the exact same thing. So I can see why somebody would jump to the conclusion that it must mean something different, and then get confused.
It’s not desirable but isn’t this view subjective?
For example I’ve never heard of/seen either “defrauded” or “frauded” before, I was able to intuit what frauded meant when I saw it in app, but I had to look up the definition of defrauded when I saw it on this forum for the first time. Therefore monzo’s current approach was the less confusing option in my experience.
Personally I think that anything that is ambiguous, easily misinterpreted or subject to context that anyone may not understand should be avoided at all costs.
It would have been incredibly easy to change this and could have been done today.
Saying it doesn’t hinder might be true for some, but that could go for lots of things.
Why not remove the £ sign? I know it’s pounds and people will understand.
But that is precisely why you have to go with the common, accepted form of a word wherever possible to remove as much of this subjectivity around meaning as possible.
The poll on this thread gives you enough information to show that, for most people, that would be defrauded or victim of fraud, and not frauded.
What I’d say to that is that either defrauded or “victim of fraud” are accepted Standard English.
I don’t mind which option Monzo change it to, but it should be either one of those two.
I suggested defrauded given their concerns around spacing. However, as has been pointed out by others, there may be better ways to create enough space for “vicitm of fraud” through minimal editing of the page and I would be perfectly happy with that.
I voted for defrauded on the poll just because it would be easiest to make that change, really.
Because instead of a poll between the correct Defrauded and the incorrect Frauded, there was the option of victim of fraud that split the correct answers between the two correct options.
The conclusion that really should be drawn is that those that think Frauded is correct are, by far, in the minority.
Justification of Wiktionary and Twitter further reveals the desperation to justify the use of this incorrect word.
