Slashdot Mirror
Google Launches Dictionary, Drops Answers.com
ObsessiveMathsFreak writes "Google has expanded its remit once again with the quiet launch of Google Dictionary. Google word search definitions now redirect to Google Dictionary instead of to Google's long term thesaurus goto site, Answers.com, which is expected to take a serious hit in traffic as a result. Dictionary pages are noticeably more plain and faster loading than their Answers.com equivalents, and unusually feature web citations for the definitions of each word. This means that, unlike most dictionaries, Google considers ginormous a word."
Now we don't have to deal with M-W terrible website layout, popups, etc.
Urban Dictionary is a funny case, because while it's often very useful, there's so much crap there that it takes a lot of wading and a certain amount of judgment to find the info you're looking for. Given the extent to which a lot of the crap (and info) is pretty er, profane, I'm not sure it's the best target for automatic usage by people that don't know what they're getting into...
We live, as we dream -- alone....
It is moderated.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
"very unhappy"?
Really?
Do you realize you can still use it?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I've used onelook.com for a while, which is another aggregator that (for now) seems to have more links than Google Dictionary does.
But Google Dictionary isn't just an aggregator, they provide their own pronunciations for some words (a really important feature IMHO), and a list of synonyms for some words.
I actually hope that onelook links to Google Dictionary, as strange as an aggregator-linking-to-aggregator might be.
My guess is that Google has been working on computational linguistics for such a long time (stemming has been important for search for a while, and Google lately has started throwing in synonyms to the search results) that it's natural for Google to start exposing some of their internal dataset to the world more directly.
Oh great, and slashdot craps all over the google link, presumably because of the pipe character.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Reach for the tinfoil hat indeed...
The reason they come out with new dictionary versions every year is that new words are added to the dictionary, and sometimes old words are removed, or have their definitions changed. I don't see any reason that online shouldn't also follow this trend, but the advantage to an online format is that the change can happen relatively quickly, once it's accepted by the editor, whereas some people still use decades-old versions of the printed dictionary and don't see a reason to buy a new copy every couple of years.
And there are some *print* dictionaries that include "ginormous" in the list of words. Language, by definition, is fluid. It changes over time, and the dictionary needs to change with it. "Ginormous" is a word that has made it into the popular vernacular, and it has a generally accepted meaning as a portmanteau of the words "giant" and "enormous". As such, it belongs in the dictionary, and it's only a matter of time before the remaining editions of the dictionary add the word. A language isn't defined by the dictionary, but rather, the dictionary is defined by the language. (it's already in the Oxford English Dictionary as well as the Collins Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster.)
Obligatory disclaimer: One of my two major fields of study in my undergrad was applied linguistics.
I tested it's translations in all the different languages and it performed fine by my standard except for ASL for obvious reason's.
Based on this sample of English, presumably your native language, I'm going to have to take your opinions on accurate translations with a grain of salt. Actually, make that a crystal of halite. Several kilogram sample.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The problem with Urban Dictionary is it's filled with crappy non-objective/crackpot definitions: opinions about words, not accurate well-written definitions, and contains definitions that reinforce many common misconceptions,
Example #1: Sugar High
Example #2: Boogeyman The scary monster man that gets little kids at night, usually found under the bed or in a dark closet.. Little eric got eaten by the boogeyman when he didn't say his prayer last night.
Example #3: Linux
Example #4: Windows A piece of glass you can open when it gets too hot outside. Come on people
Of course. But Google is my default search engine. And the direct link to the word definition from search results is what I normally use. My point is, google has unlinked answers.com to provide an inferior service themselves. What exactly is the point?
It makes sense that Google wants to do this, and Google generally do good stuff ... but I'm really slowly just starting to feel a bit like, 'OK Google, enough, you don't have to be part of *everything* I try do in life'. Am not saying they've done anything wrong; maybe there really is just a tendency for people to not like one company to get too big.
I've people use it in speech and writing and others generally know what it means, then it's a word. I think even the people who work on the OED have said that dictionaries are descriptive, no prescriptive. The intention is to maintain a catalog of words that are commonly accepted and in use, not to tell you which words are acceptable. Oxford is not the Academie Francaise.
All words are made-up words. There are words that I don't like and words that I think are stupid, and plenty of new words that I hope don't continue to be used. Unfortunately, they're still words.
Did they come up with their own definitions for all these words? Did they "scrape" someone else's dictionary? Or pay someone for their content?
So I played with the dictionary. Not bad. I like the multiple definitions, and possible links to chase down.
But what I *really* want is a 'distinctive thesaurus' -- a dictionary that distinguishes between synonyms so that you can get closer to the perfect word.
As an example,
Consider the differences between
Irony
Sarcasm
Sardony (Ok sardonic)
Facetiousness
All of them involve some degree of humour by stating things as they aren't.
If I look up sarcasm on thesaurus.com I get a longer list, yielding words that range from near to distant in their connotations.
acrimony, aspersion, banter, bitterness, burlesque, causticness, censure, comeback, contempt, corrosiveness, criticism, cut*, cynicism, derision, dig*, disparagement, flouting, invective, irony, lampooning, mockery, mordancy, put-down, raillery, rancor, ridicule, satire, scoffing, scorn, sharpness, sneering, superciliousness, wisecrack.
Yes creating my own distinctions is possible. So is writing my own definition possible. But trying to define a word from my own experience with a word is hard, and frought with potential pitfalls where my mental model of the word world is defective, so even harder is it to define the differences between closely allied words.
Anybody know of an online thesaurus that distinguishes between synonyms?
My own crack at the above four.
Irony applies to both statements and description. In events has a perverseness to it, poetic justice. In statements it has has less connotation of derision and mocking.
Sardony has a bitter, derisive quality to it. The object of sardony is most often the speaker, less often the world generally. Self-deprecating on steroids.
Sarcasm is a contrary statement intended to hurt someone else, to express contempt.
Facetiousness is similar to sarcasm, but humour is it's main goal. There is no intent to hurt.
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.