Re: Kalusa: War of the Words

--- Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@...> wrote:

> On 5/24/06, David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...>
> wrote:
> > One thing that makes the ranking a bit interesting
> is that there
> > is no way to object to part of the sentence.  So,
> for example, say
> ,,,,,
> > Additionally (and this has happened more often
> than not when
> > I'm voting), say a sentence has been used that has
> one "error"
> > (e.g., the "dun" omission described above), but
> also uses one of
> > two disputed words--say x and y both mean "bird",
> and the
> > author uses "x".  Now say the voter wants to
> promote the usage
> > of "x" over "y".  Because this sentence has a
> simple error like
> > the "dun" omission, one is almost obligated to
> mark it as bad,
> > but then it *looks* as if one is favoring y over
> x, when exactly
> > the opposite is the case.  Any ideas about this?
>
> What I've done several times is to vote against a
> sentence, and then enter an alternate, "corrected"
> version of it (hopefully other people will think my
> new version is more correct than the older one).
As of about ten minutes ago any sentence voted below
20 points is dropped from the database along with all
words unique to that sentence.

Meanwhile, I'm working on a form to allow users to
delete their own erroneous sentences.

--gary