kevin bailey <kbailey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> Thanks - I think dict.org is much more comprehensive and is a great piece of
> work. If I'd seen it I may not have bothered!
>
> But, mainly I was looking towards a building quick word checker so that it's
> easy to check the spelling of consciense, aprehensive etc.
>
> I also preferred just to use wordnet for the database so it's easy for users
> to see and check other words which mean the same thing.
>
>>
>> But of course no where near as powerful or useful. In addition dict.org
>> doesn't have adverts.
>>
>
>
> Sorry about the adverts but the 50c monthly revenue helps towards the
> hosting costs!
No problem to me : I was just worried that Roy might turn on you. As a
project, its good that you have something done. Its usefulness I
question, but its still a start and undoubtedly good learning process
for yourself.
Roy has accused Google of being corrupt because they have (subtle) ad
placings. The fact that you do too means you are breaking Roy's code of
COLA ethics.
It is why he has championed his own search engine, of which nothing
came. All wind and water as usual.
>
> Maybe dict.org should have a few ads and then some revenue could then be
> channelled back towards wordnet, etc etc and the hosting providers etc.
>
> Thinking about it, maybe I should put in bigger links back to the underlying
> projects.
>
> Just some ideas!
>
Go for it!
|
|
