jim adcock said:
This is silly word gaming. Anything programmatic "fixes" which can be applied without human input can be considered effectively part of the OCR algorithm.
you know, jim, there were reasons i stopped even bothering to have discussions with you, namely that your arguments lacked real weight, and that you'd constantly flop from side to side. first you say that google's o.c.r. is improving -- ("towards 'reasonable' 100% human-free o.c.r.") -- then you say that o.c.r. will never be perfect... both those statements are true, yet lightweight, because their truth-value is quite self-evident, plus their valence points in opposite directions. and besides, they are beside the point, because -- as i noted just yesterday -- i have _proven_ here a great many times that it is quite easy to improve on the results of o.c.r. programmatically, such that the text is perfect even if the o.c.r. is not. i'd say that's precisely what google has been doing. which is why their _text_ is now close to error-free, even though their ever-improving _o.c.r._ is still not -- and never will be -- perfect. this is most assuredly _not_ "silly word gaming", and if you think that it _is,_ then there's no use in even discussing it any further... if you want to define "o.c.r." as something that happens _after_ the "optical character recognition" process, fine; but don't be so disingenuous when you have done that to say that _i_ am the one who is doing "silly word gaming". and the simple fact that i need to _remind_ you exactly what "o.c.r." stands for shows how stupid your dialog is. and here's the bottom-line: it doesn't matter one whit whether google's o.c.r. improves from this point on, because the post-o.c.r. fixes it already knows how to do will be sufficient to take their text close to perfection...
After having looked at these examples I stand by what I said earlier about the difficulty moving from demoware to product which "real world customers" actually accept.
where, precisely, is "the difficulty"? i see none at all.
Insulting the customers is indicative of the problem, not the solution.
i assume by "customers" you mean "volunteers", but i haven't the faintest clue what you mean by "insulting". and i sincerely doubt that any "explanation" you give will make any more sense than you have made thus far. so, jim, how about this? if someone else understands what you mean, they can explain it to me. and if nobody else understands what the heck you're talking about, but they remain curious, they can ask you to explain, to them, what you mean, so that then they can -- in turn -- explain it to me... and if nobody else knows what you're talking about, and nobody _cares_ to know, either, they just shut up, and you stop talking to me, and i stop talking to you. and if benjamin has any questions or comments for me, he and i can talk to each other, without your interruption. how does that sound, jim? -bowerbird