×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Launches Dictionary, Drops Answers.com

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the urbandictionary-has-nuthin-to-fear dept.

Google 180

ObsessiveMathsFreak writes "Google has expanded its remit once again with the quiet launch of Google Dictionary. Google word search definitions now redirect to Google Dictionary instead of to Google's long term thesaurus goto site, Answers.com, which is expected to take a serious hit in traffic as a result. Dictionary pages are noticeably more plain and faster loading than their Answers.com equivalents, and unusually feature web citations for the definitions of each word. This means that, unlike most dictionaries, Google considers ginormous a word."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

180 comments

Urban Dictionary and so on (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339400)

I wonder why I haven't actually seen the snippets of definitions lately. I remember seeing them a few years ago. Not that it would had actually changed a lot - there's always lots of different sites linking to dictionaries on the first page of results.

Urban Dictionary has actually been the most useful one of those.

User ratings, definitions of almost all the weird (and stupid) words teens come up with and usually fun descriptions too.

Now get off my lawn.

Re:Urban Dictionary and so on (3, Insightful)

macshit (157376) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339656)

Urban Dictionary is a funny case, because while it's often very useful, there's so much crap there that it takes a lot of wading and a certain amount of judgment to find the info you're looking for. Given the extent to which a lot of the crap (and info) is pretty er, profane, I'm not sure it's the best target for automatic usage by people that don't know what they're getting into...

Re:Urban Dictionary and so on (2, Informative)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339686)

I've always felt Urban Dictionary needs some sort of moderation. You can't trust one person to know every single bit of slang but there is some much rubbish on UD that, imo, it can be more or less useless sometimes.

Re:Urban Dictionary and so on (3, Funny)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339774)

It depends though, Urban Dictionary you can usually figure out what a word that someone says really means. Using traditional dictionaries you would think that someone says that someone sucks on a rooster...

Re:Urban Dictionary and so on (1)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340058)

It depends though, Urban Dictionary you can usually figure out what a word that someone says really means. Using traditional dictionaries you would think that someone says that someone sucks on a rooster...

It doesn't do much for international relationships either when looking for appropriate words to use. If Colins or websters had their way we'd all be virgins.

(longmans is one of the few that might have a few useful words). On the other hand if you don't learn from a native speaker then you are unlikely to need them anyway.

Re:Urban Dictionary and so on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30340072)

You may as well go all the way and say "orally applies negative pressure to a rooster".

Also, in before anyone says there's no such thing as negative pressure.

Re:Urban Dictionary and so on (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340348)

You may as well go all the way and say "orally applies negative pressure to a rooster".

try "applies oral suction to a rooster."

Which would really suck.

Then again, "blow job" doesn't involve any blowing either.

Though I heard tell that Marylin Manson supposedly had some ribs removed so he could blow his own horn.

And no doubt cunnilingus can involve some cunning.

Burma Shave

Re:Urban Dictionary and so on (4, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339992)

The problem with Urban Dictionary is it's filled with crappy non-objective/crackpot definitions: opinions about words, not accurate well-written definitions, and contains definitions that reinforce many common misconceptions,

Example #1: Sugar High [urbandictionary.com]

The intense physiological effect of consuming too much sugar or glucose, usually in the form of cakes, cookies and soda; eating excessive amounts of sugar makes the brain release dopamine and endorphins, often inducing a mild sense of euphoria and happiness.

Example #2: Boogeyman [urbandictionary.com] The scary monster man that gets little kids at night, usually found under the bed or in a dark closet.. Little eric got eaten by the boogeyman when he didn't say his prayer last night.

Example #3: Linux [urbandictionary.com]

An overblown "Wal-Mart" OS written by programmers who lack the balls and social skills to walk their own dog. "The calculator froze up again. Oh, that runs on a Linux kernel. "

Example #4: Windows [urbandictionary.com] A piece of glass you can open when it gets too hot outside. Come on people

Person 2: " You think you made a mistake? I BOUGHT WINDOWS!"

