h a l f b a k e r yOn the one hand, true. On the other hand, bollocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Ok, seeing as alot of people on here have a problem with people spelling improperly I'm thinking that a built-in spell checker on the Halfbakery site would be a damn good idea. Just a little button on the side that suggests corrections to your new idea or annotation. It couldn't be that hard to implement
could it? It would stop alot of arguments and unnecessary comments freeing up server space in the long run too.
End-user_20local_20...0editing#1033150289
[xaviergisz, Mar 08 2006]
There is no need to implement it
http://www.google.c...windows+spell+check
Take your pick [Ling, Mar 08 2006]
More specifically for within Internet Explorer
http://www.petri.co...ternet_explorer.htm
[Ling, Mar 08 2006]
IEspell
http://www.iespell.com/
This one works superbly, I use it often. [reensure, Mar 08 2006]
[link]
|
| |
*sigh*
// unnecessary comments // |
|
| |
That link doesn't really refer to this site. |
|
| |
The main problem is that this would increase the complexity of this elegantly simple site. |
|
| |
Any aspect of postings here is likely to be picked on - spelling, grammar, practicality, bakedness, correctness of information. Just take a few deep breaths, have a laugh to yourself at those bloody pedants with nothing better to do, and ignore it, make a witty comeback, or correct the mistake if you agree. |
|
| |
Unfortunately, making a fuss will just attract more of the same (which was kind of the point of my first anno). |
|
| |
It's never bothered me, why should it now? |
|
| |
If ti ain,t brake why fux it? |
|
| |
On the whole, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Then again, I installed 'Spellbound' for Firefox, a really nice, inobtrusive spell checker - you just right-click and choose Check Spelling - it's pretty good. |
|
| |
done to death several times over (sadly, I can't find any of the ideas). |
|
| |
Why not use a dictionary? |
|
| |
Alternatively, type the idea in Word first, spell check it, then paste into the halfbakery. |
|
| |
Edit fields should have a spell checker. Solve the damn problem once. |
|
| |
Funny though how Pavlovian the reaction is to this type of suggestion. |
|
| |
[halfbakery] looks like it is spelled right to me. |
|
| |
"Edit fields should have a spell checker. Solve the damn problem once." |
|
| |
True, but these are available as opt-in options for your browser. PLEASE don't encourage Microsoft to put one in the OS. (We had a pile of problems with a corporate trade entry system one time, because the screens were written in VB or maybe Access, and somehow a spell checker was activated with one release, and it would autocorrect security symbols to "real" words, completely bollixing things up.) |
|
| |
They could put one in the OS and let the user decide whether to use it or not. Removing or not implementing useful features because someone might use it badly isn't a great design philosophy. |
|
| |
" ... it is spelled right to me." |
|
| |
bris: I know you like to take the opposite tack to me, but sticking too many application features in the operating system is exactly what is wrong with Windows. |
|
| |
What, and spoil all our fun? |
|
| |
Is exactly what YOU THINK is wrong with Windows. I don't mean to automatically take the opposite tack but I do think that basic systems such as language handling should be a part of the OS as well as broad abilities to deal with file types (media players, etc). I think these kinds of things are fundamental and should just be built in. |
|
| |
I tend to bristle when folks aver personal opinion as fact. |
|
| |
If i can chip in, [bristolz], [DrCurry]... |
|
| |
You're right that these types of things of "build it in" sentiments have caused problems in Windows, but those are more due to problems with just how modular (or not) the architecture is. Building in spell checking into edits does not really have to mean that the EDIT window per say would have to have it in addition to MS Word, etc -- spell checking a string could simply be a low level OS function. |
|
| |
As to [bristolz]' point, surely you wouldn't expect every program to have it's own treatment of speech recognition. As an interface becomes common place, it's natural for it to migrate into the OS. |
|
| |
It's too much fun to point our spelling errors, and my own has improved as a consequence of haunting this site, so (-). |
|
| |
/ I tend to bristle when folks aver personal opinion / |
|
| |
In America, we spell it "offer". |
|
| |
"Offer" and "aver" have a significant amount of difference in emphasis. |
|
| |
Maybe we need a dictionary as well as a spell checker. |
|
| |
Idea alternators are the choice of engineers these days. |
|
| |
History will probably remember that Microsoft were responsible for standardiSing the english language throughout the world. But not in my life-time. |
|
| |
Eiter tat, or reely concentraite on what yor dong. |
|
| |
Elderly woman puts back of hand to her forehead, sways a little. |
|
| |
Pantograph arm shoots out of nearest wall, steadies her. |
|
| |
"Oh, dear, I must be having one of my spells - Fortunately, the Halfbakery Spell Checker prevented me from incurring a fall, and you know how at our age..." |
|
| |
So most of you are saying that you would rather bitch and whine and maybe even argue about something as stupid as a spelling mistake? Do you really think that correcting peoples spelling is fun? I can't see the fun in that. |
|
| |
The comment about using Word first is valid, but why use up more time and computing power just so that your idea can be spelt properly and be grammatically correct? In my opinion all computers run too many applications as it is already. |
|
| |
//It would stop alot of arguments and unnecessary comments freeing up server space in the long run too// Maybe a punctuation checker too? |
|
| |
I agree with the idea of spelling checks.
