h a l f b a k e r y(Serving suggestion.)
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Hot or Not is a website that allows users to rate each other's attractiveness. (definition by Wikipedia, see link)
Example of Hot or Not website (see link)
Hot or Not Dictionary would rate deifinitions rather than pictures of people. But not in points. Just YES or NO.
If you UNDERSTAND
the definition, click YES. Otherwise click NO. Such a service would be a good way to check the quality of definitions and to find the words that are generally more understood than other words (so if we used these words which are understood by more people in definitions of other words, then those definitions of other words would become understandable for more people). It would have educational value. It could help to create easy definitions (could be discussion page for every definition), it would let reach ever better definitions, it would let "optimize" definitions to people, it would alow to know general opinion about truthness while there are so many different definitions in various dictionaries (see www.OneLook.com) - it's a waste of time to read all the definitions... etc.
The *rate* would provide the information, how many people have understood it and how many people haven't understood it.
I came up with this idea while reading Ray Cherry's part of Wikipedia article about Conceptionary:
"Further to this, a voting system for agreement with each definition may provide a filtering system for definitions based upon the 'level of agreement' with each supplied definition..." (see link)
Example of Hot or Not website
http://meetme.hotornot.com
"Meet me at Hot or Not" [Inyuki, Oct 04 2004]
(?) Wikipedia definition of Hot or Not
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot+or+Not
What is Hot or Not [Inyuki, Oct 04 2004]
Wikipedia: Conceptionary
http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Conceptionary
What is conceptionary [Inyuki, Oct 04 2004]
Urban Dictionary
http://www.urbandictionary.com/
[Fort]'s link. . . - A link by Letsbuildafort ... but it's not actually what the idea really is. [Inyuki, Oct 04 2004]
[link]
|
| |
The Urban Dictionary is an online dictionary that allows users to rate the definition and have a short discussion on the topic at hand ... see link |
|
| |
It's actually only rates, but doesn't say if the person does ir if s/he doesn't understand the definition: YES or NO?. The key difference between the way Meet me at Hot or Not system works... |
|
| |
The time, which took to give the answer also could be measured. It would provide additional valuable information about definition's difficulty. It would alow to estimate how much time would something take to understand(learn). |
|
| |
Fort, where is your link? |
|
| |
Many reference sites (IMDB, Wikipedia, etc) let users contribute information to the site. Many more sites (Slashdot, halfbakery, etc) allow users to rate the contributions by voting. |
|
| |
So you want to apply this to an online dictionary site. Is this really a new idea? |
|
| |
// Many reference sites (IMDB, Wikipedia, etc) let users contribute information to the site. Many more sites (Slashdot, halfbakery, etc) allow users to rate the contributions by voting. // |
|
| |
The reference sites presenting only some features of the "Hot or Not Dictionary". For example, "Hot or Not website" is easy to browse as browsing is automatized (you just press the button and another picture is displayed). Wikipedia I cite only to give a definition of the word "hot or not" (as maybe some of the non-native speakers may not know what does "hot or not" mean). I cite another page from Wikipedia only to show how I came up with this idea, but the site itself doesn't have anything to do with the essence of the idea. So, only the first site is really related to the idea. |
|
| |
Second, no of the reference sites does what "Hot or Not Dictionary" would do. They do not involve educational process: when a person is learning, s/he can tell if s/he understood it OR NOT. Actually this phenomenon of <i>understanding</i> is witnessed in various lectures, in classes, while reading books et cetera. However, eg., in lectures, when a lecturer is telling something to hundred of students, it's difficult to find out who <i>really</i> understood and who didn't... So, this is what the idea is also about. The "YES OR NO" (hot or not) page, just with a different content. |
|
| |
What difference does it make whether people 'like' a definition? The word means what it means. if people don't understand one they can look it up, if they care to know. |
|
| |
// a good way to check the quality of definitions. // |
|
| |
That's completely meaningless. You can't quantify it. |
|
| |
// What difference does it make whether people 'like' a definition? // |
|
| |
No difference. But it makes difference if they think they <i>understand</i> it. |
|
| |
[waugsqueke], what do you mean by "quantify"? What to quantify? What is the "it"? |
|
| |
Perhaps, if the votes reach some minimum negativity, the font size of that particular definition could be reduced, and then with more negative votes, it would be reduced even more, until eventually, the incomprehensible thing vanished from the dictionary altogether. In this way, those things below a certain level of incomprehensibility would not linger forever, teetering on the cusp of existence. Or not. |
|
| |
// can tell when you're baffled // [jutta] |
|
| |
Yes, some hot or nots have "skipp" button.. |
|
| |
// Can't we do more than push a button? // [jutta] |
|
| |
Yes, there could be more than just YES or NO. They could point the words in definition they don't understand, they could enter comments and so on before pressing the "YES" or the "NO". But people should still be able to view another definition with a press of one button. It could also include some other (eg. Vocabulary Highlighter-like) features which would be helpful for new language learning etc. |
|
| |
I like the witty pluterday's comment, thanks. |
|
| |
// What to quantify? What is the "it"? // |
|
| |
The quality of the definition. It's not like some definitions are of better quality than others. What does that mean? A definition is what it is. |
|
| |
My definitions are better than yours. |
|
| |
Oh no - this seems like you're suggesting that people's misapprehensions should be weighted against the literal meaning of a word. |
|
| |
"I typed in 'awesome' and it said something about inspiring or expressing awe. What the hell is that? Everyone knows it means 'really cool or excellent.' Come on everyone, let's tell this stupid dictionary to say what we know the word really means." |
|
| |