...
The fanciest version of Solitaire I've ever played.

Re:Urban Dictionary and so on (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340070)

A piece of glass you can open when it gets too hot outside. Come on people

Actually, the "piece of glass" would be a windowpane. The window itself is the opening in which such panes are frequently (but not always) found.

Re:Urban Dictionary and so on (4, Funny)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340128)

You missed the best part of the story summary; the Answers.com link goes to the definition of the word "divorce". I lolled, is that in the dictionary?

Good (5, Insightful)

rmushkatblat (1690080) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339444)

Now we don't have to deal with M-W terrible website layout, popups, etc.

Re:Good (4, Informative)

narcberry (1328009) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339558)

Who cares about popups, now we have a standardized scrabble dictionary!

Re:Good (1)

skine (1524819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340246)

It even counts kwyjibo!

(though the definition would be better if it were a definition, not quoting wikipedia...)

Re:Good (5, Interesting)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339778)

I think that the really interesting thing is how they've integrated Google Translate into the drop down language list. Absolutely beautiful. Very useful. Nice work.

Re:Good (4, Interesting)

Narpak (961733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340096)

Personally I have been using Dictionary.com [dictionary.com] for years now, got it incorporated with my dropdown list of search engines in Firefox to. Can't really see myself changing unless something drastic happens as Dictionary.com is plain, functional and provides the information without any hassle.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30340226)

M-W.com used to be a really fun site. They have/had Word for the Wise, and Word of the Day. These sections used to be filled with amateur comedy mixed with historic facts. These days they aren't funny at all and seem to have less effort put into the historic fact finding of the words.

When google finally presses the evil button... (1, Funny)

cupantae (1304123) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339474)

...we will have to pay to use any words that are in google dictionary. That's why frequently used but non-dictionary words like "ginormous" are in there. I notice that my native Irish (Gaelic) isn't there, so I'll just put on another few layers of tin foil and start speaking Irish

Re:When google finally presses the evil button... (2, Interesting)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339782)

Another word not in there is "poop", synonymous with poo, bot unlisted as another word for faeces.

Compare Google Dictionary's result: http://www.google.co.uk/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en [google.co.uk]|en&hl=en&q=poop

which merely lists poop deck, with Answes.com's: http://www.answers.com/topic/poop [answers.com]

which is comprehensive and exactly what you'd expect from a dictionary.

I'd say Google fails pretty badly on this (relatively childish) example and isn't up to the job (or should that be jobbie).

Re:When google finally presses the evil button... (2, Insightful)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339802)

Oh great, and slashdot craps all over the google link, presumably because of the pipe character.

Re:When google finally presses the evil button... (4, Informative)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339936)

Did you look at the whole page of results from google? It has the excrement definition in the "related phrases" and "web definitions" sections.

Re:When google finally presses the evil button... (3, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339950)

Reach for the tinfoil hat indeed...

The reason they come out with new dictionary versions every year is that new words are added to the dictionary, and sometimes old words are removed, or have their definitions changed. I don't see any reason that online shouldn't also follow this trend, but the advantage to an online format is that the change can happen relatively quickly, once it's accepted by the editor, whereas some people still use decades-old versions of the printed dictionary and don't see a reason to buy a new copy every couple of years.

And there are some *print* dictionaries that include "ginormous" in the list of words. Language, by definition, is fluid. It changes over time, and the dictionary needs to change with it. "Ginormous" is a word that has made it into the popular vernacular, and it has a generally accepted meaning as a portmanteau of the words "giant" and "enormous". As such, it belongs in the dictionary, and it's only a matter of time before the remaining editions of the dictionary add the word. A language isn't defined by the dictionary, but rather, the dictionary is defined by the language. (it's already in the Oxford English Dictionary [askoxford.com] as well as the Collins Dictionary [collinslanguage.com], and Merriam-Webster [m-w.com].)

Obligatory disclaimer: One of my two major fields of study in my undergrad was applied linguistics.

