Re: [edict-jmdict] New Entry or Amendment Submission Form (by way of introduction)

[Jim Breen <Jim.Breen@**********************>]

[Paul Blay (Re: [edict-jmdict] New Entry or Amendment Submission Form (by way of introduction)) writes:]
>> > Using a different interface funtion, "Search for Words in the
>> > Dictionary", i get the same information i was referring to:
>> >
>> > 御 【ご(P); お】 (pref) honourable; honorable; (P) [Ex][G][GI][S][A]
>> > お (int) oh! (expression of slight surprise) [Ex][G][GI][S][A]
>> >
>> > I am sure that in the very most cases where it appears in a
>> > text, お is the honorific prefix and not an "expression of
>> > slight surprise". :-)
>> 
>> Which prompts the /dictionary/ amendment
>> Headword: 御
>> Reading1: ご
>> Reading2: お
>> Comment: Should have (uk)
>> New o / Amend ●
>> 
>> (Note that as an amend submission no other entries need
>> to be set).

This is correct. I get a lot of corrections that way. (I just
added "uk" to 御/ご/お.

>> > >In the meantime your above
>> > >submission (one Edict entry + comment) isn't really any
>> > >different to an email.
>> >
>> > Right. :-) I find e-mail submissions cumbersome and that is
>> > why i haven't sent anything in lately. However, when i am
>> > looking something up (that is exactly the time when it becomes
>> > obvious when an entry is missing or needs modification) it is
>> > quick and easy to use a submission form to send in something.
>> >
>> > However, the form use explanation page contains the following instruction:
>> >
>> > "Only use this form if you have a complete entry to submit, or
>> > if you wish to comment on an existing entry."
>> >
>> > As i mentioned in my original post, in most cases i do not
>> > have enough information for a new entry to make it "complete"
>> > (assuming that i SHOULD at least know the "English meaning"
>> > and choose "part of speech", if not other items).

But you can be very brief commenting on an existing entry. All I need
is the headword info. to identify the entry.

>> Headword, reading, part of speech and (one) English meaning
>> is probably the minimum guild entry requirement.
>> 
>> Jim gets (I believe he said) something like 500 word
>> submissions a week.  

No, up to 500new entries a month.

>> Bluntly I think he doesn't have the
>> time to research and fill in gaps.  I believe somewhere or
>> another on his site he says that if you think a word should
>> be in there but don't have all the details you can just email
>> it to him (and presumably he'll put it on a 'round-tuit' list,
>> check with slj or something).

I sometimes get things saying "here is a word I saw, but I don't
know what it means or how it's read." They are bit annoying.

Unless a proposed entry is from someone I know I can trust, I check it
against several dictionaries, etc. I have spent too much time in the past
finding and removing guesses. Quality is more of an issue now.

>> > I also mentiond that it would be nice to have, for regular
>> > submitters of information, an alternative to typing in name
>> > and e-mail address, which i find cumbersome.
>> 
>> Cookies to store email / name have been suggested before.
>> Of course one existing alternative is just not to type in
>> your email (and/or name).

I'd have added a cookie to that page ages ago, but I'd have to turn it
into a CGI program/script, as it's currently just an HTML file.

>> > Can we continue the discussion on the topic of "how can
>> > submissions via the form on the dictionary website be made
>> > easier"? :-)
>> 
>> I think the two main point have already been covered.
>> Grab entry information from Edict when submitting amend forms,
>> retain name/email with cookie.

Both of those will arrive when I can get enough time to finish the rest
of the online edit upgrade.

>> Jim went from free text 'parts of speech' box to the list
>> system in the first place because he was getting a lot of
>> invalid codes / confused entries.  I don't suppose he's going
>> to go back.  I can't help thinking that the POS + misc tags
>> could be handled better but then again I can't come up with
>> a better idea for them.

Me neither at this stage.

The current form is pretty succesful for small quantities of corrections,
and it solved the problem of people sending emails with badly screwed
codings. For bulk new entries or amndements, doing them in a file
and emailing it is probably best. Several regular contributors do that.

Cheers

Jim

-- 
Jim Breen                                http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/
Clayton School of Information Technology,               Tel: +61 3 9905 9554
Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia                  Fax: +61 3 9905 5146
(Monash Provider No. 00008C)                ジム・ブリーン@モナシュ大学