On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:30:55 +0000, Cori <hiddengreen@gmail.com> wrote: |On 1/31/06, Dave Fawthrop <hyphen@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