But... (5, Interesting)

muncadunc (1679192) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339496)

Ginormous IS a word. It's just a relatively new word.

Re:But... (5, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339538)

Agreed, it's perfectly cromulent.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30339772)

I disagree. I think the site is very scrumtrulescent.

Re:But... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30340502)

I think I'm the only one who recognized the word scrumtrulescent from that Will Ferrel skit.

Re:But... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30339550)

You can write it and you can say it...those are the only things that make it a "word". If you use a sentence with ginormous in it I will look at you like the idiot you are. I will probably verbally abuse you as well.

Re:But... (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339634)

Pattern of sounds with a meaning, last I checked, that was the definition of a word (although, it might have changed...).

so you can call me an idiot if you like, but at least I know you won't refer to me as a ginormous idiot.

Re:But... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30339712)

Heck, a ginormous vocabulary embiggens even the smallest man.

For English definitions ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30339502)

... the websites for long-standing print dictionaries are still the best.

Oxford English Dictionary [oed.com] is considered the authoritative standard for the English Language.
If you or your employer/university don't have an OED online subscription, Merriam-Webster [m-w.com] will do in a pinch.

I don't care about "most dictionaries"... (5, Funny)

lammy (1557325) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339512)

If it's in the Oxford, then it's a bloody word! http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/ginormous?view=uk [askoxford.com] ... And that's the Compact dictionary - so it's definitely in the ginormous one!

Re:I don't care about "most dictionaries"... (3, Informative)

HawkinsD (267367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339660)

That's really interesting, thanks. The main dictionary (oed.com) is $295/year. I didn't know they had a concise one for free.

And it really is concise. One (really good) definition. Not 37 links, like the Google dictionary.

Not that there's anything wrong with 37 links. But sometimes I just want to want to know the definition of the word.

International Phonetic Alphabet -- one step closer (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30340010)

But what is with Google's pronunciation/phonetic spelling guide?

ginormous /danms/ DJ listen /-nrm-/ DJ US listen /da'nrms/ KK US

It follows the International Phonetic Alphabet [wikipedia.org], and I for one, don't like it. It's different. It's change. It's communism. I think it leads us one step closer to total Islamohitlerobamification.

Re:I don't care about "most dictionaries"... (2, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340506)

I've people use it in speech and writing and others generally know what it means, then it's a word. I think even the people who work on the OED have said that dictionaries are descriptive, no prescriptive. The intention is to maintain a catalog of words that are commonly accepted and in use, not to tell you which words are acceptable. Oxford is not the Academie Francaise.

All words are made-up words. There are words that I don't like and words that I think are stupid, and plenty of new words that I hope don't continue to be used. Unfortunately, they're still words.

Google Dictionary? (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339516)

Google "Dictionary" is nothing more than a simple aggregation. They take the definitions from other free dictionaries.

So why not just include Answers.Com in the Google Dictionary results?

Re:Google Dictionary? (4, Informative)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339592)

Because it's also what answers.com does too. You wouldn't want a metasearch engine referencing another metasearch engine.
On that path madness dwells.

Re:Google Dictionary? (2, Insightful)

interiot (50685) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339792)

I've used onelook.com [onelook.com] for a while, which is another aggregator that (for now) seems to have more links than Google Dictionary does.

But Google Dictionary isn't just an aggregator, they provide their own pronunciations [gstatic.com] for some words (a really important feature IMHO), and a list of synonyms for some words.

I actually hope that onelook links to Google Dictionary, as strange as an aggregator-linking-to-aggregator might be.

My guess is that Google has been working on computational linguistics for such a long time (stemming [wikipedia.org] has been important for search for a while, and Google lately has started throwing in synonyms to the search results) that it's natural for Google to start exposing some of their internal dataset to the world more directly.

Re:Google Dictionary? (2, Informative)

Opyros (1153335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340164)

OneLook has some other cool features, too, e.g. reverse lookup, pattern matching, and acronym-only search.

Re:Google Dictionary? (1)

engun (1234934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339620)

I for one am very unhappy about answers.com being removed.

