Spell check?

[+Chilln']

What are your thoughts about adding spell check to the log page of the web site and here in the forums?

 

[+BlueDeuce]

I use the internet browser firefox for such things.

 

I still manage to screw up my postings.

[+markandsandy]

What are your thoughts about adding spell check to the log page of the web site and here in the forums?

 

A spell checker on these forums would bring the servers to thier knees

[+Taoiseach]

Two words (potentially 3 if you want to break up tool & bar) - Google Toolbar

[+markandsandy]

What are your thoughts about adding spell check to the log page of the web site and here in the forums?

 

A spell checker on these forums would bring the servers to thier their knees

 

drat

[Motorcycle_Mama]

+1 for Firefox

[+Harry Dolphin]

I gave up on Spell Check when I realized how stupidly simplistic it is. Part of the dumbing of America.

It disdains perfectly acceptable variations, such as travelling.

And, thus, I replied to my customer: Please advise. Spell Check tells me that this is a frequently misspelt word, and do I want to correct it to: Please advice? Say what????

I'll live with my typos, as opposed to Spell Check's ignorance.

[+BlueDeuce]

I gave up on Spell Check when I realized how stupidly simplistic it is. Part of the dumbing of America.

It disdains perfectly acceptable variations, such as travelling.

And, thus, I replied to my customer: Please advise. Spell Check tells me that this is a frequently misspelt word, and do I want to correct it to: Please advice? Say what????

I'll live with my typos, as opposed to Spell Check's ignorance.

 

Well of course, but how am I supposed to learn? I lost spell check back in high school, a.k.a. teachers.

Auto-correct is another issue.

 

I tell you what, just to keep things honest I'll footnote every word I spelled wrong and had to correct myself. I shouldn't keep making the same mistakes. I know it won't cover all grammar and usage but I sure like knowing when I goofed i before e except after receipt.

Edited October 6, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[+red ink]

What are your thoughts about adding spell check to the log page of the web site and here in the forums?

 

Spellun wuz my favrut subek in skool

[+Cardinal Red]

What are your thoughts about adding spell check to the log page of the web site and here in the forums?

 

My thoughts. No, not necessary. If you really care about spelling you will find your own solution.

Such as: ieSpell - A Spell Checker for Internet Explorer

 

And I still forget to use it occasionally. But that's my problem, not Groundspeak's.

[+Bear_Left]

Based on many of the listings and logs I see, I suspect the various Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Software would object to the horrible, horrible things that such a spell-checker would have to deal with!

[+wkmccall]

What are your thoughts about adding spell check to the log page of the web site and here in the forums?

 

 

If it's something I really don't want look like an idiot on; I'll bring up MS Word or AbiWord - type what I want and make sure it's right before pasting it into the box.

Edited October 6, 2008 by wkmccall

[+edscott]

My first instinct is to say yes. I'm really shocked at some of the spelling I see on cache pages. Not so much here or in the logs since people are just cranking out their thoughts, but a cache page is more like a formal document that should be correct. But all in all I think it should be left alone, so we can better judge the caches we hunt. People that are inattentive to details in spelling are likely to also be inattentive to other details like coordinates and descriptions.

[+hydnsek]

Personally, I rarely need to check a spell, not being a witch and all. However, spelling checkers are quite handy, although I agree they don't need to be part of geocaching.com.

Edited October 6, 2008 by hydnsek

[+WRASTRO]

Personally, I rarely need to check a spell, not being a witch and all. However, spelling checkers are quite handy, although I agree they don't need to be part of geocaching.com.

I have a hydensek spell checker that/who has helped me when I haven't bothered to check my own prose. I like this surrogate spell checker method. I think everyone should have an online buddy/helper who reports any spelling and grammar issues.

[+DonB]

Seamonkey also has a built-in spell checker.

[+Chilln']

Thanks everyone.

 

I put the google tool bar back on my browser. So problem solved.

