Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 18 May 2007 17:09:38 -0700
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 17:09:13 -0700
To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: Process for adding new words
Message-ID: <20070519000913.GI16151@digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705151752510.12754@hive.cec.wustl.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705151752510.12754@hive.cec.wustl.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Length: 2262
Lines: 54

Commenting for the record.

On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:09:24PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
> At this point, the word has no definition.  I'm not sure how often
> people want to add words without defining them, but there you go.

The reason for that is the giant list of languages,
and the fact that the Lojban valsi are seperate from same.

> Now we come to the most annoying part of the whole process.  It
> doesn't know that "caffeine" is a word.  Of course it's a word, or
> I wouldn't have just used it, you moron.  So now I need to go
> through a completely different form to add it.  Have to click ok
> twice (where the second time seems to be just to annoy me, "are
> you really sure?").  

That's not why, actually.  It's because the second form will suggest
similar words to you that you might have meant instead, which is the
whole point of having to enter the words in the first place.

> Great, now I'm at "caffeine".  Now I have to go back in my
> history, and resubmit the original definition.  

Yeah, I've always wanted to fix that part but am not sure how.

> Here's how I'd much rather see things go.  "Adding" {kafxu'i}
> takes me straight to the "add a definition" page.  

For what language?

> No need to add the word until it's got a definition.  After I fill
> out the form, it checks each of the gloss words and keywords.
> Then give me a list.  "These gloss words exist.  Your new
> definition will link to them.  These words don't exist yet; they
> will be created.  If any of that isn't what you want, edit your
> definition".  Then I click "ok" once, and it goes away to add all
> the records at once.  It lets me know (really!) whether everything
> worked, and tells me "Cool, added".  While it's at it, it should
> vote for anything it needs to.  If there are any problems, let me
> know, but don't bother me about it unless you have to.

Huh.  That seems like a very decent way to handle it; I can add the
"maybe you meant these words" in there too.  Let me see what I can
do.  Please clarify the bit just above, though.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/