61–70 of 72 posts
i can't help but wonder, if anyone else except from me was using it for at least last few weeks? otherwise, it means i had breaking news at hands without realizing it :(
Maybe this is just the power of marketing? I imagine usage was fairly low before people started talking about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good encyclopedias are written by large numbers of individual contributors with expertise in specialized fields, who barely get paid for their efforts, most of the money from encyclopedias going to pay for the organization, compilation, editing, etc. It turns out that the latter can now be much more effectively decentralized than ever before, and contributors no longer need to be explicitly recruited. (which is certa…
It depends on how we're [re]defining "dictionary." A dictionary has the potential to be a set of pairs of words, and any of the following: 1. how the word is used, 2. what the consensus is on how the word is used, 3. what the consensus is on how we 'should' use the word, 4. what the consensus of people who are, by consensus, considered "experienced lexicographers", is, on how the word is used, 5. and what the consens…
I think they should do that, though.
For some test English words, it doesn't look any better than Wiktionary: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pants http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ostensibly http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&... http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&... As a plus, Wiktionary lets you download their data :). If Google opens this up, then it could get pretty interesting
I'm learning Dutch, and it's even worse. Really basic, commonly used words aren't there. Good dictionaries are hard to build. At the same time, the web isn't constrained by space the same way a physical book is, which means that a result should have even more information. You shouldn't accept an online dictionary that gives you only one simple usage of a word. A good dictionary will list the short & sweet definition,…
Van Dale gives you this: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/381493/van_dale_slim.jpeg
Good dictionaries are hand-compiled by experienced lexicographers. Not Google's strength, to put it mildly. What Google would be extremely good at is creating corpora for all these languages. An example of an excellent Spanish corpus is the following: http://www.corpusdelespanol.org/x.asp
A gringo collecting words for an "Espanol" dictionary. Hilarious.
I tried "the" first, and then "friend". It looks like it's generated from statistics plus a language model plus the contents of the web (possibly and/or google books). If that's the goal it looks like they're doing some great work. If being a dictionary is the goal it looks like there are currently better solutions. However a) give it a few years and b) if they're able to extract that amount of information from their…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on how we're [re]defining "dictionary." A dictionary has the potential to be a set of pairs of words, and any of the following: 1. how the word is used, 2. what the consensus is on how the word is used, 3. what the consensus is on how we 'should' use the word, 4. what the consensus of people who are, by consensus, considered "experienced lexicographers", is, on how the word is used, 5. and what the consens…
I don't see how Google does that. I see Google collecting online all the online dictionaries they can find, and uniting them under a single interface, but I haven't found any dictionaries where they have contributed content. I think they should do that, though.
I've always typed "define: ", but this seems to be superior.
It would be nice if there were a way to get straight to it from a regular search though. It is still more convenient for me (in Firefox) to hit Command+k and type "define:". Also, it'd be nice if Google could just read my mind instead of me having to laboriously type in search queries.
2. right-click on the search box, select "add a keyword for this search"
3. for "keyword: " type "def" , for "name: " type "Google Dictionary Search"
Now in your address bar, type "def uniquity"
While you're at it, replace all your search engines with this method and remove your search box. optional: install tiny-menu, move everything from your navigation-toolbar to your top toolbar, hide navigation-bar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be nice if there were a way to get straight to it from a regular search though. It is still more convenient for me (in Firefox) to hit Command+k and type "define:". Also, it'd be nice if Google could just read my mind instead of me having to laboriously type in search queries.
1. open the link 2. right-click on the search box, select "add a keyword for this search" 3. for "keyword: " type "def" , for "name: " type "Google Dictionary Search" Now in your address bar, type "def uniquity" While you're at it, replace all your search engines with this method and remove your search box. optional: install tiny-menu, move everything from your navigation-toolbar to your top toolbar, hide navigation-…
Edit: It only works when I add keywords to the already installed search engines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. open the link 2. right-click on the search box, select "add a keyword for this search" 3. for "keyword: " type "def" , for "name: " type "Google Dictionary Search" Now in your address bar, type "def uniquity" While you're at it, replace all your search engines with this method and remove your search box. optional: install tiny-menu, move everything from your navigation-toolbar to your top toolbar, hide navigation-…
That sounds awesome, but it doesn't work for me. I did all that and yet FF just does an "I'm feeling lucky" for whatever I type in. Edit: It only works when I add keywords to the already installed search engines.
