Thanks :-)

(About the server load: you are absolutely right, especially because using misspelling would transform a string-matching problem into a problem where the string matching has to be done modulo misspellings.
We put a lot of work into making the string matching efficient, and it would be a big hit to have to account for misspellings).

Luca

On Dec 22, 2007 9:09 AM, Andrew Whitworth < wknight8111@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 21, 2007 3:05 PM, Luca de Alfaro <luca@dealfaro.org> wrote:
> The point is that I wanted to make a language-idependent tool.
> If you go into mis-spelling, you need then a spelling tool for each language
> you want to support, and you need to worry about support for special names,
> locations, etc.  I did not want to go into that.  Should we get into that?

No, I dont think that you should. You would end up wasting a lot of
server resources for a small potential gain in some languages, and you
run into massive complexities when it comes to accurately dealing with
fringe cases. I would venture to guess that the precision lost trying
to account for spelling/grammar/whatever would outweigh the potential
precision gained from it. Best to stick with an algorithm which is
simple, elegant, not resource intensive, and universally applicable.

--Andrew Whitoworth

_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l