Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Software Operating Systems Windows It's funny.  Laugh.

Professor Finds Fault with MS Grammar Checker 607

ChuckOp writes " front-page article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer states: "The University of Washington associate professor has embarked on a one-man mission to persuade the Redmond company to improve the grammar-checking function in its popular word-processing program. Sandeep Krishnamurthy is also trying to raise public awareness of the issue." He includes some twisted prose that the grammar checker fails to find fault with, such as: "Marketing are bad for brand big and small. You Know What I am Saying?" and "Gates do good marketing job in Microsoft". This last comment is disputed by retired Microsoft researcher Karen Jensen, who developed part of the underlying technology; "Only by knowing that 'Gates' probably refers to Bill Gates -- and not to the plural of the movable portion of a fence -- would the program know to suggest using 'does' instead." The professor also has several twisted examples available."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Professor Finds Fault with MS Grammar Checker

Comments Filter:
  • by Maury Markowitz ( 452832 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @04:40PM (#12069274) Homepage
    > Why should MSFT be held to some high standard
    > for a tool that they include in their software?

    You're kidding, right?

    Maury
  • openoffice (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rkv ( 852317 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @04:42PM (#12069306)
    heh my openoffice.org caught the mistakes and speeling errors :P
  • by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @04:43PM (#12069312)
    I see this all the time in errors in newspapers and magazines. Its obvious that someone ran a checker and just clicked "OK" at whatever was suggested. Spelling and grammar checkers have taken the place of actual knowledge of the language.

    I suspect that, in the long run, this will change usage so that Microsoft English becomes considered acceptable. But the trend does frighten me, given the recent issue with open standards in Massachusetts [slashdot.org]. In a dystopian future, open source eye-balls will only be allowed to read, not write, the language.
  • Re:This is stupid. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28, 2005 @04:47PM (#12069376)
    There's a point at which the user has to step in and use some sense and actually EDIT their work themselves.

    I'm a foreigner in an English speaking/typing country (USA) and didn't really spend so much time paying attention to English classes when I grew up because I was more interested in programming on computers and playing games. So sue me that I have to rely on a tool like spell checker in MS Word, but it sure would be nice if it could do a better job without I or someone else have to check it.

  • by Skye16 ( 685048 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @04:50PM (#12069407)
    But I say "good". I'm glad the grammar checker in Word is so fubar. It shouldn't be the catch-all for any paper you write. If it points something out that is incorrect and you fix it - okay! If it points out something correct and you tell it to ignore it because you do have a decent grasp on the English language, then okay. And if you just tell it to "Fix All", then you deserve to get the "wtF?!" at the top of your paper. Sure, English can be a bit of a pain, but you should never completely rely on someone else's grammar checker to take the place of learning the language in the first place.
  • Don't I know it (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jointm1k ( 591234 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @04:53PM (#12069472)

    The Dutch version of the Microsoft spelling checker changes my name, "Mikael", to "Eikel". This means acorn, in Dutch. "Eikel" also refers to the sensitive part of the male sex. A third meaning is that of "jerk". Needless to say I have never used the Microsoft spelling checker ever since. >:(

  • by Deliveranc3 ( 629997 ) <deliverance@level4 . o rg> on Monday March 28, 2005 @04:59PM (#12069548) Journal
    Gates does marketing jobs at microsoft well?
  • by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @05:04PM (#12069626)
    When you have a monopoly, there is no need to innovate. Read this http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/engl_126/gramchek. htm [papyr.com] evaluation of grammer checkers which shows that the latest versions MS Word are WORSE than Word 97 and Word Perfect.

