3 ms·
There is a link on the search result page for "Search instead for X" if you really want to search for "Mousr". There's also nothing wrong with correcting what a
by cloakandswagger 8y ago
There is a link on the search result page for "Search instead for X" if you really want to search for "Mousr". There's also nothing wrong with correcting what appears to be a typo'd word for a user (Google and every other search engine I can think of does this).
Seems more like poor naming on Mousr's part.
- sonnyblarney 8y agoTotally disagree, and it seems nobody understood my comment. I pointed out in that I'm fully aware where the probabilities are, and the fact the 'keys are close to one another' - that's my whole point, it's a statistical suppression. The 'short view' is to just show 'mice' - but there are problems with that: 1) 'over correction' is far worse error that 'insufficient correction' 2) There are tons of 'Mousr' products out there, i.e. products that overlap closely to more common things. The likelihood of some random error being a product is low - and since 'Mousr' is an actual product, it makes sense to show it. In this case, the rational product choice would be to show 'Mousr' first, and to not assume over-correction. To take a more extreme example i.e. going with the 'highest probability case' ... it might make sense by that logic to show only the most commonly purchases products purchase, almost whatever is typed.