On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:30:55 +0000, Cori <hiddengreen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
|On 1/31/06, Dave Fawthrop <hyphen(a)hyphenologist.co.uk> wrote:
|> |Indeed :) Catching a dozen real errors is a definite win!
|>
|> 12 in 500plus is a resounding failure.
|
|I think there might be a misunderstanding about the purpose of the
|Gutcheck ... if a text checking tool was provided that never gave me
|any false errors, I'd be convinced that it wasn't catching all it
|should be. Spellcheckers, or the barrage of regex checks that DP has
|developed, all flag up false positives on my books, but they couldn't
|be made much more effective without personalising them to each and
|every text -- which would take more time than just clicking through
|the false alarms..? The point of all these checks is to (hopefully)
|be over-sensitive to problems, rather than under-sensitive (thus
|leaving errors.)
|
|Or have I missed something in turn..? Do you have text checking tools
|that only ever signal real errors..? Can they be shared..?
With my other hat on I write "intelligent" language software, Low 90%
correct is very bad, above 99% correct is acceptable. For a voluntary
organisation I would be accept 50% correct.
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
"Intelligent Design?" my knees say *not*.
"Intelligent Design?" my back says *not*.
More like "Incompetent design". Sig (C) Copyright Public Domain
