[jbovlaste] Re: Process for adding new words

["Adam D. Lopresto" <adam@pubcrawler.org>]

On Fri, 18 May 2007, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> 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.

I can definitely see the utility of adding a new definition to an existing
valsi, but I don't see the point in having a valsi in the dictionary unless
there is at least one definition for it.  So I'd suggest that the valsi not
be added until it gets its first definition.

> > 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.

Ahhh.  It's nice to know there is a reason, and yeah, that's handy.

> > 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?

I *thought* it was the case that you first go to "Add a new definition", and
part of the information you fill in with the definition is the language.  If
that's not the case, it should be.

> > 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.

Yeah, it could include that information.  So it could probably redisplay the
form, and next to each keyword put either "New keyword to be created" or
"Adding to existing keyword" or "Did you maybe mean 'foobar' instead of
'foobaz'?" (or however things like that want to be phrased).  Maybe the first
time through, the button at the bottom is "Check" (or something), and after
the first time through add a button like "Add definition" in addition to
"Check" (so I can make changes until I'm happy, then really submit).  

If that doesn't clarify what you wanted, then let me know.
-- 
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

The truth is out there. Anyone know the URL?