Comments on: ObjectGraph Dictionary: AJAX Powered

by: Louise

Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:13:04 +0000

Yes, its database seems to be outdated. Here, I found this website: www.quickdef.net
It’s database seems to be latest. Try it.. It also a more information on a particular word. All in all, I love ajax dictionary. Very easy to use. :)

by: Gabe

Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:48:18 +0000

I just picked two words at random - but the problem occurs with any new word - or new sense of an existing word - that’s appeared in the last 100 years (look up “weird” for another example).

Anyway, I still love the site, but will only use it for spelling queries, and not definitions, until the corpus is updated.

Perhaps ObjectGraph could link up with Wikitionary in order to obtain a more current reference base without paying an exorbitant licensing fee to a dictionary publisher?

by: Brian Benzinger

Mon, 05 Sep 2005 17:09:28 +0000

“Wow”, your right about that. Terrible isn’t really wrong, it does match fairly closely with Dictionary.com. But, I don’t really feel I would be looking up what the word “wow” means in a dictionary. But, I will definitely have to look at some more words. Words that I actually don’t understand and then compare them with Dictionary. For the most part, some it has worked out well for me.

Thankfully the Thesaurus is my main attraction =p I’m always at a loss of words!

Thanks for the find Gabe.

by: Gabe

Mon, 05 Sep 2005 17:02:46 +0000

Great idea. However, it seems that its d-base is based on a dictionary from 1913!!! That’s a pretty old corpus. The language has changed a lot since then. Look up “terrible” and you’ll see what I mean - it’s missing the sense in which people most often use the word today. Also, “wow” does not seem to be present in the corpus??