For one thing, it had audio pronunciation guides. Google doesn't.
Thesaurus, antonyms etc. are integrated. Google doesn't have any of these.

Seems more of a downgrade really. What does google offer that answers.com doesn't?

Re:Google Dictionary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30339770)

Well, you do know that answers.com still actually exists, right? So I don't think it needs to get to the level of "very unhappy". Just go directly to www.answers.com, and cheer up!

Re:Google Dictionary? (3, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339780)

"very unhappy"?

Really?

Do you realize you can still use it?

Re:Google Dictionary? (2, Insightful)

engun (1234934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340152)

Of course. But Google is my default search engine. And the direct link to the word definition from search results is what I normally use. My point is, google has unlinked answers.com to provide an inferior service themselves. What exactly is the point?

Re:Google Dictionary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30340036)

Really? The most useful feature you talked about there (at least in my opinion) is the pronunciation, which Google has. See the little speaker icon next to pronunciations? Click it! It even has a British version and US version for words pronounced differently!

As for antonyms, synonyms, etc, yeah, that would be great, but this is Google Dictionary, not Google Thesaurus :D

Re:Google Dictionary? (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340294)

Also, bad to double reply I know but... Google has a play button so you can hear the word.. in fact, it has a male UK speaker and female US speaker to work out dialects (for ginormous at least). And it has the gibberish known as pronunciation keys.

define:-searches are not redirected (2, Informative)

Eudial (590661) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339536)

Doesn't look like it's fully deployed yet. Google searches of the form "define:word" are not redirected to google dictionary yet. Which is a shame. Because that's one hell of an useful way of looking up terms.

Re:define:-searches are not redirected (1)

Cal27 (1610211) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339848)

However, if you google a word it will give a link to its definition next to your search terms.

Re:define:-searches are not redirected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30339864)

That's pretty much the way I've always done it. Didn't know there were alternatives.

why? (5, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339604)

This is one of those changes that makes me lose confidence in Google. It seems that Google wants to control all the resources instead of being part of an internet. As if it is playing the zero sum game of war rather than the non-zero sum game that allows businesses to exist and grow together.

By doing this, Google may have wrested control over third parties, but has significantly degraded the user experience. Prior to this, each word would have a hyperlink to a definition. Now it appears that one has a link to "definition" for one word. Furthermore, in my sampling the definitions are very basic and not of competitive quality. For instance, the word cricket has for the first definition the sport, the second a slang use, and then finally a first grade definition as an insect. No etymology. No context.

I can only imagine they are doing this to in some way differentiate themselves from Bing, which could also use freeonlinedictionary or the like. Unfortunately for Google, MS has encata, which tends to not have slightly more sophisticated definitions.

Re:why? (3, Interesting)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339730)

With webmail combining mail into the web, the web became the Internet.
With increasing importance of online/cloud/Live applications and ChromeOS combining applications into the web, the OS becomes just the medium of accessing the Internet.
With Google being the starting point for many people to do their Internet stuff, and Google incorporating more and more steps of that clickpath -- you don't have to leave google for shopping, mail, document editing, site-specific searches, weather information, stock information, ... --, other websites are left without clicks.

Is Google trying to become the Web? Google is leveraging their, not monopoly, but well-established position.

NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.

Re:why? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339742)

I prefer to go to Google's dictionary because it loads much faster than the others. I just want a definition and if I want it expanded upon, thankfully Google provides links to external sites.

It's by no means perfect but it's probably not complete and with the inclusion of, at the very least, a wikipedia link, I can get a full and detailed definition if required.

Imo, most dictionary sites are ugly and too graphic intensive for a site where people are only interested in words.

Re:why? (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340156)

This is one of those changes that makes me lose confidence in Google. It seems that Google wants to control all the resources instead of being part of an internet.

Eh? It's still pulling its stuff from the internet. It's just cut out the useless middleman. Instead of linking to another site that just pulls its info from other sites, adding no value of its own, just aggregating that info into one (cluttered, poorly formatted) page, Google now links directly to those other sites and presents the info much more cleanly. It's really what they should have done from the start, this being exactly what Google has done with its core service (search) from the get-go.

