View Single Post
Old 07-18-2019, 10:22 AM   #25
KevinH
Sigil Developer
KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.KevinH ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 8,885
Karma: 6120478
Join Date: Nov 2009
Device: many
The problem is more words do not make a spellcheck dictionary necessarily better (unlike an online dictionary).

As I tried to explain earlier, a spellcheck dictionary is meant to cover the "working set" of a language. It is not meant to be exhaustive such as an online or paper copy dictionary would attempt to be.

The reason is that many times common mistakes and typos turn out to be actual but very infrequently used "words" and not what the author intended. It also results in words being suggested for replacement that the author would never use. Both lower the effectiveness of the spellchecker.

The idea is that more rarely used or more esoteric words can and should be looked up in online dictionaries.

One of the nice features of spellcheck dictionaries is that authors can add their own list of more unique words that they actually use to augment the "working set" making the spellcheck function fine tuned that that particular person and their writing.

That was and continues to be the concept behind the design of spell check dictionaries.

Hope something here helps.
KevinH is offline   Reply With Quote