I just noticed that the LQ spell checker doesn't recognize the distro names correctly. Would it be difficult to add the words below to the LQ spellcheck database? I'm sure I forgot a few but you get the idea.

Debian
Ubuntu
Kubuntu
Slackware
Gentoo
Fedora <--Edit: This one clears. It is a hat after all
SuSE
Mandrake <---Edit: This one clears too, it is a root.
Knoppix
Mepis


At least the ones we have forums for? I know that they aren't exactly dictionary words, but they are typed so frequently around here that it would make the spell checker more effective if it didn't tag them as wrong. Just a thought..

Excellent suggestion.

Please don't forget:
- MEPIS
- SimplyMEPIS
- SUSE
- Mandriva
- RHEL
- FC


Side note, this isn't the only inconvenient spell checker in captivity. My e-mail provider runs CommuniGate4, & I use its web interface almost exclusively. Unfortunately, it's too big a hassle for the admins to update the dictionary (the bad news). The good news -- I have started accessing my mail & LQ in Konqueror and Konqueror's spell checker works inside the text boxes in both cases. Konqueror's spell checker automatically highlights misspellings on the fly, so all I have to is look for the red words as I am typing & fix the ones that need it.

Writing the above shows that:
- Konqueror
- KPackage
- KDE
as well all the rest of the "K" names need to be added too.

"Gnome" & "GNOME" are acceptable, is this desktop prejudice?

The spellchecker is something we're debating in general for future version of the code. Nice plugins exist for almost every browser and those allow you to maintain your own dictionary. I'd like to get everyones input on this. Do you prefer that we keep the spellchecker or should we be recommending spellbound/iespell/etc. instead?

--jeremy

I vote we keep it so there won't be any excuse for those who horribly misspell not to use it in their posts, since I'm sure those that misspell on purpose probably won't be keeping track of their own spellchecker..

I say get rid of it. It has never really cured the bad spellers and makes no difference to the good ones.

I always use the KDE Dictionary if I have any doubts about spelling or use the very useful dictionary.com site to check.

Actually if you connect to a remote spellchecker/dictionary server like dictionary.com or dict.org it would be better. Why not just convert the current spellcheck button to a link to an external spellchecker. There are many sites that do this for free. Why waste LQ's resources to do something that is so commonly available?

For example I do this on my site. I use the SpellingCow spell checker which connects to a remote server.

The only thing you need to worry about is privacy, but then when you're submitting messages in a public web forum, what is the privacy concern when it's available for the whole world to see anyway?

I agree: Keep it, it can't hurt. I do wish there were an easy way to address the original issue: customizing the dictionary. (BTW, "distro" ...)

Why is this an either/or? Can we not keep the current spell checker and recommend something for those who want finer control over their word lists? As long as it continues to not intrude on those, like me, who use their own, what harm does it do?

One reason to keep it: It would be great if everything inside certain tags, e.g. [QUOTE], [CODE], & [URL] at a minimum, were left unchecked. I think that is something that would be easiest done server-side, & what a breakthrough!

Above written before seeing Harishankar's post, further thoughts:

The question of resources is one that crossed my mind, but I didn't originally raise. So what resources does the spell checker use?

In addition to the possibility of having a tag context aware spell checker, another argument for keeping some form of spell check is that sometimes we log in here from a different box and don't have our normal home environments.

I'm thinking in terms of the server admin. It can hurt performance especially if there are many people using it. Full-Text Searching and Spellcheck/Dictionary features can load your server like nothing else especially with the kind of traffic that LQ gets.

Of course, LQ may be hosted on a very powerful server and all that, but I'm still not the kind of person who likes to see wasted resources, especially if there are so many sites offering the same services for free.

If the spellchecker is removed in the future, might I propose that the FAQs have links to spellchecking plugins/extensions for various common browsers, so that we might point those who are spelling deficient in that direction?

I would suggest keeping it. Sum uv us cannt spll to save are lifes. But if it is a resources issue, then I can understand wanting to ditch it. It would be cool to have personalized dictionaries, but the above words are typed by everyone in the forums at some point or another.

Another reason I say keep it is that I feel no one should be forced to use third party software to use LQ.org. Being a moderator, I know for a fact I'm not the only moderator who dings members that spell horribly to clean up their posts, especially after other members complain. I think having the feature available is an easier way to get these such members to use it when it does come to that point that it has to be dealt with.

A few questions

1. Is spellcheck really that important to justify having your own spellcheck server?
2. Is it considered bad netiquette to pick on members merely because of their bad spelling? (think of all those non-native English users who use this site).
3. Does the current spellcheck really have that much of an impact to cut down all those errors?

My answers are: no, yes and no respectively. Therefore I felt it was wasteful having spellcheck built right into LQ when there are so many sites that are dedicated to it and furthermore can be easily linked from here.

Spellcheck is not a required feature. It's an optional one and I don't see where LQ is forcing users to use third party software... after all people can check spelling using a local desktop software as much as they can use a third party site.

Out of curiousity, can anyone direct me to a FF extension that will do spellcheck on forms?

http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/

--jeremy

Doh. Somehow I missed that. Definitely didn't show up on the FF extensions page. Thanks Jeremy!

I would actually have to agree with TK on this one and say keep it. I, for one, use LQ at work quite often, and am unable to install any third-party software on the computer - I'd be lost without a spell checker simply to fix my typos. Also, I occasionally browse LQ using Lynx, and there is no spell-check extension for it - though, I feel as though I'm in the minority there