Re:why? (2, Insightful)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340336)

It makes sense that Google wants to do this, and Google generally do good stuff ... but I'm really slowly just starting to feel a bit like, 'OK Google, enough, you don't have to be part of *everything* I try do in life'. Am not saying they've done anything wrong; maybe there really is just a tendency for people to not like one company to get too big.

It will do for now (1)

cyberzephyr (705742) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339616)

I speak 4 languages other than English: German, Japanese, Spanish, French and Sign language (ASL) as well. I tested it's translations in all the different languages and it performed fine by my standard except for ASL for obvious reason's.

I liked it.

Re:It will do for now (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339748)

Perhaps I'm blind, but I didn't see Japanese in the list.

It's rather odd, as Japanese is supported by Google Translate (and happens to be the fourth most popular language on the Internet).

Re:It will do for now (1)

cyberzephyr (705742) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339862)

Japanese worked fine for me. I was just translating words on the fly in different to see if they came up correctly in English.

Re:It will do for now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30339776)

heast hoits mei du saubeidl --- German has too many dialects for one dictionary :-)
That's a good method of not getting indexed. Write in dialect.

Re:It will do for now (1, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339988)

I tested it's translations in all the different languages and it performed fine by my standard except for ASL for obvious reason's.

Based on this sample of English, presumably your native language, I'm going to have to take your opinions on accurate translations with a grain of salt. Actually, make that a crystal of halite. Several kilogram sample.

Still needs work (1)

tuxedobob (582913) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339704)

Yeah, so, after looking it up, I still don't know how to say "ginormous". (Not that I plan on using it any time soon anyway.) Their pronunciation guide could stand to also include the guide I've seen in dictionaries for decades, rather than an unnecessary international guide when I'm looking up an English word.

Re:Still needs work (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339826)

If you have a sound card and the hated flash installed, you could clickly-clickly on the little speaker to hear it pronounced.

Also, to help with this particular instance, say 'gi' like you would say it if you were saying giant, but instead of finishing with 'ant', say 'normous' as if you were saying enormous.

allows users to decide what are words (1)

panthroman (1415081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339710)

I hope the dictionary works on a sort of democratic principle, where words are defined by their actual usage.

Dictionary editors understand this, but they just don't update enough to make it work. M-W doesn't have the Simpsons' cromulent [merriam-webster.com], but it has Shakespeare's puke [merriam-webster.com] and Dr. Suess's nerd [merriam-webster.com]. It'd be nice to have a dictionary that evolves as quickly as language.

huh? (4, Informative)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339754)

Am I the only one to have the following three reactions?

  1. I remember answers.com solely as one of those annoying sites that mirror's Wikipedia's content, polluting search results with fifty copies of the same WP article. It astonishes me to find out that Google has ever been associated with one of these things; they all strike me as sleazy attempts to sop up some ad revenue without actually making any positive contribution of their own. I would have expected Google to try to filter out such things, not to be associated with them.
  2. Huh? What is a "Google word search definition?" Okay, click through to the LA times blog, which say, "Previously, the 'definition' button at the top right of all Google searches for words would direct users to entries on the Wikipedia-like Answers.com site. Now those links go to Google Dictionary, a less colorful, less cluttered interface." Double huh? Never noticed such a thing before. I did two Google searches on dictionary words just now, and neither one came up with a "'definition' button at the top right." I've never noticed one in the past, and I'm not seeing one now.
  3. Aparently the OP doesn't know what a thesaurus is.

Re:huh? (2, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339880)

Answers.com provides information from lots of other sources too. If you don't believe it, just go take a look...

Re:huh? (1)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340342)

I've been using the 'definition' link *very* regularly for many years ... it's been my primary dictionary - Firefox, Ctrl+K, enter word, and click 'definition'.

