It's good to be aware that, if WordNet's definition looks off, you can see the full results for any word on their site. I've been doing this, and lately I'm thinking it's not me, it's them :-)
John, I posted a comment to this effect on the... some other page. (Faggot? Peeler?) I think the WeirdNet situation has enriched Wordie. I hope you do not decide to make it NormalNet. Think of the conversations it's spawned!
I'm thinking that way too: added value. WeirdNet has become a sort of Wordie sideshow. It would almost be a shame if it were to straighten itself out and behave. :-)
I spent a while looking for WeirdNet and came up with nothing meaningful. Umm, may I have my while back? But at least I now know the pelmet from whence the kooknyness descends. Relieved!
Ok, time for me to fess up. There's a very slight chance that my programming has something to do with weirdnet's weirdness. I'm making a single call to the WordNet database, and getting back all the defninitions; some post-processing then happens to select the likely most-common definition. The parameters I use to determine that come straight from WordNet, but there may well be a bug (or a feature!) in my code that's selecting these oddball definitions.
Who writes the Weirdnet definitions? Somewhere out there, there is an unknown comedy genius.
I've begun doing that too. Glad you're feeling better. ;-)
It's good to be aware that, if WordNet's definition looks off, you can see the full results for any word on their site. I've been doing this, and lately I'm thinking it's not me, it's them :-)
Won't someone think of the children spawn??!?!?!?!
John, I posted a comment to this effect on the... some other page. (Faggot? Peeler?) I think the WeirdNet situation has enriched Wordie. I hope you do not decide to make it NormalNet. Think of the conversations it's spawned!
Or even just think of the word spawn!
It does have to live up to its name, after all - not being called NormalNet (or AccurateNet, for that matter).
I'm thinking that way too: added value. WeirdNet has become a sort of Wordie sideshow. It would almost be a shame if it were to straighten itself out and behave. :-)
By now, it's surely a feature... Maybe you're adding value by introducing us to definitions we'd otherwise overlook. Maybe.
There's the problem, John: you're getting defninitions mixed in with the definitions.
I spent a while looking for WeirdNet and came up with nothing meaningful. Umm, may I have my while back? But at least I now know the pelmet from whence the kooknyness descends. Relieved!
I secretly wondered if this might be the case, but dared not question thee.
Ok, time for me to fess up. There's a very slight chance that my programming has something to do with weirdnet's weirdness. I'm making a single call to the WordNet database, and getting back all the defninitions; some post-processing then happens to select the likely most-common definition. The parameters I use to determine that come straight from WordNet, but there may well be a bug (or a feature!) in my code that's selecting these oddball definitions.
Those wacky definitions....