4 ms·

> But it was a necessary investment, because when I Google synonyms for a word, I can no longer trust that the results I get will be accurate or useful Why wou

by breve 1y ago

> But it was a necessary investment, because when I Google synonyms for a word, I can no longer trust that the results I get will be accurate or useful Why would you use Google as a thesaurus in the first place? Why not go directly to the Cambridge or Merriam-Webster thesaurus (the article even links to Merriam-Webster): https://dictionary.cambridge.org/thesaurus/ https://dictionary.cambridge.org/thesaurus/ https://www.merriam-webster.com/ https://www.merriam-webster.com/ The internet may well be turning to shit but people also need to take responsibility for their own abdication of thinking.

o11c 1y ago
In my experience, all thesauri suck, either having far too few quasi-synonyms (and thesauri that divide them into closeness tiers aren't very useful in practice), or having far too many quasi-synonyms without distinguishing senses or parts of speech (sometimes, but only sometimes, intersection search works to avoid this), or both. As for antonyms, good luck finding anything at all. So, using additional tools, even if not designed for the task, is often useful.
DharmaPolice 1y ago
Because Google provides (or used to provide) a fast consistent interface for a lot of basic queries. Sure, if I'm researching etymology in depth then I'll go to a specialist site, but 90%+ of the time I'm just double checking the definition of a word or something like that. In general, internet browsing is biased towards sites that you're familiar with and can be reasonably sure aren't going to do something annoying (it used to be popup adverts and auto playing music, now days it's popups about newsletters / memberships or aggressive notifications about cookies / privacy notices.). This is particularly true if you ever spent time browsing in an open plan office or similar public place. There's also a cognitive load of interacting with a new interface which isn't something you want to deal with if you're midflow and want to check a word. This is not to say that those sites you mentioned are guilty of bad practices, but the point is I'm not a regular enough user of them to have them on my mental "generally trust" list.
- breve 1y ago
  This is precisely the abdication of thinking I'm talking about. Your claim that merely using a different website is an unacceptable cognitive load is truly bizarre to me. It is a form of illiteracy.
  - tbrownaw 1y ago
    > abdication of thinking I want <X>. How do I expend the least amount of effort to get a good-enough <X>?
  - torben-friis 1y ago
    How much intelligence have you gained from accessing the same information in a slightly more convoluted way?

by breve 1y ago

o11c 1y ago

In my experience, all thesauri suck, either having far too few quasi-synonyms (and thesauri that divide them into closeness tiers aren't very useful in practice), or having far too many quasi-synonyms without distinguishing senses or parts of speech (sometimes, but only sometimes, intersection search works to avoid this), or both. As for antonyms, good luck finding anything at all. So, using additional tools, even if not designed for the task, is often useful.

DharmaPolice 1y ago

Because Google provides (or used to provide) a fast consistent interface for a lot of basic queries. Sure, if I'm researching etymology in depth then I'll go to a specialist site, but 90%+ of the time I'm just double checking the definition of a word or something like that. In general, internet browsing is biased towards sites that you're familiar with and can be reasonably sure aren't going to do something annoying (it used to be popup adverts and auto playing music, now days it's popups about newsletters / memberships or aggressive notifications about cookies / privacy notices.). This is particularly true if you ever spent time browsing in an open plan office or similar public place. There's also a cognitive load of interacting with a new interface which isn't something you want to deal with if you're midflow and want to check a word. This is not to say that those sites you mentioned are guilty of bad practices, but the point is I'm not a regular enough user of them to have them on my mental "generally trust" list.

breve 1y ago
This is precisely the abdication of thinking I'm talking about. Your claim that merely using a different website is an unacceptable cognitive load is truly bizarre to me. It is a form of illiteracy.
- tbrownaw 1y ago
  > abdication of thinking I want <X>. How do I expend the least amount of effort to get a good-enough <X>?
- torben-friis 1y ago
  How much intelligence have you gained from accessing the same information in a slightly more convoluted way?