Spellchecking More Inside

November 20, 2005 10:45 PM

Oops: The Spellchecker in AskMe apparently doesn't check the "more inside" section (and thus it is embarrassingly revealed that I know how to spell neither "precocity" nor "curiosities"). [MI]
posted by nobody to Bugs at 10:45 PM (18 comments total)

Obviously I can't get back to the posting screen to run tests, but, if it's any help, it's possible that I didn't run the spell check until reaching the preview screen, and so maybe this is only a problem there.
posted by nobody at 10:46 PM on November 20, 2005

Just tested it before the preview and it doesn't check the more inside section.
posted by Stauf at 11:01 PM on November 20, 2005

LEARN TO SPELL, MORMON.
posted by loquacious at 12:11 AM on November 21, 2005

You know, you really should be able to spell 'precocity'.

You've let me down, you've let your mother down, but worst of all you've let yourself down.
posted by Frasermoo at 3:21 AM on November 21, 2005

Off with your head!!!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:48 AM on November 21, 2005 [1 favorite]

The spellchecker Matt is using bizarrely doesn't have a user dictionary, so complaints about it are moot.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:56 AM on November 21, 2005

I think this might be one of the few spell-checker complaints that Matt could actually address, despite its closed-ness. I'd hope that he could have it check two textareas instead of just one.
posted by Plutor at 6:23 AM on November 21, 2005

How is he using it bizarrely?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:24 AM on November 21, 2005

Why won't someone think of the chilren?
posted by blue_beetle at 7:31 AM on November 21, 2005

waht's this about?
posted by cortex at 7:34 AM on November 21, 2005

What's so hard about using this extension? It is far superior to any in-page spell checker that I've ever seen.
posted by purephase at 7:59 AM on November 21, 2005

purephase: "What's so hard about using this extension? It is far superior to any in-page spell checker that I've ever seen."

Two things, right off the top of my head:
1) Might not be using Firefox (some people prefer other browsers, or xe might be at work and be unable to install software).
2) Spellbound's never even worked for me.
posted by Plutor at 8:14 AM on November 21, 2005

Y'all are way too uptit about spelling.
posted by deborah at 8:32 AM on November 21, 2005

What's so hard about using this extension?

Every time someone says something like this, I realize they're not thinking about the way I (and some of the rest of us) experience the web.

In my job, I'm constantly stationed at different desks, using different computers. And I also get sent all over the city, to work at different companies on their machines. So my web access is through a variety of browsers and operating systems. I do carry around a keychain drive with some apps on it, but at some place, I'm not allowed to install software.

So it's totally unhelpful when people recommend anything that involves plugins or cookies.

Am I in a tiny percentile of MeFites? It's possible that I am. But I bet there are enough freelancers here to make me part of at least a large minority.
posted by grumblebee at 12:48 PM on November 21, 2005

I could have been using an extension, but in this case I think that's beside the point, both for grumblebee's reason and for one other:

The spell check button being on the bottom of the screen gives the false impression that it's checking the entire page worth of submit forms. In any case, MeFi's spellchecker is commonly known to report properly spelled words as misspellings, but not vice versa, making it reasonably reliable. Except in this [more inside] instance, one can usually rely on it to catch misspelled words.

(Apart from this instance, the main impetus to use an extension instead of the MeFi spellchecker would be to avoid the mild annoyance of false-positives, and that's never really bothered me.)
posted by nobody at 1:38 PM on November 21, 2005

Plutor:
Two things, right off the top of my head:
1) Might not be using Firefox (some people prefer other browsers, or xe might be at work and be unable to install software).
2) Spellbound's never even worked for me.

1. I feel for those people, I do. However, even if you can't install software, FireFox comes in other formats besides the official download. Unless your company is restricting specific executables from launching, then there is no reason why you couldn't use the browser.
2. I'm not sure what to say. I've installed in on a lot of workstations and, while not always perfect, the FAQ has troubleshooting information specifically regarding installation problems.

grumblebee,
The fore-linked Portable FireFox allows you to install extensions that will not require system drive changes. I have not personally tested spellbound with this version, but it is not in the list of problematic extensions.
posted by purephase at 2:12 PM on November 21, 2005

Thanks for bringing that up, purephase. I work 1/2 on Macs and 1/2 on PCs. Is it relatively easy to run Mac & PC Firefoxes off a single keychain drive? With plugins? Without installing on machines? (I'm seriously asking, 'cause this could solve some problems for me!)
posted by grumblebee at 4:03 PM on November 21, 2005

grumblebee, based on the information on the site multi-OS support is on the to do list. I would hazard a guess that this would only work in a Windows environment. You could always contact the developer to get an approximate time line.

Just put the Mac installer for FireFox on the USB drive and copy it over to the Applications folder on each machine you work with. The install/uninstall process on a Mac is much less system/time intensive than Windows. Besides, you could just leave the browser on the user's workstation. Hopefully, they'll use it. ;)
posted by purephase at 6:39 PM on November 21, 2005