From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Apr 26 17:07:21 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FYu2B-0002qT-Q6 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:07:03 -0700 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FYu2B-0002qM-Hw for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:07:03 -0700 Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:07:03 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: jbovlaste query Message-ID: <20060427000703.GH2842@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20060426210621.GG2842@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 11343 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 06:24:44PM -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: > I was wrong to use such a disparaging word and I'm sincerely > sorry. Your efforts are appreciated. I brag about jbovlaste's PDF > dictionary production system at every presentation and it always > impresses the crowds. Thank you. I have no officially been mollified. > There is an element of subjectivity to it. "Working" or "not > working" begs the question "working/not working for what?" When my > IRC client functioned intermittently on the channel, I thought it > was working, in that it was meeting my needs, but you did not seem > to. We had different expectations for it. Amusingly, I'm pretty sure that I referred to your IM client as "broken" at least once. .u'i ru'e .u'u ru'e > Similarly with jbovlaste, it turns out that the administrator has > a concept of the intent of function which is different from the > assumption of an uninformed user. It's good for the user to know > what question he is asking: "show me the word if there is a vote > for it in both directions, and ignore its occurence of this string > of characters anywhere but the Word field." By the Word field, I > mean as distinct from the Type, Gloss Word, rafsi, or Definition > fields. > > I was using it to ask the question "show me every occurence of > this string of characters anywhere in the dictionary's text, > including all fields." That's why Supermemo is so useful for word > lookup. > > So this is why we need to let the users know what question the > jbovlaste query is hearing them ask. I recommend "To improve the > quality of results, jbovlaste search does not return words with > insufficient votes. To qualify to be returned in search results, a > proposed lujvo is required to have received a vote in favor in > both directions: for instance, in English to Lojban and in Lojban > to English." I'm not sure what other restrictions the search > involves. That's a lovely start. I've put that there, and a bit of other stuff besides. > Also, it would be interesting to allow users to vote against a > word. Yeah, a lot of people have suggested that. Lately I think it's probably a good idea, but lately I haven't done any jbovlaste development either. I've been trying to save my "serious" Lojban work for BPFK stuff. -Robin To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.