Automatic corections are somthing that Im not sure about becuase it could be sadi that an automatic corection reqiures knolwedge of what you realy meant. If so, the average readre could also undertsand it. Unless, of course, you wnated to sort out a few tpyos, or give a beter immpression. But under-linning a real error for manaul change would teach the user more sucessfuly. |
|
| |
Always remember - spelling chequers are knot infallible. |
|
| |
Perhaps a system similar to Multiply's could be used. There you can just submit a page as you do here, or you can preview it and run it through a spell checker. It doesn't help that the spell checker is woeful, but it's nice to have it as an option sometimes. |
|
| |
//So most of you are saying that you would rather bitch and whine and maybe even argue about something as stupid as a spelling mistake?// - Not really, but I would relish a good argument about whether it's worth whining about people who whine about spelling. |
|
| |
And we haven't even started on people who have issues with the complex manner in which sentences constructed sometimes are and whether about them we should be whining. |
|
| |
Aside from all the arguments about where, exactly, in the process the spell-checker should be located, I would suggest that it is good practice to type up your annos (particularly if they are lengthy ones) in some sort of text editor before posting them. There's nothing more annoying than writing up a really insightful and cleverly argued point (so I'm told) only to see it lost into the great void that is the connection drop-out. |
|
| |
Or to loose all credibillity through stupid typos. |
|
| |
//something as stupid as a spelling mistake// I agree, spelling mistakes are pretty stupid. |
|
| |
The old joke "if they have artificial intelligence, why not artificial stupidity?" is sort of back to front. Stupidity is highly desirable in computers. In the first instance, computers should (sorry [bristolz], in my opinion, computers should) take input literally and not change or otherwise second guess it. That's partly why I'm not in favour of preemptive spellcheckers. Especially in the hb, where deliberate misspellings, neologisms etc abound. |
|
| |
//Pavlovian// That rings a bell. |
|
| |
bristolz: a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since we last spoke, but, um, no, I am stating personal *experience* as fact, not an opinion. I think that's entirely fair. |
|
| |
You say potato and I say spud. It is your opinion (experience?) that putting too many application features in the OS is what is wrong with Windows. |
|
| |
Fine. My opinion is that OS features and application features regardless of where they live in the codebase should be presented to the user in a cohesive, consistent and useful manner. In fact, I see no advantage to exposing them as specifically application or OS features--I just want them to work. Since the OS is ubiquitously available, to me it makes sense to park things such as spell checking and other language services in the OS facilities rather than in individual applications. This approach seems to me to work well for OSX. |
|
| |
None of this is an excuse for poor design regardless of implementation details. |
|
| |
I'd like to see this, not as an option, but as a standard feature, as follows: |
|
| |
When you add an idea or annotation and hit OK, you are shown a preview page with an Edit and a Submit option. Craigslist has something like that. |
|
| |
Any words not familiar to the spelling library are just shown in a different color, but only on the preview page. This gives the poster a chance to correct spelling mistakes. |
|
| |
A preview page wouldn't just be useful for spell checking. It would be great for careless people like me who tend to keep making incremental corrections. |
|
| |
Once again, browser choice comes into play - I hate to be a Mozilla bore, but Firefox 2 has built-in spell checking as standard now, and, from what I heard somewhere, so does the new IE. |
|
| |
Thank you. I updated my Firefox and this is great. I still think a preview might not be a bad idea. |
|
| |
(somebody once sent this to me on myspace) |
|
| |
i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. |
|
| |
The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! |
|
| |
But it dseno't gvie poelpe an ecuxse to be lzay fcrkeus. |
|
| |
It's spelled "monkey" not "munky" |
|
| |