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