This question already has an answer here:
I had an editor who was very picky about the use of the adverb "also" used with the past tense of "to be." According to her, there was a difference between "was also" and "also was." For example: to say someone "was also" a high school teacher means he or she was a high school teacher in addition to being something else. As in, "The serial killer was also a high school teacher." Whereas, "also was" is the correct usage for saying someone shared an attribute with someone else, as in, "Andrew was a serial killer, and his sister Marie also was a serial killer."
But as anyone who's ever worked with more than one editor knows, they tend to be idiosyncratic, and all have their own little pet peeves. And they go on to become our pet peeves (one of my first editors took umbrage with "over" used to mean "more than" -- to this day I still feel a twinge when I see that usage).
I did some searches on usage of also and did not find any evidence to support her position -- but I know some of the fine points of English usage can be abstruse, so I decided to come here, where the grammar black belts congregate ;)
I read the post on "should also have named" "also should have named" with interest, and it sheds some light. But I'm not convinced this rule (if it really is a rule) applies to all verbs, let alone compound verbs.
Is some of this a matter of just avoiding awkward usages, even if they are technically correct -- or anyway, not blatantly grammatically incorrect?