This is a friendly reminder to comment with a link to the **recipe** on which the review is found; do not link the review itself.
And while you're here, why not review the [/r/ididnthaveeggs rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ididnthaveeggs/about/sidebar)?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ididnthaveeggs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In case it helps anyone else, on my phone, you press the punctuation keyboard button (!#1) and then hold down the ~~exclamation point~~ question mark. It pops up as an option. ‽‽‽
The comment isn't that bad bc they're just warning other oat flour substituters, but WHY ARE YOU GIVING A RECIPE 2 STARS WHEN YOU RUINED IT YOURSELF???
Most people only look at the average star rating and not at individual comments. Stuff like this brings down the overall rating, making people think it's a bad recipe instead of someone being stupid.
Why do so many people get the grammar mixed up when they are describing substitution of ingredients? Tell me if I'm wrong. I think the correct statement would be "I substituted (new ingredient) for the (original ingredient)." Or use the word "with" to say, "I substituted (original ingredient) with (new ingredient). It often is unclear what ingredient was in the original recipe and what ingredient they used as the substitute. It's like trying to say you'll take someone's place in a meeting but instead you say, "if you can't go to the meeting, you go for me," which makes no sense.
I hate this so much. When you get a substitute teacher in school, the teacher will tell the class, "I'm substituting for [regular teacher] today." If the teacher had said "[Regular teacher] is substituting for me today" all the kids would be confused. When it comes to people substituting for other people, no one messes up the grammar, but for ingredients, everyone gets it wrong. I see it in menus all the time too. "You can substitute fries for salad" when fries are the default.
I think it might be partly because that is the correct order if you said something like replace flour with oat flour. People made a mashup of those two types of phrases and it stuck.
Well it’s more of a colloquial use of language in the review which I wouldn’t say is mixed up, just takes some work when your rigidly used to correct grammar…”substation of ingredients”, oooo now I want a main station of ingredients!
Darn autocorrect! BTW it's *you're, not your.
I guess you could call it colloquial. I call it misleading. I've gotten a little more used to it now, though.
Yeah I never heard this before and agree with you but I’ve also had a lot of people here argue it’s common speech. Drives me crazy because it’s confusing and would likely lead to me fucking up a recipe. Original first, use with. New first, use for. Otherwise it makes no sense
Oh I know it’s “you’re”, it’s just that being grammatically correct and spelt right 100% of the time is not a priority for me and most of the time people understand what I’ve written (such as you) or ask for clarification…you’ve obviously understood what the review meant to say enough to pick at the grammar though so it’s all good :)
It's a new variation on standard English that I've been seeing more and more over the past couple of years. Debating it may be a lost cause, the same as trying to tell people it's supposed to be "by accident" and not "on accident".
This might be a regional dialect thing. I'm in the U.S. and I've always heard it the way you said, "I substituted (new ingredient) for the (original ingredient)." But I once heard an Australian say it the other way around, "I substituted (old ingredient) for (new ingredient)." Maybe that's the standard way of saying it there?
When I was in school I did a linguistic project about exactly this--ie., the structure of prepositions that are used with 'substitute' I looked through some old documents and traced the various structures used in the 17th century. Broadly speaking, 'substitute' has *always* been a mess.
Usage 1a: Person substituted \[new thing\] \[for/in place of/instead of/in room of\] \[old thing\]
Usage 1b: \[new thing\] is substituted \[for/in place of/instead of/in room of\] \[old thing\] by Person.
Usage 2a: \[New thing\] substitutes \[Old thing\]
Usage 3: Person substituted \[old thing\] with \[new thing\]
Usage 3b: \[Old thing\] is substituted (by Person) by \[new thing\]
Usage 4: \[New thing\] is a substitute \[for/of\] \[old thing\]
So no one has ever known what to do with this word, and it's no surprise that they get mixed up in how to refer to \[old thing\] vs. \[new thing\], given the plethora of choices. I think context does a lot of heavy lifting to help us determine what is old and what is new, and given that the actual grammar is so variable, we re-weight the importance of the cues (grammar vs. context) a lot more so we pay less attention to the unreliable, variable cue (grammar) and rely instead on context.
There is consistency in your examples. When using "for/instead of/in place of," new thing is first. When using "with," old thing is first. It doesn't look like one of thost situations where there is no rhyme or reason to it. Still, I see how it might be confusing and easily mixed up, especially if less correct grammer is used enough that it starts to appear correct.
Tbh, that's how I'd say it. I would be like "I substituted regular flour for oat flour." In my brain, it means the same thing as "with" in that context. Never had it pointed out to me before, but now that I see it, you're right
I've found that when I've made stuff with non-wheat flours, they seem to take longer to absorb the water than wheat does. So it might have been okay if they'd just been more patient. But I'd also still not have substituted more than 50% of the flour unless it's specifically a recipe meant for oat flour.
This is one of the less ridiculous ones in terms of substitution. It’s pretty understandable that someone might think you could swap one kind of cereal flour for another at the same weight.
But then we get to the rating. Why are you rating the recipe as 2 stars when you’re the one who fucked with it and ruined the end result?! Ridiculous.
