Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Really, Google? Really?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
21 replies to this topic

#1 Wavinator   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1770

Posted 05 July 2013 - 01:51 AM

You know, I heard that evils like texting, social media and the nefarious autocorrect were dumbing down civilization and contributing to the inevitable day when robot overlords rule us all, but I didn't believe it until I saw it for myself...

 

GoogleDocsThief.png

 

And to think Google, of all noble organizations, is involved. For shame!


--------------------Just waiting for the mothership...

Sponsor:

#2 Dragonsoulj   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2111

Posted 05 July 2013 - 02:12 AM

Are you sure that's Google's spellcheck and not your browser's? Potentially accepting a typo as correct?



#3 Orangeatang   Members   -  Reputation: 1501

Posted 05 July 2013 - 02:14 AM

Are you sure that's Google's spellcheck and not your browser's? Potentially accepting a typo as correct?

That looks like Chrome to me, so either way it's Google.



#4 frob   Moderators   -  Reputation: 21322

Posted 05 July 2013 - 02:14 AM

It is a stupid thing or a brilliant thing, depending on how it hits you. They pull common spellings (or in this case misspellings) from the web to feed their dictionary so they don't need to buy static word lists from everybody in every language. It is either bad (you get misspellings) or good (you get new slang added instantly). Or maybe both are bad.

It's like autocomplete, only as a spell check.
Check out my personal indie blog at bryanwagstaff.com.

#5 Stormynature   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3341

Posted 05 July 2013 - 03:05 AM

I can't but feel this should have been Rogue Vs Rouge



#6 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4783

Posted 05 July 2013 - 04:41 AM

It is a stupid thing or a brilliant thing, depending on how it hits you. They pull common spellings (or in this case misspellings) from the web to feed their dictionary so they don't need to buy static word lists from everybody in every language. It is either bad (you get misspellings) or good (you get new slang added instantly). Or maybe both are bad.

It's like autocomplete, only as a spell check.

 

I wonder if that creates a negative feedback loop. People already can't spel, and they're supported by a spelcheker that does even worse. So they spel more bad on their webseites which feeds the spelcheker.

 

Oh darn...



#7 Orymus3   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 9041

Posted 05 July 2013 - 06:37 AM

Possibly, you've made that spelling mistake more than once and have changed its dictionary? :P



#8 swiftcoder   Senior Moderators   -  Reputation: 9996

Posted 05 July 2013 - 06:42 AM

Possibly, you've made that spelling mistake more than once and have changed its dictionary? tongue.png

This happens to me all the time on iOS. If you accidentally override the spellcheck when it tries to correct you, it seems to automatically learns the word you were typing...


Tristam MacDonald - Software Engineer @Amazon - [swiftcoding]


#9 BGB   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1554

Posted 05 July 2013 - 08:41 AM

hmm maybe...

"teh internets be teh new authorety 4 spelin!"

soon enough it starts auto-correcting things to "kewl" and "dewd" and "leet"... (or maybe "k3wl", "d3wd", "l33t", ...).



#10 Wavinator   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1770

Posted 05 July 2013 - 12:11 PM


It is a stupid thing or a brilliant thing, depending on how it hits you.

 

Wow. Just wow. I had no idea that it worked like that. So rather than pulling the culture up to a higher standard, which is what references are supposed to do, they're helping to facilitate entropy. Welp, idiocracy, here we come!


--------------------Just waiting for the mothership...

#11 Casey Hardman   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2208

Posted 05 July 2013 - 12:48 PM

Funny...Chrome is putting a red squiggly line under "theif" when I type it, but when I Google "define:theif" it gives me the definition of it and links to a page on Wikipedia titled "Theif".

Urban dictionary even has a page for "theif", claiming it's often used in past tense (which is untrue, because the true spelling, 'thief', is a noun...)



#12 Cromulent   Members   -  Reputation: 383

Posted 07 July 2013 - 08:38 AM

Funny...Chrome is putting a red squiggly line under "theif" when I type it, but when I Google "define:theif" it gives me the definition of it and links to a page on Wikipedia titled "Theif".

Urban dictionary even has a page for "theif", claiming it's often used in past tense (which is untrue, because the true spelling, 'thief', is a noun...)

 

It's not as bad a mistake as it looks. Theif was the old spelling according to the complete Oxford English dictionary. So yes, it is incorrect in modern usage, but that spelling did exist in the past and was used.



#13 Dragonsoulj   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2111

Posted 07 July 2013 - 05:27 PM

Firefox has various dictionaries. I know I had to change mine from British to American.



#14 cowsarenotevil   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2044

Posted 07 July 2013 - 07:46 PM

Funny...Chrome is putting a red squiggly line under "theif" when I type it, but when I Google "define:theif" it gives me the definition of it and links to a page on Wikipedia titled "Theif".

Urban dictionary even has a page for "theif", claiming it's often used in past tense (which is untrue, because the true spelling, 'thief', is a noun...)

 

Actually, I believe that "theif" is generally a synonym for "theft," (the act) not "thief" (the person) when it is used (very rarely) in modern English.


-~-The Cow of Darkness-~-

#15 Cornstalks   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6990

Posted 07 July 2013 - 08:04 PM

Actually, I believe that "theif" is generally a synonym for "theft," (the act) not "thief" (the person) when it is used (very rarely) in modern English.

Oxford Dictionaries shows nothing for "theif" in US English.


[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]

#16 dave j   Members   -  Reputation: 592

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:08 AM

Oxford Dictionaries shows nothing for "theif" in US English.


The full Oxford Dictionary has "theif" as an obsolete alternate spelling of "thief". Although the only quote it has for that spelling is from about 1300.

#17 Luckless   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1800

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:15 AM

 

Actually, I believe that "theif" is generally a synonym for "theft," (the act) not "thief" (the person) when it is used (very rarely) in modern English.

Oxford Dictionaries shows nothing for "theif" in US English.

 

 

Do keep in mind that there is a HUGE difference between Oxford Dictionaries, and the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED's goal is a complete history of the English language, while the smaller Oxford dictionaries are meant to only provide a reference for the language in its more current usage. Stuff comes and goes from one, while everything stays in the other.


Old Username: Talroth
If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong.

#18 Cromulent   Members   -  Reputation: 383

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:43 AM

 

 

Actually, I believe that "theif" is generally a synonym for "theft," (the act) not "thief" (the person) when it is used (very rarely) in modern English.

Oxford Dictionaries shows nothing for "theif" in US English.

 

 

Do keep in mind that there is a HUGE difference between Oxford Dictionaries, and the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED's goal is a complete history of the English language, while the smaller Oxford dictionaries are meant to only provide a reference for the language in its more current usage. Stuff comes and goes from one, while everything stays in the other.

 

Which is why the full Oxford English Dictionary was the best Christmas present I've ever received :). It is truly awesome in its completeness.



#19 Cornstalks   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6990

Posted 08 July 2013 - 11:07 AM

Do keep in mind that there is a HUGE difference between Oxford Dictionaries, and the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED's goal is a complete history of the English language, while the smaller Oxford dictionaries are meant to only provide a reference for the language in its more current usage. Stuff comes and goes from one, while everything stays in the other.

If you read cowsarenotevil's post, it suggests that it's still used (albeit rarely) in modern English. Its lack of entry in the Oxford Dictionaries suggests it's not a part of modern English (not to say it wasn't part of Old English).


[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]

#20 AaronWizardstar   Members   -  Reputation: 244

Posted 08 July 2013 - 04:59 PM

Didn't English spelling kind of morph like this anyway before the invention of dictionaries?

 

With that perspective, it's like Google is taking spelling back in a way. tongue.png






Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS