 |
A project to make businesses more aware of their customer experience, and how to fix it. By Mark Hurst. |
| About Mark Hurst | Mark's Gel Conference | New York Times Story on This Is Broken | Newsletter: Subscribe | RSS Feed |
Search this site:
Categories:
- Advertising
- Current Affairs
- Customer Service
- Fixed
- Food and Drink
- Just for Fun
- Misc
- Not broken
- Place
- Product Design
- Signs
- Travel
- Web/Tech
Previous: Restroom design in fancy NYC restaurants | Main | Next: Sign to secret nuclear bunker
July 23, 2005 12:43 AM
Broken: Dictionary.com on Microsoft
Kareem Kandil writes:
If you look up the definition of "Microsoft" at dictionary.com, you'll get a rather interesting definition.
See for yourself here.
Dictionary.com pulls its definitions from a number of sources, those source have their own bias. That's why each definition has an attribution line.
It isn't a definitive reference, if you want that you have go to a respected name in the field, like Webster's, Oxford ort Merriam-Webster and the like.
Broken, what it should state is microsoft can not be located in the dictionary. Try your search with our web search. Also calling microsoft an evil empire under the dictionary link is a bad design this is just an opinionated statement and not factual.
Funny aside I typed in "evil empire" at yahoo search and the first link was to microsoft.com
The "Halloween Documents" link is broken because there's a tag in the link where a space should be. Try this instead if you care:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=halloween%20documents
That definition links to the actual documents here:
I'm still trying to figure out what's broken about this. Is it that the creators of Dictionary.com are relying on the Jargon File for results?
Oh, fer cryin' out loud!
Ok, folks, I suppose this is broken because many people don't look at the attribution line for what database dictionary.com pulls its definitions from and assumes they're all serious sources, and even fewer folks have any idea what the Jargon File is.
Prepare to be educated:
* Dictionary.com pulls from many different sources, including Merriam-Webster, Acronym Finder, American Heritage Dictionary, WordNet, CancerWeb dictionary, medical dictionaries and others. This is infinitely more useful for most people than, say, the OED by itself, as you can compare and contrast definitions and usage. Acronym Finder is especially useful, as the acronym you're looking up often isn't in some of the standard definitions available from other sources. Yes, specialized dictionaries still have their uses, and yes, the OED is still the definitive reference, but Dictionary.com is incredibly useful for the average Joe who wants to figure out what onomatopoeia means.
* The Jargon File ("official" version at http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/ ) is a legendary "comprehensive compendium of hacker slang illuminating many aspects of hackish tradition, folklore, and humor." Read it and learn. It is hilarious.
* In keeping with the hacker culture, the definitions found in the Jargon File are quasi-satirical, and thus taking them seriously is a big mistake--somewhat on the level of getting your news from The Onion. That said, I guess when filtered through Dictionary.com one expects serious definitions and since the context of satire is lost one would be inclined to take such a definition seriously at first blush. That is, I suppose, broken to some. Personally, I think it is relevant to find the hacker culture definition to a computer term--after all, it is a culture based totally and completely around computers. And twinkies, don't forget the twinkies. I got more out of the Jargon File definition than the others provided.
* Presuming that Dictionary.com could redesign their results to better emphasize the sources and designate such sources as the Jargon File as not altogether precisely scientifically factual, it is still better to include such sources than to exclude them entirely. It IS still broken, however, that Dictionary.com pulls definitions from the Jargon File without properly handling the "reefers," or cross-references. Look up "halloween documents" in the Jargon File (which Dictionary.com should link for you) and you get a whole lot more than Dictionary.com provides.
As stoo points out, Dictionary.com DOES have a definition (again provided by the Jargon File) for "halloween documents," and this in itself demonstrates two things:
1 - Anyone looking up the phrase "halloween documents" wouldn't get any results from any other source Dictionary.com cites, OED or otherwise, but gets a comprehensive definition and explanation from the Jargon File--even if the user has no idea what the Jargon File is or if it even exists. This shows the "value added" usefulness of Dictionary.com, and is why I use it often, even for words I already know the definitions of: I often learn even more than I already knew.
2 - Dictionary.com has linking problems that need to be fixed. I have often seen links to non-existent definitions or broken links like this example, where the definition DOES exist but the site improperly links them so that they cannot be accessed. Misspell a word and Dictionary.com suggests alternate spellings a la Google's "did you mean..."--but not all of the suggestions you get actually exist in their dictionary, as previously discussed in this space: http://broken.typepad.com/b/2004/11/dictionarycom_e.html
(This article states that this is "fixed," but I'm not sure if that refers to the specific example in the article or the problem at large. I suspect the former, as I have on occasion still stumbled into the latter.) Dictionary.com should NOT link to a word or reference without cross-checking its own database to verify first that such a definition actually exists!
Here is the Halloween documents...hehe
halloween documents
n. A pair of Microsoft internal strategy
memoranda leaked to ESR in late 1998 that confirmed everybody's
paranoia about the current Evil Empire. These documents
(http://www.opensource.org/halloween/) praised the technical
excellence of Linux and outlined a counterstrategy of attempting
to lock in customers by "de-commoditizing" Internet protocols and
services. They were extensively cited on the Internet and in the
press and proved so embarrassing that Microsoft PR barely said a
word in public for six months afterwards.
The reason i sent this in, was because the definition deos not actually tell me what the company does(or at least, is supposed to do) and instead gives me an opinion that, regardless of how true it is, does not help to inform me in the slightest.
To be fair, Real Saddam, the first result returned by dictionary.com is a cross-reference to the "Microsoft Corporation" definition which does provide (at least in rather dated form) the information you're looking for.
I get my definitions at http://www.urbandictionary.com/ anyway....
Oh and...
Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
OH NO, YOU HAVE FOUND THE TRUTH YOU SIMPLE PEONS! IGNORE THIS POST, I COMMAND YOU TO OBEY ME! OTHERWISE I WILL ACTIVATE ALL THE COMPUTERS IN YOUR HOUSE TO SELF DESTRUCT SO YOU WILL HAVE TO BUY A NEW ONE! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Anyway, you guys are kind of right, since i wanted this to be a "just for fun" entry anyway. I'm not sure what happened.
Comments on this entry are closed
Previous: Restroom design in fancy NYC restaurants | Main | Next: Sign to secret nuclear bunker
Worst part is there are no halloween documents.
Posted by: First Person at July 23, 2005 01:10 AM