 

[AZcachemeister]

My first instinct is to say yes. I'm really shocked at some of the spelling I see on cache pages. Not so much here or in the logs since people are just cranking out their thoughts, but a cache page is more like a formal document that should be correct. But all in all I think it should be left alone, so we can better judge the caches we hunt. People that are inattentive to details in spelling are likely to also be inattentive to other details like coordinates and descriptions.

 

I hear you, Ed!

Sometimes I get the feeling that correct spelling is completely optional in today's world...

Occasionally I think I must have been a proofreader in a previous life.

I just roll my eyes and interpret as best I can.

It is helpful for giving a boost to the self-image.

[southpawaz]

I'm all for it if it would block logs like this from going through:

 

September 27 by ******* (xx found)

;kjhlkjh

[+Harry Dolphin]

I hear you, Ed!

Sometimes I get the feeling that correct spelling is completely optional in today's world...

Occasionally I think I must have been a proofreader in a previous life.

I just roll my eyes and interpret as best I can.

It is helpful for giving a boost to the self-image.

 

There are no proofreaders anymore! I'm sure that I have posted this before but...

My local paper, The Star-Ledger (of Newark, NJ) reported that "The College of New Jersey is very proud of its cirrocumulus." I am relatively sure that The College of New Jersey was proud of its curriculum. I suspect that the reporter typed in 'ciriculum', and his Spell Checker suggested 'cirrocumulus'. (It is hereby noted that Google Spell Check does not recognize the word 'cirrocumulus', and thinks that I meant to use the word 'seraglio'!) I am sure that there are some fine clouds in Trenton, but I doubt that The College of New Jersey would note how proud it is of those clouds. (It is also noted that I typed in 'reported' instead of 'reporter' and Spell Check accepted that.)

[+Too Tall John]

People that are inattentive to details in spelling are likely to also be inattentive to other details like coordinates and descriptions.

An interesting observation.

 

With that in mind (not to mention the Firefox spellchecker*) I vote "NO" on a website spellchecker.

 

 

 

* "Spellchecker" is officially recognized by the spellchecker.

Personally, I rarely need to check a spell, not being a witch and all. However, spelling checkers are quite handy, although I agree they don't need to be part of geocaching.com.

[+mtn-man]

I'm all for it if it would block logs like this from going through:

 

September 27 by ******* (xx found)

;kjhlkjh

LOL. That would block your nickname.

Firefox gives your geonick a red squiggly line too.

[+Too Tall John]

Firefox gives your geonick a red squiggly line too.

I don't know what you mean....

[+Bundyrumandcoke]

It doesnt help when the spell checker cant spell correctly.

[+sseegars]

What are your thoughts about adding spell check to the log page of the web site and here in the forums?

 

Spellun wuz my favrut subek in skool

 

I believe you mean subjek.

[+lcandela123]

Remember, spellcheck guarantees that your emails will be topographically correct!

[+Buggheart]

Spellcheckers are great but one has to actually use them in order to realize any sort of benefit. It could be added but if those who need to use it most don't use it, what's the point? It reminds me of memos sent out at my workplace directed to certain employees. The notices tend to stay under the radar of those to whom the note was directed; those who need it most but don't realize it.

 

Edited for typo

Edited October 11, 2008 by Buggheart

[John E Cache]

Guess witch word is spelled wrong in this sentence that a spell checker does not catch. I make this mistake all the time. My brain always picks the wrong homonym so I have to proof read very carefully.

[+Bundyrumandcoke]

Spellcheckers are great but one has to actually use them in order to realize any sort of benefit. It could be added but if those who need to use it most don't use it, what's the point? It reminds me of memos sent out at my workplace directed to certain employees. The notices tend to stay under the radar of those to whom the note was directed; those who need it most but don't realize it.

 

Edited for typo

 

And if I was to put the above through a spell checker, it would come up with the same word spelled incorrectly twice. Such is life. Unfortunately, it leads to an unwanted americanisation of the english language in other countries.

[+Brassine Family]

I use the internet browser firefox for such things.

 

I still manage to screw up my postings.

 

I am running the latest version of firefox and all it does is put a red line under a misspelled word, how do I get spelling suggestions?

