![]() ![]() They can make a complicated system but not a simple one? This is not the company that would not be expected to have the skills at its disposal to make something as simple as a half way decent spelling correction tool. The solutions might not be transferable but much of the knowledge should be. This is an area where they should have refined skills. But the point is, the one they have that is local is extremely poor as local spelling correction goes (the checking is not as bad but this is something extremely easy to implement as its a 1 to 1 check of does this word exist in my sorted dictionary using binary lookup). I am aware that it most likely can't be local in its entirety. ![]() This isn't really a platform issue in the sense that a smaller platform should perform as well as a horrendously large platform but that the smaller platform performs worse than other smaller platforms where all the work is done for them (free open source dictionaries and libraries) while they can somehow get a horrendously large platform to work extremely well with all the complexities that entails. I know many of these people compare Google's online checker to Chrome's but if you compare to firefox you will see that it gets many of these words that Chrome doesn't. What the web has to say about the spelling corrector: I don't understand this because many of the words it fails to lookup could found with a basic phonetic index. I don't think it is worth having the feature beyond detecting a misspelt word, this is how I have been mostly using it for the last year. People have been having the same problems with it for years now that I have been having. A search of "chrome spell checking sucks" suggests not. ![]() Is there a possibility that there is something wrong with mine? It does not seem right that it should be this rubbish. This is funny as you would think search or lookup would be something Google specialises at. Whatever look up strategy chrome uses, it is woefully inaccurate. A 5-10% failure rate could be acceptable, but I am seeing way higher. Being in the context menu, this should be a tool of convenience but it is too inaccurate to perform this role. In most cases where there is a spelling mistake that is not a matter of a small number of letters being incorrect it fails almost every time, even on several variations of a misspelt word. Where it is genuinely a misspelling, it is often quicker to guess or brute force. The extra clicks required for your suggestion would make it quicker for me to correct my self. I use it more as a quick typo correction tool than to fix misspellings. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |