Definitions

from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.

  • verb Third-person singular simple present indicative form of feature.
  • noun Plural form of feature.

Etymologies

Sorry, no etymologies found.

Support

Help support Wordnik (and make this page ad-free) by adopting the word features.

Examples

  • We oppose a socialization that has features, -- I will say no more, -- has _features_ of generous breadth and promise, that are the best fruition of many countries and centuries.

    The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 11, No. 67, May, 1863

  • : It will receive many reviews for several reasons, including the fact that it's the smallest Wi-Fi gateway (when you include its built-in power supply); it's the only one to stream audio in the particular way it does; it includes several interesting features in one wrapper; it's relatively cheap for any two of its four unique set features*.

    Wi-Fi Networking News

  • : It will receive many reviews for several reasons, including the fact that it's the smallest Wi-Fi gateway (when you include its built-in power supply); it's the only one to stream audio in the particular way it does; it includes several interesting features in one wrapper; it's relatively cheap for any two of its four unique set features*.

    Wi-Fi Networking News

  • : It will receive many reviews for several reasons, including the fact that it's the smallest Wi-Fi gateway (when you include its built-in power supply); it's the only one to stream audio in the particular way it does; it includes several interesting features in one wrapper; it's relatively cheap for any two of its four unique set features*.

    Wi-Fi Networking News

  • So that's my solution - 1 really says that A enjoys e if it is wrong, taking into account all the normatively relevant features of e into account * except A's reactions, if those are wrong / right-making features*.

    PEA Soup

  • It's in the $12 ballpark and the label features a colourful, modernist depiction of a castle.

    The Globe and Mail - Home RSS feed

  • It's in the $12 ballpark and the label features a colourful, modernist depiction of a castle.

    The Globe and Mail - Home RSS feed

  • The title features a weight-activated controller, called the Wii Balance Board, on which gamers stand to tackle various challenges.

    Nintendo Sets Launch of Wii Fit Game

  • Do you recognize any terrain features from the map?

    Chirichingo, Luis G.

  • Do you recognize any terrain features from the map?

    Shepard, Vernon C.

Comments

Log in or sign up to get involved in the conversation. It's quick and easy.

  • Feel free to use this word to talk about, or ask for, Wordie features.

    October 15, 2007

  • One feature that is nice is "posts since my last visit", sorted by word. Perhaps other standard methods of searching, such as, "Words commented in the last day", etc., would be easier to do in short run, since that wouldn't be user dependent.

    October 15, 2007

  • Great ideas, seanahan!

    October 15, 2007

  • Yeah, that is a great idea seanahan. On the list.

    Just added autocomplete to the search box on every page. It returns up to 10 results, and updates them as you type. You can scroll through the suggestions with the arrow keys, or select them with the mouse.

    I'm finding this pretty useful. Really shows how many misspellings are in Wordie -- I'm going to start tagging those as I find them, I think.

    October 15, 2007

  • Once again--thanks, John!

    October 15, 2007

  • John, I just happened to notice on Facebook that you mentioned ads? Would that be as in advertisements?

    edit ah, question answered by available evidence. :)

    October 16, 2007

  • Is it just me, or is Wordie starting to look like Flickr, but without as many photos?

    October 16, 2007

  • John, do you have any plans for allowing us to organize our own lists in ways other than chronological--say, alphabetically? Just a thought.

    October 16, 2007

  • Here's an interesting cautionary tale from Hopeless Geek.

    October 17, 2007

  • Sorting by alpha is already there, rt!

    *is shocked to know something about wordie that the famous rt does not*

    It's right under the list title, to the right.

    October 17, 2007

  • No, I mean the list of lists, arby. Didn't make that clear. But thanks for the compliment. :-)

    October 17, 2007

  • Wait, rt is famous?!

    John, I thought of the same thing rt did, but never mentioned it. It's only because i have too damn many lists... *flips through, thinking about deleting some*

    October 17, 2007

  • Well, he does have a list dedicated to exploring his identity, after all. Can't get much more famous on Wordie than that. Unless you're John, of course.

    PS rt thanks! That makes more sense.

    October 17, 2007

  • So I was thinking a way to batch tag words en masse might be handy. I was tagging all the words in a list of mine, and since they all have the same tag, it would have been nice to select them all (with checkboxes or something) and just type the tag once for all of them.

    October 17, 2007

  • I see a link to Blogger in my profile editor... but no Wordpress!

    October 20, 2007

  • logophile, I'll add WordPress tomorrow night.

    This is carried over from a discussion that started on lingoz. Skipvia, I very much hear you. Something I've been thinking about, more than voting, is categorizing, which might achieve a similar end, without the downsides. Comments on Wordie are sometimes chatty, and sometimes more informational: a citation, usage note, link. So if we could classify comments, perhaps the way we can mark parts of speech for words, it would let us view a word in different ways, depending on what we're after: "dictionary mode", where you'd see citations up top, or "conversation mode", where you see comments in the order they're added.

    The fun, social aspect of Wordie is the most important part of it, to me, but we're also creating a pretty amazing collaborative resource while we're at it. I'd like to find ways to facilitate using the site both ways.

    October 21, 2007

  • I *kind of* like the idea of catagorizing words as long as we don't loose the informality of the experience. If there are only two catagories--"dictionary mode" and "conversation mode," that might work. We could have a section for formal citations and another for everything else.

    I'm still thinking about this one. I love the happy disorganization of Wordie, where a conversation can take many twists and turns through personal citations, messages to other Wordies, dictionary references, madeupical words, literary sources, and so forth. It's a rich mix. We may get off track--a lot, in some cases--but that's just having fun with words, isn't it?

    *Still thinking..must get some sleep...*

    October 21, 2007

  • I love how every single day there's a new idea to improve Wordie and make it more cooler!

    I'd be down with categorizing conversations. Sometimes it's really fun just to follow the conversation in all its twisty-turny glory, and other times it's a bit frustrating because I'm really looking for a definition, explanation, usage note, whatever. It'd be nice to be able to find those usage notes without having--for example--to wade through a week or two worth of conversational one-upmanship!

    Though, in all honesty, that's kind of what I'm here for. :)

    So... is there a way to "tag" conversations as being usage- or word-oriented, or "merely" conversational? And, if this were the case, what about those odd conversations that really are about the word itself (or the list), but veer away into conversation, then veer back again? Maybe a "hybrid" tag as well? Or is that too many categories?

    October 22, 2007

  • I'm thinking that any comment categorization would be strictly optional, and visually discrete. It would be possible to use wordie exactly as we do now, and have it behave the same (because, yeah... I'm here for the banter, too, primarily :-). But you could switch to "dictionary view" and be able to see only the comments that had been categorized as citation/usage/definition.

    We could use tags for this, and maybe that's the way to do it. But I'm thinking it might be a little easier, interface-wise, to have a little row of checkboxes next to the comment form, and you could (optionally) check all the categories that apply. I'm thinking these categories would make sense:

    comment

    citation

    usage

    definition

    joke

    Thoughts?

    October 22, 2007

  • reesetee, i'll look into sorting the list of lists. and uselessness, i want batch tagging too, will do that eventually. i'm trying to triage the feature/todo list :-)

    October 22, 2007

  • The proposed categories look pretty good. I'm not sure about the difference between the "joke" and "comment" categories, though. Could we combine these into a single "comment" category?

    I very much like the idea of having switchable "dictionary" and "normal" views. Great idea.

    Maybe we also need a "non sequitur" category. :)

    October 22, 2007

  • I'm not sure how I feel about the joke category. It's not nearly as funny if you have to specify that is a joke. Next thing you know there will be a sarcasm tag. Then there will be an irony tag and I'll have to spend the next year flaming every person who uses it because 90% of the time it is used incorrectly. I think Skipvia's merging idea would work.

    October 22, 2007

  • Glad some of you are into the multi-mode business. And yes, you're absolutely right, no 'joke' category. Explaining humor is about as funny as cancer. That I even suggested it means I need to go to bed.

    'night :-)

    October 22, 2007

  • but... but... what about when you make a joking comment in a usage note? What about cracking wise in a definition? I don't know about this. I'm still wondering how it's going to work if people just start *thinking* in terms of categorizing their comments, even if they don't *have* to check one of those boxes.

    What if one category were called "comments" (or even "general comments") and one were called "in all seriousness"? Wouldn't that cover what you're hoping to cover? It makes all the comments kinda sortable, but not so sortable that people will feel constrained and/or not check any boxes at all.

    P.S. I also like the idea of having switchable "dictionary" and "normal" views, though I don't know how that would work logistically.

    October 22, 2007

  • catergories, schmatergories. I can't really imagine myself categorizing my posts

    October 22, 2007

  • Thanks for considering the "list of lists" sort, John.

    I have to say that I'm not crazy about the categorizing idea either, although if it's an option that's left to the user, it might be useful for some Wordies. Not sure I'd use it myself. One of my favorite aspects of Wordie is its serendipitousness. Granted, a little organization is nice (and the new features are fantastic), but I'm not sure that this wouldn't come off as over-organizing.

    As for voting--make mine an absolute NO vote. In my view, that's asking for trouble and bad feelings.

    My two cents. :-)

    October 22, 2007

  • how about instead of multiple categories, just one: citation/usage note. a single, discrete checkbox. everything else would fall under the (implied) category "miscellaneous". Reminds me of one of my favorite recent non-fiction books, Everything is miscellaneous.

    October 22, 2007

  • That would work for me, John. It eliminates the need (implied or otherwise) to categorize one's comments all the time, but it does give the option for people to see the "serious" notes on words when they don't have time/inclination to wade through all the serendipitousness. Also, it's optional.

    But wait... if it's only the one category, how is that different from a tag with site-wide uniformity?

    Nevermind... it's probably more technical than I need to know!

    October 22, 2007

  • I like the citation v. miscellaneous idea much better than categories and voting. One of the (many) reasons I like this site is that the only rating system you have is the number of people who have listed / commented / favorited a word. I dislike stars and precentages and the like.

    PS - my favorite new thing is seeing what other lists a word is on - good for finding new and interesting lists and wordtuplets.

    October 22, 2007

  • Agreed, trivet. And I also like the "appears in these lists" feature for the same reason you do.

    October 22, 2007

  • cb, a 'serious' checkbox (i wouldn't call it that, but a 'serious' button would be kind of... funny) *could* be just a tag. the reason i prefer a checkbox is that i think it's easier for people to use, and it enforces uniformity. which in general i don't care about, but in some specific instances just makes everyone's life easier.

    October 22, 2007

  • I'm always late to these parties, but here's my two cents. I like my Wordie existential. You know, so it just is what it is.

    Maybe it's my pseudonym taking over, but I think attempts to make the site more useful are not so good. At least academically speaking. I'm all in favor of making it more usable, and more efficient to do what we already do. But let's not kid ourselves that we're making some kind of purposeful dictionary/Wikipedia clone. That may be right for Lingoz, but it's not who we are. Wordie is primarily about fun (vis-à-vis word appreciation, admittedly).

    Yes, the site is educational. But mostly in the "gosh, I wasn't planning to learn that today but I'm glad I did" way. There's no way to differentiate between fun comments and informative comments, and comments are frequently both. Often a regular definition comment will spawn a whole conversation that could be considered "fun" or "off-topic" but is also thought-provoking and enlightening. We should make no attempts to corral comments into one category or another. In my opinion.

    On the other hand, I'd be up for other ways to add value to comments. Perhaps comment-favoriting? MetaFilter has a nice way to both give kudos for good contributions to a discussion and save them for recall later. Favorited comments are noted with a little "14 users marked this comment as a favorite" blurb. Food for thought.

    October 22, 2007

  • I like the idea for a "definition" or "dictionary mode" checkbox. You can't segregate the citational comments from the conversational ones because they depend on each other.

    Other than that, I'm against voting, rating etc. for the reasons given by others.

    What I do like though is stats, stats, stats. Give us stats, John! Tell us people's average letter and syllable counts! The mean and median obscurity of their words (a la librarything). Most fantastic of all, show us a spider diagram detailing list overlap, i.e. connectivity / affinity between members.

    October 22, 2007

  • U, I love the idea of favoriting comments. I've also thought it might be nice to be able to favorite each other. As with voting, I don't want to do anything that'll add a competitive or negative vibe, but sometimes you want to be able to essentially bookmark a profile.

    The possible downside is that it becomes a tit-for-tat thing, or that people might feel badly if they haven't been favorited enough. Though that would be mitigated by the fact that I have no intention of making it possible to see who has favorited you, or any specific user.

    I agree, Wordie isn't and shouldn't try to be a wikipedia clone. But I love citations, and I don't see any reason it can't be a social, fun-first place, and also useful (see errata for more on this). I'm listening, though; anything I add along those lines will be done in small, incremental steps that don't impinge on the primary mission.

    Uh, you know, the mission? Of telling fart jokes, and referencing cheesy 80s heavy metal bands?

    October 23, 2007

  • Well, I'm down with a serious tag or checkbox, either one.

    I'm not sure I like the idea of favoriting comments or ... favoriting anything, really. I can understand the desire to remember certain users or profiles, or even certain comments on certain words. I've certainly had that desire in the past, but ... I just made lists to put them on so I wouldn't forget them. I mean... that's kind of what we do here anyway. Right?

    *puts this word on a "conversations" list*

    October 23, 2007

  • I'm opposed to the idea of favoriting (hey, new word) comments, and I'm seriously opposed to favoriting each other. Any possibility of destroying the egalitarian nature of Wordie worries me. What if you don't get favorited? Will you be less likely to use Wordie? We already favorite the words, lists, and Wordies we like by following links and possibly making comments. Do we need to codify this?

    Some of these ideas seem like solutions without problems.

    October 23, 2007

  • Rocking catatonically back and forth.... Wordie good. no change wordie.

    favoritism is a hellspawnish idea.

    skipvia is channeling my thoughts on these various possibilities and expressing them better than I could

    October 23, 2007

  • I'm also opposed to favoriting users, but I don't think favoriting comments is bad. At least on MetaFilter (my inspiration for the idea) there's no sense of competition. The "favorites" aren't really worth anything, except as a placemark to return to good conversation points. It has the side benefit of encouraging people to post substantial comments, though "substantial" remains plenty vague so it could mean educational or weird or funny or whatever. It's very free-form.

    I love all the "conversations" lists but I think it's only a short-term solution for keeping track of good stuff. I'm just looking for better ways to do that, and while favoriting comments may or may not help, maybe there are other things that will work better in the long-term. Wordie's getting bigger, and faster, and more complicated, and anything that improves the way it's organized is a big plus in my book.

    So here's an idea I just had. At the moment, we can create lists of words. But what if we could make lists of other things too? For example, lists of lists. Lists of tags. Lists of users. Lists of comments. I think that would add many layers of interconnectivity, and provide new ways to organize stuff as well.

    Finally, John, how the heck did you link to a list page without the icon showing up after it?

    October 23, 2007

  • I wondered whose voice that was in my head, sionnach. It didn't sound like the voice of binky.

    October 23, 2007

  • I guess some of us are sensing a negative connotation to "favoriting" and some are viewing it as a useful distinguishing feature. I'm all for useful distinguishing features; my fear is that any feature on Wordie, if you can favorite it, might become a popularity contest. I don't want that, whether it be for a word, list, tag, or what have you.

    The way u describes a favoriting-comments system doesn't sound like it could foster competitive feelings. I'm not familiar with MetaFilter so I can't really address the suggestion any more specifically. If there's a way to add tags to tags, or list tags, or tag lists, or whatever--that sounds good.

    U does have a very good point, which I hadn't considered fully before. A list of conversational pages (such as what jennarenn and I have started keeping) is useful only so long. Eventually, and maybe sooner rather than later, that list will start looking like st.peter's word list, and crash people's computers when you try to bring it up. :) (I imagine that was fixed long ago, but it still kind of cracks me up that it happened.)

    John, a shot in the dark: what about setting up a tag box, like the one on word pages right now, for comments? Maybe instead of allowing people to post their own tags on comments (e.g. "stabby"), you could limit them to a couple check-boxes...? Like a serious button? (I have to admit, this thought amuses me endlessly. It could turn into a form of punctuation! "Statement. Serious!" Or even a verb! "I totally serioused my comment! Didn't you see?")

    Wait. My brain is vacillating wildly now and I'm not comprehending what I'm in favor of and what I'm opposed to. *goes to earworm page to clear head*

    October 23, 2007

  • Or, instead of making lists of conversation, you could use a conversation tag?

    October 23, 2007

  • good stuff here, still digesting, but a quick note to U: to add a link without having the external icon appear, make it relative: /words/features instead of http://wordie.org/words/features.

    October 23, 2007

  • Tags are certainly underutilized on Wordie. I'm guilty of neglecting to add them to many of my words. But the thoughtful use of tags could solve many of the issues that have come up, as trivet suggests.

    October 23, 2007

  • Ahh, brilliant, John, I'll keep that in mind next time I make an on-Wordie link!

    So yeah, lots of ideas here to consider... but in the meantime, perhaps a good priority is pagination on any page where comments can go? Because the active ones (like, say this page) fill up fast, and that's a lot of scrolling. AJAX and pagination go together like birds of a feather, so a little XMLHttpRequest magic could do wonders. ;-)

    October 23, 2007

  • My original thought was something like what the OED does (if you are on a university, you can typically access it for free). You can browse just the definition, or the citations, the pronunciation, date graph, etc. After reading this topic, I think this is a bad idea. If you want to do that, go to a Dictionary. Wordie is about words, how they're used, how they make us feel, the memories they invoke, how they make us cringe or laugh or cry. Adding hypercategorization to this would probably ruin it. However, adding some basic comment tagging would be acceptable to me.

    October 23, 2007

  • I guess I kind of love hypercategorization--as David Weinberger says, the solution to too much information, is more information!

    Another question, sparked by a comment on uselessness's profile: would a private messaging system be appreciated? I've avoided it so far, because I figured it was best to encourage common discussion. But sometimes it would be nice to be able to send a message to just one person.

    October 23, 2007

  • Hey! It's something I've on-and-off-again wanted, but never bugged you about it directly because you have so many other things on your plate. But yeah, if you made it, I wouldn't complain. ;-)

    October 23, 2007

  • Do you think it might become a messaging site or would it still be Wordie, but with a messaging capability? The former I'm against, the latter... eh. I'm easy. :)

    October 24, 2007

  • I'm neutral about messaging except for the fear that some of the wonderful conversations that we all enjoy might go private if we could message. As an alternative, could you expand the profile a bit to include a contact e-mail, with the assumption being that if you entered one you don't mind being contacted personally?

    October 24, 2007

  • I'm also going to go out on the proverbial limb here and ask about embedded images and movies in comments. I don't want to offend anyone who has posted such, but I really don't think they belong on Wordie. ("Like Flickr, but without the pictures.") I don't object at all to off-site links to images, but placing them in the text just seems...wrong, somehow.

    I have enjoyed many of the images and movies that folks have posted, but I would have preferred a link. Am I way off base here?

    *throws himself at the mercy of other Wordies*

    October 24, 2007

  • As the first person to ever embed media on Wordie, of course I'm a little biased... but I do like having the ability to post that kind of stuff. :-P

    However, I'm probably at odds with everyone else here when I say that I would appreciate some color and design elements around the site. I mean, it's perfectly functional as-is (and I love it!) but a little on the bland side for my tastes. Just because we're pro-words doesn't mean we have to be anti-everything else. Now, the only reason I've brought this up is that embedded media would not seem nearly so out-of-place on a more colorful site; I think it's only because of the simpler design we currently have that their presence seems a little jarring.

    October 24, 2007

  • In my view, the amount of embedded media we see now is entertaining and not too awfully jarring, so long as no one goes overboard (and thus far no one has). Not sure whether private messaging would make a difference, to be honest. There are other ways to contact fellow Wordies, especially now that we have a Wordie group on Facebook. :-)

    October 24, 2007

  • I'm with skipvia on this. I find it jarring to encounter images and embedded YouTube videos, etc. on Wordie, though I would not be the first one to come right out and say so. (Partly because I'm a coward, and partly because I figured nobody else minded.)

    I see uselessness's point re: design and color, and it's true that so far, those images and videos that have been embedded have not been overdone (as reesetee pointed out). I can only speak for myself and my own personal taste. One of the things I love about Wordie, and that sets it off so completely from almost *every* other site, is the dearth of embedded images and video. That dearth changes not only the look of the site itself (which is immediately apparent), but--and this is entirely subjective--the nature of the discourse that takes place here as well. It's a mindset, reading this site, that you're not going to be entertained by anything but words. You're not going to see a cute baby porcupine eating bananas and having the hiccups. (Which was darling, if I may say so! But that was a link, I believe...no?) You're only going to get words. You're going to have to use your brain here.

    When words are all you have, you learn to use them well.

    Anyway, I would submit to everyone else's opinion on this--if the majority of other wordies really love those embeds, then I'll deal with it, until/unless it gets beyond my capability to stand it. But since someone (*glares at skipvia*) was willing to share his/her dislike of that feature at the risk of being... well... disliked... I figured it wasn't fair, at least to that person, to stay silent.

    October 24, 2007

  • I'm not super-attached to the embedded media thing. I like finding the occasional YouTube video on a word page because it often adds context (see: like) but it's true that it breaks the flow of the text we've come to expect. And a link would be nearly as effective, anyway. However, without embedded media, we wouldn't have earworm, which may or may not be a good thing.

    October 24, 2007

  • I agree 100% with skipvia and ceebee. Wordie is, and should be, an oasis of words. If people want embedded media they can go to literally any other site.

    Private messaging I don't really see the point of, either. But I'm neutral on that one.

    October 24, 2007

  • I take it all back. I love the earworm.

    ;)

    October 24, 2007

  • Form follows function, and in the case of Wordie, black letters on a white background seems quite functional (and beautiful) to me.

    October 24, 2007

  • I don't mind the occasional image/video, but I would mind if there were many more than there are now.

    I like the monochromatic look.

    And I wouldn't use messaging.

    That's my two cents for the day.

    October 24, 2007

  • I would like to see the wordie community able to link certain words to each other as synonym, antonyms, homonyms, etc.

    There could be links to the associated words under the appropriate category in the word's page.

    Also, word forms could be grouped together. One could group together, for example, prescient and prescience. Instead of one being listed 9 times and the other 12 times, both could be shown as listed 21 times.

    All of these could be managed by the community. For example, any user could link a certain word to another or group words, but a certain number of members objecting to the action could negate it. Almost like wikipedia, but not quite :).

    Forgive me if these have already been suggested, as I suspect they may have.

    October 27, 2007

  • I presume tag searching will appear at some stage, John?

    October 27, 2007

  • Hey John,

    Has anyone thought about or suggested a comments-filtering feature? Just a thought.

    October 30, 2007

  • John--I love the WordNet addition. Thanks!

    November 2, 2007

  • I second that! And while I'm on the right page (I asked this elsewhere)...Will you keep the option to tag parts of speech, now that you have the WordNet feature up & running? Just curious.

    November 2, 2007

  • The WordNet addition is nice on some words, but sucky on others, where it gives an inadequate definition. :(

    November 2, 2007

  • Yeah, I thought it made sense to keep the manual parts of speech option, for words not in WordNet (madeupical and otherwise).

    I'll improve the WordNet integration over time--I thought it was useful enough to launch now, but I know it's not perfect. It frequently gives the definition of the first word in a phrase, rather than the phrase itself. I just added "read in", and and it's showing the definition of "read", which is related, yet totally wrong. At the least I'll put in a notice when the definition isn't an exact match. Also, right now I have it showing a single definition, though many more are often available. I don't want to list them all--I tried that, it overwhelms the page--but eventually I'll add a 'more' link, so you can see the rest if you want to.

    And when the definition just isn't long enough--that's why I left all the lookup icons on there :-)

    If anyone has ideas to improve this, I am, as always, open to suggestions.

    November 2, 2007

  • Yay! We're keeping the tags for parts of speech! Yay!

    November 2, 2007

  • Still a nice feature, despite what it says about Anne Heche. ;-)

    November 2, 2007

  • Okay, I've prowled around enough now to have some opinions.

    Regarding comments: I'd say there should be two types: ones that only the creator can edit, and ones that anyone can edit. The ones that anyone can edit would be the "serious" ones that give definitions and other "objective" information, and presumably would be displayed at the top. The creator of the comment would check a box opening the comment for editing (either when it was created or subsequently, which would give a way to bubble existing comments to the top).

    Capitalization: how about a check box in tags where one could indicate that a word should be capitalized? That way capitalization would be a matter of display, and wouldn't affect sorting, and variants wouldn't build up. An option to turn off capitalization in display might also be wanted, since some would prefer the current system. Not sure how capitalization of phrases could be handled.

    Tags: Checkboxes for tagging abbreviations and acronyms would be helpful. A word flagged as an acronym and also flagged as capitalized could be displayed with all letters capitalized.

    Word counts: I don't think ghost words (words once entered then deleted) should be counted toward the total of unique words (as commented under detartrated yesterday). I've already entered a couple of words, that I realized I misspelled, and deleted before the feed ran displayed them on the home page. Why count such words? There are of course orphans, but they'll be counted when someone lists them again.

    The counts for words listed seem to include tags, at least for individuals. Why?

    More to come, but I'm up past my normal bedtime for the seventh night in a row.

    November 5, 2007

  • I really like the look up options. Thanks for keeping them!

    November 5, 2007

  • Not sure I agree on opening up comments in the way that mollusque suggests, if only because it may put a damper on some discussions, particularly those concerning various uses of a word/phrase.

    My two cents. :-)

    November 5, 2007

  • Ooh... What a list of suggestions!

    I think I would be opposed to anyone editing comments that aren't their own. That could too easily turn into something we probably don't want here.

    I think the tagging ideas--re: acronyms and ghost words--are interesting, though I haven't formed an opinion about them yet.

    November 5, 2007

  • I'm a legendary necromancer. I deliberately summon ghost words all the time. They shouldn't be ignored, it'll only make them feel bad. And when my ghosties feel bad, I feel bad.

    Because I'm really not a fan of historical revisionism, I'd prefer that users can't edit comments left by other users. Actually, I might even add a time limit for commenting so that people can't even edit their own comments after, say, an hour. Changing things after they've been said in conversation only confuses things and shoos away whatever historicity might be lingering on the pages here. But I'm not opposed to deleting one's own comments, which can be useful, and I still think a comment ranking system (of some sort) would be nice.

    Capitalization is a trickier issue than tags, I think, for words with multiple capitals in them. Particularly in the case of capitonyms: shall we have separate pages for Thanksgiving the holiday and thanksgiving the act of gratitude? And if so, what's the best way to ensure people are adding the one they think they want? Could lead to lots of head-scratching.

    I agree that flags for acronyms and abbreviations would be great.

    November 8, 2007

  • This may seem sort of silly, but sometimes I'd really love to be able to rearrange the order of the words on one of my lists. With some lists word order can make a pleasure of reading the list as a whole. Thus far the only way I've accomplished shuffling words is to move them all to a generic list and then move them back in the desired order.

    November 8, 2007

  • I'm pretty settled that comments will only ever be editable by the person who authored them, and eventually, there probably will be restrictions on that, like some sort of a time window. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is that I haven't had the time to do it. Likewise, things will probably stay all-lowercase for the foreseeable future. I know it's not ideal, but changing it causes more problems that it solves, and as I'm time and resource constrained, occam's razor wins.

    One-way comments ratings (ie, you can say something is good, but not that it's bad) will come, someday. And I really like the idea of being able to custom-order lists, it would enable all kinds of fun stuff with poems, etc. Added to the to-do someday list.

    I agree, too, that ghost words (nice phrase) should get their due. Sometimes you want something on the site, perhaps so it can be linked from a comment, but it doesn't belong in a list.

    My immediate goal is to work on performance again. Between higher traffic, and added load on the system from the (perhaps not ideal) way I'm getting definitions, it's gone all to pot.

    November 8, 2007

  • I am clearly an undisciplined wordier, so that roughly half of my words appear in an undifferentiated heap on my basic list. Previously, when viewing this list, it all appeared on screen together, making it simple to scroll up and down through it. In particular, checking to see if I had already added a word was relatively straightforward - just alphabetize the list and scroll down. This simplicity has been taken away by the recently added feature, which only allows me to see the list 100 words at a time. To get to my "s" words, it seems like I would have to hit "next" many, many times.

    I am curious about the perceived advantage that this new feature might confer. Also whether there is any way to circumvent it?

    Of course, one way to check if a word I'm thinking of adding is already on my list is just to add it, but the relatively slow response time makes this an unappealing option.

    Sorry to be a complainer. In other news:

    * I can see no benefit to allowing one user to edit a different user's comments, and several potential disadvantages, as others have already pointed out.

    * The lowercase restriction doesn't bother me.

    * I routinely use the "last 400 comments" feature, as the most convenient way of checking up on recent discussions and developments.

    November 8, 2007

  • On another note, John--I love the HTML popup info above the comments field. Neat! :-)

    November 8, 2007

  • Recall that I proposed that the creator of the comment be allowed to decide if a comment should be editable by others. This was similar to the proposal that there be comments and definitions as two different classes, which people seemed to like. If people prefer that approach it's fine with me.

    Editing comments: As far as a time limit on editing comments, I'm undecided. I agree on the importance of historicity. But there are some kinds of comments that serve as lists in their own right. I could imagine creating entries for "a - a", "a - b" etc., and then in the comments, list my favorite word starting and ending with those pairs of letters: aa, ana, alga, abaca, aurora...; ab, alb, arab, acerb, aplomb.... Why shouldn't I be able to go in and edit that list when I find a seven letter a - b word? I don't want to clutter my list of lists with 676 separate such lists.

    Ghost words: I've changed by mind on ghost words: I think they should be counted in the total number of unique words on Wordie. They appear in the search window, and the comments still exist. There are a few I've encountered that aren't on anyone's list, but have been tagged as misspellings. (Actually, it's important that such ghost words be tagged as misspellings, otherwise newbies might add them to their lists. Try typing "sesq" in the search box. The last item on the list is a misspelling of sesquipedalian.)

    November 8, 2007

  • I had the same questions as sionnach re: paging through one's lists. I can understand the need or desire for such a feature--and it doesn't *really* bother me one way or the other--but for me, I guess I got used to the big long lists and my scrolling finger has now developed huge muscles and qualified for the Olympics.

    I'm *not* down with a time limit on editing comments, though with historicity in mind, I have been using "Edit:" to append notes to previous comments. Using this method, rather than putting in a new comment every time, also helps keep down on the clutter on some pages that have tons of comments.

    I'm also *not* down with anyone editing comments that aren't their own, regardless of whether someone "tagged" them as editable.

    Using a "conversations" tag---why didn't I think of that? Duh...

    Also, I routinely use the 400 comments link as well, all the time, to catch up on what I've missed.

    Thanks again for all your hard work, John!

    November 9, 2007

  • mollusque, good point about comment editing being desirable in some cases. To preserve the historic record I could save the whole edit trail for a comment, though I'd have to figure out an interface so the trail was viewable, and it would add complexity. As a compromise, maybe comments that have been edited should just be marked as such? That wouldn't preserve the record, but it would let people know that they weren't seeing the original.

    sionnach and cb, I hear you about wanting to be able to see lists on one page, I'll add that as an option sometime soon. Though I think I'll leave paging as the default, it keeps things a little more manageable and prevents really long undifferentiated lists from causing problems.

    November 9, 2007

  • How about in addition to a cloud view, a compact view? Like cloud view, but all in the small font size, with minimal line spacing. That would allow those of us with penchants for long lists to see them all at once and see what we've added already.

    Also, on the lists of lists, could semicolons be used as separators instead of commas. Since some listnames have commas, it can be hard to parse.

    By the way, the html addition is good. I thought you meant a mouseover pop-up, not a clickable pop-up. Still can't get square brackets not to link though, so I'm doing something wrong. I used curly braces instead.

    November 9, 2007

  • How about a "which words link here?" facility?

    November 9, 2007

  • Two small additions. The sort order of your lists can now be toggled between alpha and chronological, the same as with words within a list. And on lists longer than 100 words, there's now a 'view all' link, which lets you turn off pagination and see everything on a single page.

    November 9, 2007

  • awesome! Thanks, John.

    November 9, 2007

  • Wahoo! Thanks very much, John!

    November 9, 2007

  • The new list format (extra space and periods) is much appreciated as well. Thanks.

    November 10, 2007

  • Sometimes I wish there were a "Preview Comment" button that would allow us to proofread a comment before we actually post it. This would be particularly useful when comments include off-site links, some of which are quite lengthy and make proofing comments difficult.

    Plus I suck at typing...

    November 10, 2007

  • That's mainly why I like being able to edit my comments, skipvia--accusations of historical revisionism aside. :-)

    November 10, 2007

  • Everytime I open wordie I discover a wonderful new improvement - from definitions on the word pages to better spacing of our lists. Appreciate your work John!

    November 10, 2007

  • Is it possible to search just the names of lists? If so, how can I do this?

    Is it possible to search by tag?

    Does wordie support Asian language encoding? Would really like to start a list of Chinese characters.

    Thanks!

    November 10, 2007

  • Searching by list only: not yet.

    Searching by tag: click on the tag.

    Chinese characters: try pasting them in from another webpage. See 《♜�?☣》

    November 10, 2007

  • Hi lanklenmot. Asian characters should work fine (see this page). The search box at the upper right is for words, and you can search comments on the comments page, but right now that's it. I'll add a search for lists. Eventually I plan to totally revamp search, but that'll have to wait for upgraded hosting.

    skipvia, a comment preview would be great. Eventually I'm going to hunt around for some kind of basic WYSIWYG comment editor, and will try to add preview when I get to that.

    yarb, a 'what links point here' would also be great, but the only way I can think to do that would require a prohibitive amount of processing -- every once in a while the system would have to comb through every comment and see what was linked where. But if I can think of a simpler way to do it, I will.

    November 10, 2007

  • Just added a basic list search to the lists page.

    I'll soon create a consolidated search page with the list search, comments search, and word search.

    November 10, 2007

  • How about including tag searching? Sorry to keep going on about this!

    November 10, 2007

  • John, thanks for all these improvements! They are like potato chips. Great to have the all view back. Might I suggest that the next, previous, and view all options be repeated at the bottom of the lists.

    I've found that Google is good for searching Wordie. Do Googlebots affect performance? They index Wordie often.

    November 10, 2007

  • John, I was going to mention that I always just ran a CTRL+F search on the lists page (which wasn't perfect, but it helped), but you've already made that practice obsolete! Wordie gets to be more addictive every day--and we have you to thank for it. :-)

    November 11, 2007

  • I just edited one of my older comments (from seven months) ago because the link was outdated. So may I suggest that if we do introduce a time limit for editing comments, that it only apply to comments which have had responses, for the sake of archiving conversations?

    November 12, 2007

  • I've had to do that too.

    November 12, 2007

  • It would be ideal to be able to edit a comment, as you can on almost every message board I post to. If people are concerned about people editing messages and screwing up the flow of conversations, I would say have an "Edited" marker that a person could click on for the original post.

    November 13, 2007

  • I hate when editing leaves a marker, since sometimes you're just fixing a typo, and no one else needs to know that. You start wondering if people are editing for typos or changing their post entirely, and if an argument gets heated that can really mess things up.

    November 13, 2007

  • Just added the ability to leave comments on tag pages, like so.

    In light of everything that's been said, I think I'll just leave comments as they are: editable, no marker. Mostly because of inertia, but also because we're word people. We should be allowed to edit things. Every once in a while I come across a typo in a comment I left a day or a week ago, and I'm glad I can just fix it.

    November 15, 2007

  • I agree, John. Thanks.

    November 15, 2007

  • John, will we now see ads every day? I noticed a few delicately placed ones on the top right of the home page (and it's Thursday). No objection; just wondering.