[+Still_Avatar]

Right click on the underlined word.

[+Brassine Family]

cool thanks!

[+Buggheart]

Spellcheckers are great but one has to actually use them in order to realize any sort of benefit. It could be added but if those who need to use it most don't use it, what's the point? It reminds me of memos sent out at my workplace directed to certain employees. The notices tend to stay under the radar of those to whom the note was directed; those who need it most but don't realize it.

 

Edited for typo

 

And if I was to put the above through a spell checker, it would come up with the same word spelled incorrectly twice. Such is life. Unfortunately, it leads to an unwanted americanisation of the english language in other countries.

 

I read this twice before I figured out what you were talking about. You and your zeds.

[+The Blorenges]

My first instinct is to say yes. I'm really shocked at some of the spelling I see on cache pages. Not so much here or in the logs since people are just cranking out their thoughts, but a cache page is more like a formal document that should be correct. But all in all I think it should be left alone, so we can better judge the caches we hunt. People that are inattentive to details in spelling are likely to also be inattentive to other details like coordinates and descriptions.

 

Earlier this year the UK needed new Reviewers and someone put a Topic up in our Forum - "I should be a reviewer because..."

 

Part of my response: "Oh... and I'd have a special purple script for crossing out and underlining all spelling mistakes and poor grammar, which I would use to mark the bottom of unsuitable submissions with the words "4/10 - Must try harder."

 

I didn't get the job.

 

MrsB

[+The Vikings]

And which language should the spell checker use: American English? British English? Australian English?

[+The Blorenges]

And which language should the spell checker use: American English? British English? Australian English?

 

Good point

 

When responding to posts on these forums I try and use the same spelling convention as the OP. For example, if an American geocacher is commenting about the 'color' of something, I'll use the same spelling of 'color', rather than use the British 'colour'. It's rather like when you visit a new area and you find yourself slipping in to the local accent without realising it!

 

MrsB

[+Bundyrumandcoke]

Sorry, but I wont change my spelling, or language for that matter, regardless what country of origin the forum is based in. Thats the point I was making in my previous post. A spellcheck on Geocaching.com, based on american spelling, would pick up my correct spelling everytime. Turf turtles. About the only concession I do make, is provide an imperial approximate to a metric measure that I may use. The metric comes first, of course.

[+OldNickCov]

At long last the key issue has come to the surface - which language?

 

As Groundspeak seem incapable of getting right national features critical to the game - such as post codes (the UK equivalent of zip codes) - what's to make us think they'll do any better on language-specific spellcheckers.

 

No - if people want to spell check, let them use their own spell checking.

[+Glenn]

Your right. Eye like many of ewe use firefox to. I've the spell check feature turned on that under lies aw words that are spelled in correctly. How ever, many of my post still pass the spell check. Having an additional spell cheek in the for rums isn't going two do mulch more good then the firefox spell check. I don't think its going two have much of an affect on there posts.

[+infiniteMPG]

You mean there's a spell checker out there that won't flag FTF, DNF, smileys, cacher, geocacher, LPC, PAG, camo, and GPSr as misspelled words??? COOL!

 

Personally I think it would be nicer if when someone typed "TFTH!" a window would pop up and state :

 

 

[+bflentje]

I gave up on Spell Check when I realized how stupidly simplistic it is. Part of the dumbing of America.

It disdains perfectly acceptable variations, such as travelling.

And, thus, I replied to my customer: Please advise. Spell Check tells me that this is a frequently misspelt word, and do I want to correct it to: Please advice? Say what????

I'll live with my typos, as opposed to Spell Check's ignorance.

 

Well of course, but how am I supposed to learn? I lost spell check back in high school, a.k.a. teachers.

Auto-correct is another issue.

 

I tell you what, just to keep things honest I'll footnote every word I spelled wrong and had to correct myself. I shouldn't keep making the same mistakes. I know it won't cover all grammar and usage but I sure like knowing when I goofed i before e except after receipt.

 

Too bad Auto-correct doesn't teach the proper use of commas.