    As the author of Grammatik put it:

    "I've been in a discussion with John about how the grammar checking available today, 2002, is essentially no different than it was in 1992 when I sold my company to WordPerfect and quit working on the code. Essentially, what has happened is that Microsoft has decided that its version of a grammar checker is 'good enough' and has stopped significant work on improvement. No one else in the world has the resources to build a better grammar checker. "Who wants to try to compete with Microsoft Word's 95% market share?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28, 2005 @05:05PM (#12069650)
    <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
    <meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document>
    <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10">
    <meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 10">
    <link rel=File-List href="index_files/filelist.xml">
    <title>Prof. Sandeep Krishnamurthy's official home page</title>
    <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
    <o:DocumentProperties>
    Seriously, who in their right mind makes a webpage in Word? It has more validation errors than good old slashdot.
  • Re:Oh I See! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fishstick ( 150821 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @05:19PM (#12069820) Journal
    forgot their/there and, my fav, lose/loose
  • ESL - ARG (Score:3, Interesting)

    by backlonthethird ( 470424 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @05:36PM (#12070037)
    The biggest problem with the grammar check in my experience is that people just plain trust it too much. I used to work in a writing center in a large private college. We served a lot of English as a Second Langauge students. Smart people, for the most part. They would come in with papers with the most convoluted and aggravating grammar I'd ever seen. When I ask about why they chose to write in that way, about half said that they had originally wrote it like X (where X is actually human-readable), but the grammar checker told them it was wrong so they just accepted it since it obviously knew English better than they did.

    It did make for some nice teaching opportunities when I got to tell them they were smarter than they thought, but it's frustrating to think that people accept that "The computer must be right" even with something as complex and human as grammar.
  • by DaoudaW ( 533025 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @05:39PM (#12070070)
    Seriously, who uses the grammar checker? I've usually been more annoyed by the false-positives. I'm kind of surprised that there are problems with false negatives as well. The first thing I do when I have to use a M$ product is turn off Clippy, spelling and grammar. Those things interrupt my train of thought quicker than anything else.

    But I'm seriously curious, do most people try to use the grammar checker?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28, 2005 @05:49PM (#12070217)
    This is close to the most gratuitous attack on Microsoft that I've seen in a long while, which is a huge distinction in Slashdot. :-)

    Show me other "grammar checkers" in the market that do better than the one in Word! The guy is a professor of Marketing yet he feels qualified to complain about the grammar checker. The Word grammar checker was the first migration of Microsoft Research know-how to a product. They had a group of 10+ linguists who developed the model and carefully tuned it. After 7-8 years since the first release, it is still state-of-the-art from an AI standpoint. I would blame MS for many things, but the grammar checker is not one. I'd love to see the Marketing professor try to improve it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28, 2005 @05:52PM (#12070249)
    English is an extraordinarily complex language

    Why is this such a common misconception on Slashdot? I know that the vast majority of slashdotters are from the U.S. but don't you study any foreign languages? I'm not familiar with the U.S. school system but it amazes me if people don't learn any German, French or Spanish in high school - if you do you should quickly notice that English is extremely simple. A few examples:
    Nouns:
    English: Definite article "the" and -s plural (with few exceptions). Choice of indefinite article a/an depends on whether the word begins with a vowel sound.
    French: Masculine/feminine that must be learnt (a few rules exist but in most cases they're useless), more irregular plural forms (and adjective declension).
    German: Der/das/die, irregular plural forms (although a few rules exist), different accusative, dative and genitive forms (and adjective declension accordingly).
    Verbs:
    English: Apart from am/are/is have/has it's trivial; just add -s for third person singular regardless of whether it's a regular or irregular verb.
    French: A nightmare: Five simple tenses and five compound tenses and so many irregular forms (and they're irregular for all persons).
    German: Different endings for all persons (but fortunately they're the same for irregular verbs too). Two alternative auxiliary verbs (but fortunately it's quite easy to know which one).

    And those are just languages that you should know - nouns can easily get even more complicated. In Swedish each noun has four forms since no equivalent of "the" exists - instead you append -t/-n/-et/-en/nothing for singular forms and then have a definite and an indefinitie plural form (and these are not very regular). The real fun starts when we get to extremely synthetic languages such as Finnish when you have a ratio of ~5-6 English words per Finnish word since you modify words instead of using more of the. The Finnish spellchecker for Word is a joke - once the language gets slightly more complicated it starts to suggest word forms, which don't exist since its limited grammar rules don't suffice. Obviously the spellchecker for both Swedish and Finnish has been made with a much smaller budget than the English one since the markets are smaller but they're not only bad - they're buggy as hell (the Swedish one frequently suggests exactly the same spelling that I already have and once I accept the "correction" it suggests the same correction again...).