    November 15, 2007

  • About the ads on the front page, I was experimenting on my laptop, and once again accidentally launched the page when I moved the comments for tags to the live site. Hazard of only working on Wordie at 2am :-)

    That square ad box is only on the front page; the rest of the pages are still set to only show ads on Tuesdays. If there are no complaints, I'll just keep it as is, see how it goes. This all remains an experiment. Eventually I'll build some kind of self-serve system where people can buy ads directly (user generated advertising :-). With Google ads, they're the only ones making a dime.

    November 16, 2007

  • You ask me, you should make some pennies on the deal. :-) And no, I have no objections whatsoever.

    November 16, 2007

  • As far as the debate over opening new windows/tabs versus not (this debate used to be on John's profile), thanks very much for the note that the scrolling wheel and the middle mouse button do the same thing in one click. I don't know that I'll get in the habit of using that knowledge, but it's handy to know. And uselessness has a good point, that there are several options for those of us who prefer new tabs/windows, but no real alternatives for those who don't. I am now more neutral on this issue than I was before. (I'm also a big fan of the back button, which helps.)

    November 16, 2007

  • John, as Wordie grows and the great new features make it easier to find things, it's becoming harder to keep up with the comments and the flow of listed words. Is it feasible to:

    a) have a "next 400" button on comments, so that one can see more than the first 400 hundred,

    b) have an option for a threaded view of comments,

    c) see more than the last 100 words added to Wordie?

    Maybe some of this could be done with the feeds, but I know squat about them. (I don't know squat about them either). What do the feeds do?

    November 17, 2007

  • I want an option to ignore comments by reesetee. Guy talks too much. ;-)

    November 17, 2007

  • mollusque, good suggestions, I'll add paging ("next 400" links) to the comments page tonight, and a way to see more than the last 100 words added.

    A threaded view of comments is more complicated, but I'll look into it.

    Hey, did anyone besides kewpid notice the new mini-wordie? And would there be any interest in being able to add words via SMS, or is this not a phone phreak crowd?

    November 17, 2007

  • I'm not really a phone phreak kind of guy, personally, but usually because I hate the additional charges associated with doing anything beyond talk. Any idea what kind of fees I might incur if I tried managing lists via SMS?

    November 17, 2007

  • Depends on your phone plan. Some include unlimited texting, some include a certain number, above which you pay per SMS.

    November 17, 2007

  • *Blinks* I take it the meaning of 'phone phreak' you have in mind isn't the one I immediately thought of.

    November 17, 2007

  • Hi John, I see you've changed the screen that appears when a word is added to a list from a list page. I find it harder to use because it doesn't show the modified list after the word is added. This makes it harder to check that the word was entered correctly, to see if someone else has added the word before, and to click through to add a comment. Also, there are two windows to add the word on the resulting screen, and sometimes I end up in the bottom one instead of the top one. Can we revert to older version?

    November 18, 2007

  • VO, I think phreaking came up in the back of my mind too, but it's not really what I meant :-)

    Mollusque, any change I made was inadvertent, I'll look into it tonight.

    November 18, 2007

  • I'd love to be able to invert the cloud display for my words, so that the least-added words appear in the largest font, and the most-added words in the smallest.

    Great site, I really enjoy it :-)

    November 20, 2007

  • So, how about a way for us to clean up the database a little? I'm thinking a "delete this word" button that only appears on ghosts that don't have any comments. There are a lot of these floating around on the site, and we ought to be able to do our part to weed them out. :-)

    November 22, 2007

  • I thought you liked ghosts...? I guess it sounds cool to have the option to delete clear misspellings that aren't on anyone's lists and don't have any comments, but then, how the heck would that prevent *all* ghosts from being deleted?

    November 22, 2007

  • I like legitimate ghosts. I think of them as little nuggets of surprise that will turn up far in the future, when somebody either discovers them via the random word feature, or else adds something s/he thought was new, yet already bears comments.

    Dead typos just floating around out there, on the other hand, are stupid. I figure if a ghost doesn't have any comments on it, that's a good gauge of keepability. No comments means no one cares. If you find it and you do care, leave a comment. ;-)

    November 22, 2007

  • I agree that dead misspellings are stupid. However, your theory about ghost words being nice nuggets that turn up when people leave comments also applies to dead misspellings. Sometimes people leave comments on *them,* which makes them undead misspellings--that is, zombies. I'm okay with ghosts, and I'm okay with ghosts that have comments--let's call them caspers, since they're loved by someone. But I don't like zombies. Now how do you differentiate between caspers and zombies? Who's gonna be the Big Zombie Sheriff of Wordie?

    November 22, 2007

  • Fewer misspellings = fewer zombies

    That is to say, I don't think it's right to delete a 'word' once it has a comment on it. If we edit out the abandoned misspellings, there will be fewer opportunities to create zombies.

    November 22, 2007

  • I agree, jennarenn. I don't want to delete the conversations on some misspellings. (Heck, I'm the one who misspelled some of them! Crappuccino, anyone?) But they're still undead. And they may try to *eat* one of us.

    November 22, 2007

  • You'll need to talk to John about that. It might cut down on membership.

    November 22, 2007

  • I've always thought that at some point it would be fun to start rooting around in the db, to collect data on misspellings. So I'm averse to ever deleting anything, ever.

    But of course I'm a database weenie. Data should persist for eternity. Like, you know... zombies. But zombies (like wierd) need love too.

    November 22, 2007

  • We can just tag words as misspelled.

    November 22, 2007

  • I'm agreeing with uselessness. Uncommented misspellings should be consigned to the dustheap. John, I wonder if Wordie will ever be big enough (in my lifetime, anyway) that misspelling data will ever be meaningful any more than misspellings in all the grade schools of the universe will ever yield anything other than the equivalent of a rorschach test. But I'm no experk, so maybe we need sionnach to weigh in on that aspect, hmmm?

    More: deletion of U.M.s would make the word count more meaningful, I feel.

