Binko wrote:But if you're writing a cookbook where such exact measurement are usually necessary (in baking), I think it's much more foolproof for the beginner (and expert alike, for that matter) to write your recipes such that measurements are made by weight, not by volume. There's just way too many factors involved in measuring baking ingredients accurately by volume, that it's so much easier to do it by weight. That's all.
Like you said, for most regular, non-baking recipes, you really need to screw up a measurement pretty badly for it not to work out. For baking, I wish more cookbooks would go by weight to avoid the sort of problems you mention.
For better or worse, Fannie Farmer set Americans cooking by volume. My guess is more than 90 percent of home cooks in this country don't even own a kitchen scale, and most of those who do acquired it because they went on a diet plan that called for weighing your food.
I own two, but I confess that they're more often used for weighing packages en route to the post office than for food. (And the one that gets used most often for kitchen duty is a balance scale that's probably less accurate than the digital scale, but the latter always seems to have dead batteries when I want it.)
While measuring by weight is common in other countries, it's commonly thought that the average American home cook would find directions for weighing flour and sugar and dealing with tare weights intimidating. You're likely to see measurement by weight only in cookbooks aimed at professionals or highly sophisticated cooks.
Even some things sold by weight are listed by volume in most published recipes. For example, you routinely see butter listed in amounts like "1/2 cup" rather than "1/4 pound."