Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 35836	2003-07-23 03:01:00	False 'positives' in spellcheckers	Steve Bell (1009)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
162120	2003-07-23 03:01:00	As an illustration of the occasional fallibility of software based on hash indexing into a yes/no bitmap, I'm looking for false positives in spellcheckers supplied with common software (preferably Microsoft Word) - nonsense words which are not flagged as misspellings. I recall reading a list of such words somewhere, several years ago "Sisteristeristerism" is the only one I can remember, and that's obviously outmoded, as it's OK by the version of Word I have. Can anyone quote me any misspellings still approved by Word or other software? Or have they thought of better ways of programming spellcheckers these days? Steve B.	Steve Bell (1009)
162121	2003-07-23 03:36:00	There is no way to programme a spelling checker. Newspapers used to have wet-logic checkers, called "proofreaders". Although they weren't perfect and infallible, they were better than any software. At least they could read and write which seems to be more than can be expected of people in the computer industry. :D There is no way to tell whether a word which is correctly spelt (or, at least, spelt the same way as it is in a list), is the "correct" word in kits place. When I see "spellchecked" text, I loose patience. I have just put this through the "Spell Check". It suggested "sepulchered", "superceded", and "pellide" for "spellchecked". It accepted "loose". I wouldn't ... that's not one of my habitual mistypings. :D And it accepted "kits", which I have just noticed, because I am looking a bit harder than usual at this effusion. Spell checking is best left to Harry and Hermione.	Graham L (2)
1