    November 22, 2007

  • How do you propose to distinguish uncommented correct words from uncommented misspellings? I can't imagine an automated way. Some words are legitimately listed, but then ghosted for whatever reason--maybe the original lister changed the focus of the list. I've already encountered at least a dozen eugraphic ghosts that I've added to one or another of my lists. I think the solution to cacographic ghosts is to use the misspelling tag.

    November 22, 2007

  • Right, mollusque--distinguishing misspellings from perhaps bizarre words without comments is not easily done. (That was my point but I got waylaid by goofiness.)

    But tagging words as misspellings has its own issues. I can think of half a dozen instances just since tagging was instituted (not long ago!) in which something was tagged a misspelling and it was not. In that case, there's no way to change the tag except for the original tagger to delete it. I think that's as fraught with difficulty and imprecision as distinguishing between caspers and zombies is.

    November 23, 2007

  • Mollusque, I think you cut to the chase. I can't think of a completely reliable way to tell the difference between a misspelling and a madeupical word. Discounting unlisted, uncommented, non-dictionary words would probably get you most of the way there, but there's no way to be sure you wouldn't also be zapping intended words. I'd rather let 100 misspellings go free than convict a single intentional word.

    Plus there's the slack factor. It's just so much easier to ignore them :-)

    Oroboros, I'm sure you're right, trying to read meaning into misspelling is probably a quixotic task. A symptom of my apophenia.

    Eugraphic? Cacographic? Delightful words.

    November 23, 2007

  • c_b, this could be the apophenia speaking again, but seeing what people incorrectly tag as a misspelling could be interesting in itself, as well.

    November 23, 2007

  • Seems I kicked off a discussion and then disappeared before it really got going! My original suggestion, of course, opts for a human-controlled mechanism over an automated one, so I don't think mollusque's concern applies. And the issue about accidentally deleting "legitimate" or intentional misspellings is, I think, moot... because if it's an uncommented ghost, frankly, no one will miss it.

    I'm a natural packrat, John, so I understand your aversion to deleting anything from the database. But isn't it safe to say that the benefits outweigh the costs of allowing us to manually clean up uncommented ghosts? It'll make the word count a more accurate figure, it'll stop auto-suggest from feeding typos to unsuspecting searchers, and I guarantee no one will be offended that "their" word got deleted. Think about it. ;-)

    November 25, 2007

  • Oh, here's another request I just thought of... I love the random word feature, but how about a random list feature?

    November 25, 2007

  • U, I am totally down with a random list feature, as long as it won't pop up a list that's so long it crashes my browser. ;)

    I also think the benefit of a more accurate total word count is probably one worth having. And you're probably right--no one will miss the non-listed misspellings. I keep forgetting if they're non-listed, that... you know, that means it's not on anyone's list.

    November 25, 2007

  • maybe the ability to add a word to multiple lists at the same time (e.g. i recently added concatenation to my words, and words by woolf), vs. clicking on a word then manually adding it multiple times to different lists?

    -from a wordie with lots of crossover

    :)

    November 26, 2007

  • With a lot of sites, you can "Add Search Engine" to the search box in Firefox, allowing you to search the site with a simple Command-K (or, Ctrl-K, I believe). Any chance we could get this going on for Wordie?

    November 28, 2007

  • I was just thinking, John, that it's a good feature that comments are entered in Courier and displayed in Palatino. It gives two chances to catch typos.

    December 1, 2007

  • Regarding the browser-based search question, http://mycroft.mozdev.org/ has Sherlock/OpenSearch-related links. Somebody would have to make a search plugin.

    December 1, 2007

  • Simple request: please move the little "processing" throbber next to whichever button has been pressed on each respective page (like it is for commenting), so that one doesn't have to scroll around to see if one's request has been successfully submitted!

    edit: I can't find a displaced one, now. If I do I'll point it out. And please bring back the "delete" button for comments!

    December 4, 2007

  • The delete button seems to appear after one edit.

    December 5, 2007

  • It's still there, sarra, as VO says--it shows up if you reopen the comment box to edit, then click on "edit" again.

    December 5, 2007

  • It didn't appear after my first edit, but I did a test one now and lo, there it is. I feel compelled to leave it for posterity though.

    December 5, 2007

  • John,

    Could we have a feature that would tell us how often a word or a list has been listed as a favorite by members? I only see favorite lists on the individual profiles. I don't know if it's feasible for favorite words, but I think it could work with lists.

    December 6, 2007

  • I think listing a word as a favorite counts toward its total on the top 100 list, so presumably this could be pulled out separately. It would be fun to see.

    The other thing I'd like to see is a list of words that have the most comments. Toward that end, reesetee has a great list "Only on Wordie". Not necessarily the most comments, but the most interesting!

    December 6, 2007

  • Thanks, mollusque! I'd also refer you to jennarenn and chained_bear's comment lists. Very funny. :-)

    December 6, 2007

  • Just turned on collaborative (aka group) lists. Click on the 'edit' link under the name of any of your lists, and you'll see how it works. Probably full of bugs--let me know if you find any. I'll blog it at greater length tomorrow. Enjoy :-)

    December 17, 2007

  • Heidy John; tried to add reesetee and uselessness to the 'approved to add' feature and got a FYVM (f**k you very much!) error message. Lord, sumbuddy sayed sumthin' 'bout not promisin' a rose garden, and so does it be!

    Signed:

    Enthusiastic, grateful...and patient Wordister.

    December 17, 2007

  • Wasn't me, oroboros! ;-> *flattered to be among the first list-sharers on Wordie*

    Thanks, John! Will be interesting to see how this develops. I can barely keep track of my lists now!

    December 17, 2007

  • Surprises await me on Wordie this week! I must be digging into this stuff...

    December 17, 2007

  • You're multiplying, John! Have you cloned yourself?

    December 17, 2007

  • Oroboros, I tried adding mollusque as a contributor to a list and got that error too, but when I clicked again, all was well.

    December 18, 2007

  • I'm honored, reesetee! Well-programmed, John! I tested with a few trees and it worked beautifully.

    The only tweak I'd suggest is for the shared list to be on both (or all) contributors list of lists. That way a word could be added via the drop-down menu instead of from the list page.

    December 18, 2007

  • Good idea!

    December 18, 2007