How to Remove Waffle From Your Writing

Most writers know when something is too long. The feeling arrives somewhere around the third paragraph — the nagging sense that you have said the same thing twice already, dressed it in different words, and your reader noticed.

Waffle is not a mystery. It has specific, identifiable causes, and once you know what to look for, cutting it becomes almost mechanical. Here are the five patterns that account for the vast majority of bloated professional writing.

1. Filler phrases that carry no meaning

These are the verbal tics of written English. They do not add information; they delay it.

Common offenders:

• "It is worth noting that..."
• "As previously mentioned..."
• "In order to..."
• "The fact that..."
• "It goes without saying that..."

If something goes without saying, do not say it. If it is worth noting, note it — do not announce that you are about to note it.

Before: "It is worth noting that the deadline has been moved forward."

After: "The deadline has been moved forward."

The revised version says the same thing in eight fewer words. Multiply that across a 500-word email and you have cut 16% before changing a single idea.

2. Passive voice where active would do

Passive voice is not always wrong. Scientists use it deliberately to depersonalise findings. Legal writers use it to distribute responsibility. But in most professional communication, passive voice adds length and reduces clarity.

Before: "The report was reviewed by the team and a number of issues were identified."

After: "The team reviewed the report and found several issues."

The active version is shorter and clearer about who did what. That matters in business writing, where accountability is usually the point.

A quick test: if you can add "by zombies" to your verb phrase and it still makes grammatical sense, the sentence is passive.

"The report was reviewed by zombies." — passive.

"The team reviewed the report." — active, and immune to zombies.

3. Corporate jargon replacing plain words

Jargon is waffle with ambition. It sounds authoritative whilst saying less than plain English would.

Common substitutions:

• "leverage" instead of "use"
• "facilitate" instead of "help" or "run"
• "utilise" instead of "use"
• "synergise" instead of "work together"
• "going forward" instead of "from now on" or "next"
• "bandwidth" instead of "time" or "capacity"

Before: "We need to leverage our existing infrastructure to facilitate a more streamlined onboarding experience going forward."

After: "We should use our current systems to make onboarding simpler."

The revised version loses 12 words and gains clarity. No one reading it has to translate it first.

If you find yourself writing a word because it sounds serious rather than because it is the right word, replace it.

4. Hedging phrases that undermine your point

Hedging has its place. When you genuinely are uncertain, say so. But habitual hedging — padding every claim with qualifications — weakens writing and erodes reader trust.

Before: "It could perhaps be argued that this approach might, in certain circumstances, lead to somewhat improved results."

After: "This approach tends to improve results."

Or, if you are genuinely uncertain: "This approach may improve results — we will know more after the pilot."

The difference is intentionality. Hedging on purpose (because you are uncertain) is good writing. Hedging by habit (because you are nervous about committing to a position) is waffle.

Common hedges to scrutinise:

• "could potentially"
• "seems to suggest"
• "in many cases"
• "somewhat"
• "arguably"
• "it might be said that"

When you write these, ask: do I actually mean this, or am I softening a point I believe?

5. Redundant qualifiers and double adjectives

English is full of phrases where one word already contains the meaning of the other.

Common redundancies:

• "end result" (a result is an end)
• "future plans" (plans are future)
• "past history" (history is past)
• "added bonus" (a bonus is additional)
• "completely finished" (finished is complete)
• "brief summary" (a summary is brief)
• "unexpected surprise" (surprises are unexpected)

Each of these is one word longer than it needs to be. Individually, that seems trivial. Collectively, across a document, the redundancies compound.

Before: "The end result of the pilot project was a completely unexpected surprise that exceeded our future projections."

After: "The pilot exceeded our projections."

That is a reduction from 19 words to five — and the five-word version is stronger.

---

The faster method

Reading back through your own writing and catching these patterns takes practice and time. The better shortcut: paste your text into waffled and get a cleaner version in seconds.

Waffled strips filler phrases, tightens passive constructions, and flags redundancy automatically. You keep every idea — you just lose the bulk around it. Two free uses per day, no account required.

The goal is not minimalism for its own sake. It is writing that respects your reader's time. That is always worth the effort.