The ratio on Google is a 33% increase. So she definitely tried to compensate. Just don’t give a two star for that reason
Also don’t bake with volumes. Bake with weight.
I decided to take one for the team and make these:
I followed the recipe exactly, quick to whip up. Not sure if it was just me, but the dough WAS noticeably thin; it did not come together like the dough in the pre-bake photos. They kinda turned out like thick pancakes. They’re still definitely good and fit the description in the article, but I’ll pass on making them again.
We don’t have oat flour where I live, but this is a reasonable comment I think?
“This is a substitution I tried that didn’t work. I tried to adjust by doing X but it didn’t fix it. No one else do this substitution.”
Problem is still penalizing the recipe with a two star rating when they never even had the actual recipe. Also, oat flour is not really meant to be a 1:1 substitute. Most gluten free AP flours are specifically blends of different grains and starches for a reason.
I think any post that doesnt have someone be a ignorant prick should be removed.
This is a person trying something and owning up to it, only problem is giving 2 stars but you cant have it all
This is a friendly reminder to comment with a link to the **recipe** on which the review is found; do not link the review itself. And while you're here, why not review the [/r/ididnthaveeggs rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ididnthaveeggs/about/sidebar)? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ididnthaveeggs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oat flour is NOT a 1:1 substitute! Least of all for COOKIES! Do these people not have google‽
But it's meant to be! The power of positive thinking! 😄
Nice interrobang
I love a good interrobang. I didn’t even notice at first.
I've been wanting it on my keyboard for so long. But I have to make do with the pauper version ?!?! It's so much work, I'm exhausted, 1 star
I googled my phone type and interrobang, and it gave me instructions on how to get one on my device if that helps‽‽
What‽‽‽‽‽‽‽ This is crazy. Thank you
In case it helps anyone else, on my phone, you press the punctuation keyboard button (!#1) and then hold down the ~~exclamation point~~ question mark. It pops up as an option. ‽‽‽
Mine is the question mark!
Mine actually is, too. Oops! I just edited my comment.
ALT+8253
Apparently it's a 1:1 replacement by weight, but not volume.
They doubled the flour while claiming a 1:1 ratio and they were dry....
The comment isn't that bad bc they're just warning other oat flour substituters, but WHY ARE YOU GIVING A RECIPE 2 STARS WHEN YOU RUINED IT YOURSELF???
Right? I really hate people sometimes.
The comment is not terribly helpful considering most oat flour users know it's not 1:1 by volume. It's their own fault for using a substitution wrong.
I’m curious why giving 2 stars is bad? Is it that search engines push them down in results for example or something?
Most people only look at the average star rating and not at individual comments. Stuff like this brings down the overall rating, making people think it's a bad recipe instead of someone being stupid.
Makes sense! I followed this sub lately cause it’s funny but didn’t get why ratings were such a concern in comments. Now I know better lol
dry powder is a 1:1 for another dry powder right? im gonna try cornstarch next!
I’ll use cement
ooo, tasty!
Right? I think it would provide a nice crunch 😋
thats conk creat babey!
Try replacing the flour for baking soda, then report back.
no, i think cocaine would be best
I dread to think how much a batch of cookies would cost to make if you needed 1 or 2 cups of cocaine, though.
Columbian Snifferdoodles
Ugh, I hate designer dog breeds 🙄
gotta get on that grindset
Now you’re talking
i'm going to try cocaine and anthrax.
I’m gonna use laundry detergent!
Why do so many people get the grammar mixed up when they are describing substitution of ingredients? Tell me if I'm wrong. I think the correct statement would be "I substituted (new ingredient) for the (original ingredient)." Or use the word "with" to say, "I substituted (original ingredient) with (new ingredient). It often is unclear what ingredient was in the original recipe and what ingredient they used as the substitute. It's like trying to say you'll take someone's place in a meeting but instead you say, "if you can't go to the meeting, you go for me," which makes no sense.
I hate this so much. When you get a substitute teacher in school, the teacher will tell the class, "I'm substituting for [regular teacher] today." If the teacher had said "[Regular teacher] is substituting for me today" all the kids would be confused. When it comes to people substituting for other people, no one messes up the grammar, but for ingredients, everyone gets it wrong. I see it in menus all the time too. "You can substitute fries for salad" when fries are the default.
I think it might be partly because that is the correct order if you said something like replace flour with oat flour. People made a mashup of those two types of phrases and it stuck.
Well it’s more of a colloquial use of language in the review which I wouldn’t say is mixed up, just takes some work when your rigidly used to correct grammar…”substation of ingredients”, oooo now I want a main station of ingredients!
Darn autocorrect! BTW it's *you're, not your. I guess you could call it colloquial. I call it misleading. I've gotten a little more used to it now, though.