    And that's what I can say with my (in my opinion) quite limited knowledge of languages (grew up in Sweden, spoke Finnish at home, studied English, French and German in school).
  • It's about time (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pingsmoth ( 249222 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @06:20PM (#12070565) Homepage
    When I was doing my student teaching, every time we were in the computer lab I had to go around showing my students how to turn off the grammar checker. Most of my students simply got frustrated with that squiggly green line and stopped writing altogether when it showed up. Sometimes it found actual grammatical errors, but most of the time it just found ways to piss off my students for no good reason.

    I think the concept is a good one, but it sorely needs to be updated.
  • Come on. I expect that out of my college education I should have at least earned the right to have a professor take the time out of their busy schedule to check over my paper for me. Most would glance over it and say it's fine. I only had *two* that actually spent the time to tear my papers down and show me what was wrong so that I wouldn't make those mistakes again. Does this professor want to do that or does he just want to berate MSFT for not doing it?

    A large number of English instructors at American colleges and universities today are either grad. students or part-timers, most of them earning $14,000 - $20,000 per year. Many of these people have 60 to 100 students per semester. Example: I started out as a grad. student teaching assistant. In addition to a full-time teaching load, I had 50 students to teach. I had to balance my own assignments with planning assignments, leading classes, and grading ~200 essays per semester. Later on, as an adjunct (part-time instructor) at a community college in North Carolina, I got paid $24 per credit hour per week. In other words, for teaching a standard 3-credit course, I was paid $72 per week - and I was only paid for the time I spent in class. No compensation for time spent in my office, grading and working with students outside of class, formulating assignments, etc. When my colleagues and I did the math for all the time we spent on these activities, we found we were making about $7.75 an hour. The majority of American students are being taught English by instructors like these.

    Different people react to this shameful situation in academia different ways. For me, when I had 400 pages of writing to grade in a week, the only solution was to go over a paper one time, carefully, and to refer the student to a writing tutor at other times. It's not a question of wanting to help, or being too lazy to help. It's a question of the ability to do so. In a perfect world, tuition and fees paid to a university would "earn you the right" to have individual assistance with each writing assignment. Blame the academic world's focus on profit and part-time labor for the fact that isn't so.

  • by iabervon ( 1971 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @07:41PM (#12071466) Homepage Journal
    Google finds 4,770,000 hits for "if I were", as opposed to 2,970,000 for "if I was" (which obviously includes indicative conditionals, which are uncommon but still account for some of the cases). That's a 61% market share for the subjunctive, in this construction at least. The subjunctive may be widely recognized as being virtually extinct, but I'm not going to give up on it until Netcraft... er, Google confirms it.

    (This contrasts significantly with "whom", which seems to appear most commonly in usage examples, old writing, and references to old writing, like the common title pattern "For Whom the * *")
  • by Sebastian Jansson ( 823395 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @07:48PM (#12071531) Homepage
    I tried with WordPerfect 12:s Gramatik and it caomplained on
    all double !:es and the following in []s:

    In A.D. 2101 war was beginning.
    What [happen]?
    Somebody set [up us] the bomb.
    We get [signal].
    What!
    Main screen [turn] On.
    It's you!!
    How are [you] [gentlemen]!!
    All your base are [belong] to us.
    You are on the way to destruction.
    What you say!!
    You have no chance to survive [make] your time.
    [Ha Ha] Ha
    Captain!!
    Take off every 'Zig'!!
    You know what you doing.
    Move 'Zig'.
    For great justice.
    It also explained what the errors were in all cases, in some of them it was able to provide a correct replacement.

    I'm not a WordPerfect user, I downloaded the trial just for this because I've heard that it would be good for this kind of things.
  • Re:Oh I See! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by amliebsch ( 724858 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:16PM (#12072925) Journal
    It is not just the grammar checker that is a problem but when I am at a new machine and I start a sentence with eBay or any other company name that uses a lower case first character, Word insists on changing it for me. These are my main reason for not liking Word. Let me get this straight. Rather than check/uncheck a few simple preference options, you condemn the whole software package and abandon it.

    "OO.org doesn't default to my desired preferences! It is obviously inferior! Back to MS-Word for me!" See how silly that sounds?

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Working...