This is a Ginormous Step Forward... almost (1)

Frankenshteen (1355339) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339790)

Interesting the Chrome spell checker doesn't seem to be clued into the validity of this word.

Where's the thesaurus? (1)

sir_montag (937262) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339930)

It lists synonyms, but where's a decent online thesaurus when you need one? I've tried a few and most of them are useless, or hopelessly ad-cluttered or both :/

sweet ... new api (1)

ubrkl (310861) | more than 4 years ago | (#30339980)

Hopefully this means a new API to go with the dictionary. API's are usually what I look forward to the most from these google launches.

This should make the FTC happy (4, Funny)

Jay L (74152) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340000)

"We're a monopoly, you say? Sir, the word 'monopoly' is not even in my dictionary." ...in fact, everything from 'marzipan' to 'morass' seems to be missing.

Re:This should make the FTC happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30340192)

In fairness, removing the term "morass" is certainly inconsequential to the /. community.

Unless of course it's referring to seat size.

No ginormous? You need a better dictionary (3, Informative)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340052)

I'm 35 and was using the word "ginormous" as a kid. Sure enough, it's in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary [cambridge.org].

Re:No ginormous? You need a better dictionary (0, Troll)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340184)

I'm 35 and was using the word "ginormous" as a kid. Sure enough, it's in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary [cambridge.org].

Indeed. I believe the word "ginormous" predates the Internet. Al Gore coined the term when describing the idea before it ever got implemented. ;)

Wiktionary.org? (4, Interesting)

Lord Satri (609291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340090)

It seems no one yet mentioned Wiktionary.org [wiktionary.org]. Over 1 536 000 + in French, a similar number in English. While there's obvious room for improvement, it's generally usable and often useful.

So here's my question, why does Google dives into a new initiative instead of jumping on existing trains? I guess the answers has something to do with control. Google wants to keep the control (which is understandable and not necessarily a bad thing). This Wiktionary-Google Dictionary is not the only example, Google Map Maker [google.com] and OpenStreetMap.org [openstreetmap.org] is another one (both crowdsourcing map data, and yes, OSM was there much before).

Re:Wiktionary.org? (3, Informative)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340288)

Guessing you didn't RTFA. Or try the google link. Google Dictionary is still an definition aggregating thing from a bunch of sources (just like answers.com one). That includes wikitionary in the list.

Re:Wiktionary.org? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30340726)

Control, reliability, being able to create your own API and control that, etc. This is definitely something that would be integrated into Google's other services, and already can use Google Translate.

Hey fags! Obama has his dick in your ass. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30340104)

He took your votes but if you think you're getting the right to marry? Think again bitches.

Quietly? (1)

devnullkac (223246) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340116)

Maybe they rolled it out quietly because, as dictionaries go, this one sucks. It's the only one I've ever seen that defines every word by using that word in a sentence. E.g. for the word "hold", we find:

If one thing is used to hold another, it is used to store it.

That's fine for a spelling bee, but in a dictionary, I prefer the more conventional (and more succinct) definition:

to contain or be capable of containing

Re:Quietly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30340474)

Take another look. The very first thing it shows is "PHYSICALLY TOUCHING, SUPPORTING, OR CONTAINING". Then it goes on to show examples of use.

Interesting definition of hacker (1)

onkelringnes (1390807) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340250)

1. A computer hacker is someone who tries to break into computer systems, especially in order to get secret information.
2. A computer hacker is someone who uses a computer a lot, especially so much that they have no time to do anything else. :D
(The smiley was on me though)

A whole nother (1)

meheler (193628) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340310)

Glad to see that "nother" still isn't a word, and that "irregardless" brings up the definition for "regardless" with a wikipedia entry explaining that "irregardless" is considered incorrect.

Vocabulary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30340604)

http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&q=puissant&hl=en

Still has ways to go before it catches up with standard dictionaries.

Where does Google get their definitions? (3, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30340802)

Did they come up with their own definitions for all these words? Did they "scrape" someone else's dictionary? Or pay someone for their content?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...