Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Wavinator

Really, Google? Really?

20 posts in this topic

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...

 

[attachment=16654:GoogleDocsThief.png]

 

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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", ...).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

I bet there are higher ratios of illiterate people in the 1300 than it is now.

 

But, I didn't know there's already an Internet in the 1300s.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I bet there are higher ratios of illiterate people in the 1300 than it is now.

Given that a high literacy rate is one of the strongest indicators for negative population growth...

 

That may not be as safe a bet as you think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0