Ridiculous Words Lacking from the Google Chrome Dictionary
-
It seems to be my wont in life to be forever using archaic word forms.
-
Hypervisor and the plural hypervisors.
-
How about miscommunicating.
-
Should you send your list to Google?
-
@nadnerB said:
Should you send your list to Google?
One would assume that Chrome would send back all local additions to the spell check list and eventually Google algorithms would update all users after a threshold of some type.
-
@JaredBusch Hopefully they do that, but it seems that if they were doing that they would have a lot more common words all ready.
-
http://i.imgur.com/3uo7aXg.jpg
really? walkable?
-
Wow, that's a big one to have missed.
-
And today: curation
Really? How is curation not in there?
-
@JaredBusch Ya know... for a half minute I thought your were picking on my ability to articulate the English language.... I HAD to GOOGLE walkable to see if I had indeed not created some atrocious word hack.
Alas - walkable is a word...
-
Walkable is a very common word, in fact.
-
Aggregator...
-
What I don't get is why the spell checkers don't tap into the power of google. for example sometimes I may misspell a work, chrome (and other apps) won't have a suggestion, yet if I type it into google it will have the "Showing results for:" with the correct spelling.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
What I don't get is why the spell checkers don't tap into the power of google. for example sometimes I may misspell a work, chrome (and other apps) won't have a suggestion, yet if I type it into google it will have the "Showing results for:" with the correct spelling.
No API for it?
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
What I don't get is why the spell checkers don't tap into the power of google. for example sometimes I may misspell a work, chrome (and other apps) won't have a suggestion, yet if I type it into google it will have the "Showing results for:" with the correct spelling.
Especially Chrome!!
-
For the amount of Google in Chrome, it seems to have missed key cloudiness and connectivity to make it more useful/accurate
-
That's got to be a challenge, though, as the average use on the Internet is incorrect and you would not want it creeping into the spellchecker. All kinds of bad drift in the language would happen. You don't want students failing school because the Google spellchecker has decided that the rantings of the uneducated masses outrank dictionary spellings.
There are other arguments for dictionary versus common spellings to be made, but in the case of the former you want a spellchecker, in the latter case you don't care.
-
Word building follows rules and certain structures. Surely they could program something to follow the rules and create every possible combination of words that are current/past.
-
@nadnerB said:
Word building follows rules and certain structures. Surely they could program something to follow the rules and create every possible combination of words that are current/past.
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the spellchecker? You'd get every option for every word, which is not what people want. They want a subset of spellings considered "correct" for their own usage. Not past spellings or words spelled on rules.
-
Nope, not if you add some kind of contextual awareness, a bit of NSA and a few priacy policies.
...
Yeah, it might not be as awesome as described, but your milage may vary