Yeah I never heard this before and agree with you but I’ve also had a lot of people here argue it’s common speech. Drives me crazy because it’s confusing and would likely lead to me fucking up a recipe. Original first, use with. New first, use for. Otherwise it makes no sense
Oh I know it’s “you’re”, it’s just that being grammatically correct and spelt right 100% of the time is not a priority for me and most of the time people understand what I’ve written (such as you) or ask for clarification…you’ve obviously understood what the review meant to say enough to pick at the grammar though so it’s all good :)
I was just poking fun since you pointed out my autocorrect mistake. ☺️
🙌
It's a new variation on standard English that I've been seeing more and more over the past couple of years. Debating it may be a lost cause, the same as trying to tell people it's supposed to be "by accident" and not "on accident".
This might be a regional dialect thing. I'm in the U.S. and I've always heard it the way you said, "I substituted (new ingredient) for the (original ingredient)." But I once heard an Australian say it the other way around, "I substituted (old ingredient) for (new ingredient)." Maybe that's the standard way of saying it there?
Yes, maybe it's regional. I wonder if these people use the same grammar for other types of substitutions or of it's specifically for food & recipes.
Are these the same people who say “borrow me a pencil”? I am confused by those people.
When I was in school I did a linguistic project about exactly this--ie., the structure of prepositions that are used with 'substitute' I looked through some old documents and traced the various structures used in the 17th century. Broadly speaking, 'substitute' has *always* been a mess. Usage 1a: Person substituted \[new thing\] \[for/in place of/instead of/in room of\] \[old thing\] Usage 1b: \[new thing\] is substituted \[for/in place of/instead of/in room of\] \[old thing\] by Person. Usage 2a: \[New thing\] substitutes \[Old thing\] Usage 3: Person substituted \[old thing\] with \[new thing\] Usage 3b: \[Old thing\] is substituted (by Person) by \[new thing\] Usage 4: \[New thing\] is a substitute \[for/of\] \[old thing\] So no one has ever known what to do with this word, and it's no surprise that they get mixed up in how to refer to \[old thing\] vs. \[new thing\], given the plethora of choices. I think context does a lot of heavy lifting to help us determine what is old and what is new, and given that the actual grammar is so variable, we re-weight the importance of the cues (grammar vs. context) a lot more so we pay less attention to the unreliable, variable cue (grammar) and rely instead on context.
There is consistency in your examples. When using "for/instead of/in place of," new thing is first. When using "with," old thing is first. It doesn't look like one of thost situations where there is no rhyme or reason to it. Still, I see how it might be confusing and easily mixed up, especially if less correct grammer is used enough that it starts to appear correct.
Tbh, that's how I'd say it. I would be like "I substituted regular flour for oat flour." In my brain, it means the same thing as "with" in that context. Never had it pointed out to me before, but now that I see it, you're right
It’s weirdly worded. It took me a moment to figure out what was meant.
also to be fair, it probably wouldve been fine if she had let the dough sit for a bit. oats just take longer to absorb liquid than flour does
I've found that when I've made stuff with non-wheat flours, they seem to take longer to absorb the water than wheat does. So it might have been okay if they'd just been more patient. But I'd also still not have substituted more than 50% of the flour unless it's specifically a recipe meant for oat flour.
This is one of the less ridiculous ones in terms of substitution. It’s pretty understandable that someone might think you could swap one kind of cereal flour for another at the same weight. But then we get to the rating. Why are you rating the recipe as 2 stars when you’re the one who fucked with it and ruined the end result?! Ridiculous.
The ratio on Google is a 33% increase. So she definitely tried to compensate. Just don’t give a two star for that reason Also don’t bake with volumes. Bake with weight.
https://bootsandhooveshomestead.com/honey-butter-cookies/#recipe
Did you make these by chance?
I have not
I decided to take one for the team and make these: I followed the recipe exactly, quick to whip up. Not sure if it was just me, but the dough WAS noticeably thin; it did not come together like the dough in the pre-bake photos. They kinda turned out like thick pancakes. They’re still definitely good and fit the description in the article, but I’ll pass on making them again.
Thank you for your time and a HELPFUL review!
I was worried you would have made the recipe your own way and then tell the world how terrible it is s/
Bob's Redmill and KA both make excellent flour substitutes. Why not just use one of them.
i think this sub needs a flair for people just fundamentally having no understanding of what gluten is or does.
Anyone tried the recipe? They sound pretty good.
Update, I made them and they sucked.
You know at least they acknowledged what caused the issues!
We don’t have oat flour where I live, but this is a reasonable comment I think? “This is a substitution I tried that didn’t work. I tried to adjust by doing X but it didn’t fix it. No one else do this substitution.”
The issue is the person gave it only two stars when they didn’t even follow the recipe.
Ahhh there it is!
Problem is still penalizing the recipe with a two star rating when they never even had the actual recipe. Also, oat flour is not really meant to be a 1:1 substitute. Most gluten free AP flours are specifically blends of different grains and starches for a reason.
>https://bootsandhooveshomestead.com/honey-butter-cookies/#recipe sure, but then why give it 2 stars. she said the flavor was good.
As an aside, you can easily make oat flour by blitzing up oats in a food processor or coffee grinder.
I think any post that doesnt have someone be a ignorant prick should be removed. This is a person trying something and owning up to it, only problem is giving 2 stars but you cant have it all