I can identify pliable from (2) because it lists flexible as a synonym, but I can think of both flexible and pliable from (1), because it doesnât exclude pliable as a synonym.
Type D: Distinguable
It confuses me because I am stupid
Next time I will classify words with above categories. I think we should focus on type A and B. I think that narrows list in half and fixing those definition will be nice improvement.
Update: I just added @duaal and @stream_nine90 as contributors. Welcome aboard and happy editing. Just make sure to check out my guidelines for editors.
Here is the classified version of confusing words list.
Type X is temporary category that means:
definitely NOT type A
probably NOT type B
maybe C or D
I also attach link to dictionaries and definitions from vocabulary list that I can find on the Internet. âsat6000â is from here, âsat5000â is from here, âbarron3500â is, I believe, from well known book.
Next, I start writing in new definitions from type A words, but I wonât change database for a while. I want you to review new definitions before do that.
Small Change
Minimum change from original. List synonyms that is necessary to distinguish words. PRO: minimum confusion for learners. CON: not following new guideline.
Midium Change
Rewrite definition if appropriate. List synonyms that exists in the course. PRO: more elaborate than original. CON: still not follwing new guideline.
Big Change 1
Follow the new guideline. Have multiple definitions. Have a lot of synonyms. PRO: following new guideline CON: too much information. âaliasâ have 3 (adverb, verb, noun) different part of speech, chooing which one for audio might be a problem for similar words.
Big Change 2
Remove synonyms from Big Change 1 PRO: less information, CON: still too much information
New Approach 1
Use attribute for part of speech, grammatical note, etc. No synonym unless it is necessary. Allow duplicated word for different part of speech. PRO: definition become bit simpler. solves âaliasâ problem. CON: not following new guideline. still too much information.
New Approach 2
Remove sublevel ex) 1.1. , 1.2. PRO: starting to feel like appropriate amount of information CON: not following new guildeline.
I think there is a reason why we donât put too much information on memory cards. Above from Big Change 1 (possibly Medium Change too) look like different course from the current one to me. If we want drastic change, I think we should create a separate couse, so current learners donât get confused.
Youâre putting a lot of thought into this, which is good or we might end up doing extra work when changing our minds about the setup of the course later.
I prefer New approach 2 but with not setting up a whole new course. This course had over a thousand learners just last week. You canât let all those learners start again from scratch. Most of them probably would not even realize there would be a new and improved course. Because they are on the app or even on the web but have never found the new forums.
For implementing New approach 2 we would need extra attribute columns set to Show at tests though. And since we canât add them ourselves we would have to ask Memrise staff to do that for us.
Instead of overwriting current definition, we add new ones as new items. Then, we create a new level for old definitions (letâs call it âObsoleteâ level) and move old items into it.
By doing this way,
Current learners can choose to learn new item and ignore old one, or stick to old item and ignore new one.
By putting âObsoleteâ level at the end, new learners will naturally learn new definitions.
Caveat is that mems people attached to the old items wonât appear to new items.
Guys, itâs just a guideline, no need to adhere to it strictly. Also, the example I provided is just that - an example. An item does not have to contain all that (synonyms, multiple definitions and meanings etc.) As long as you add stuff only where needed, you can keep certain items pretty much intact. Also, thereâs no need to keep the originals - if they required a change thereâs no point in keeping them in the first place. Thanks for the hard work though, it is appreciated. @stream_nine90
Made a start by removing one of each of the duplicates from your list (X in picture) from the database. Except for polemic and polemics. Most dictionaries give a subdefinition for the plural form.
In the meanwhile, I was taking a backup of the course.
Here is links if you are interested. RAW data, CSV
I will spend a few more days around it, and move on to writing of definitions.
Iâm sorry to be late, I was a little busy recently.
Anyway, here is the first batch of new definitions. It covers words that have literary same definitions.
In the meantime Iâve been adding audio to the words. Sofar 200 handpicked pieces of audio from Forvo and several dictionaries, many of them edited for cleaner audio. For each word there are at least two voices, male and female if available. And some extra audio for pronunciation variations.
Yeah. I list âimprovidentâ there for disambiguation. Because I can think of it from the definition ânot worry about the futureâ too.
I didnât change âimprovidentâ's definition, because I can safely rule out âhappy-go-luckyâ from âimprovidentâ's definition.
Maybe if we add âcheerfullyâ to the definition of âhappy-go-luckyâ like Oxford dictionary do, we can rule out âimprovidentâ.
Same situation can happen to other words too, when word A has broader meaning than word B. In situation like that, we need some kind of hint for disambiguation. We donât need such a thing if we are writing a dictionary, because in distionary, word and definition always come together.
Also, I fogot to mention about use of attribute âSynonymsâ. I tried that, but it looks confusing with other attributes on Memrise. And in case of multiple definition, each definition might have different synonyms. I find that problematic too. Letâs keep the database layout for a while. Maybe Iâll change mind or weâll find other use of it.
Donât we need to worry about copyright situation?
