The software I mentioned ... has a lot of flaws/bugs (that wouldn't exist if mIRC implements spell checking natively)
Really? So everything mIRC implements will be bug free? I understand there are integration problems with a product like tinyspell; but the bugs and flaws are likely the product of poor development, something even mIRC is not immune to. Perhaps try a better product. A
quick google search shows that tinyspell is neither the only nor the most popular global spell checker for Windows. Some cost money, yes, but you're also not
just investing in mIRC. Certainly there will be other programs that would benefit from global spell checking on your system too, if you really love spell checking. Also, a global spell checker would share the dictionary, so if you add lots of words, that's a big plus too.
FYI tinyspell has a free version according to their site.
I've also mentioned in my previous post that it only takes a couple of hours of chatting adding those particular words into a custom dictionary that will validate these words.
And I had already mentioned my disagreement with this assertion in prior posts. Specifically, you're making a few assumptions: 1) the user will "add" a new word every time they come across one. My assertion is that most won't-- this goes back to my false positives fatigue UI issue. If you're presented with a red line every third word you write, eventually you stop reacting and start ignoring. My guess is the only ones who stick with this will be those with OCD behaviours. 2) You're assuming that eventually they will stop using jargon that is not in the dictionary (or that there is some asymptotic curve for the interval with which they get false positives). I take issue with this as well. Most people using IRC for technical discussions (which tends to be a large portion of people using IRC), have an uncountable arsenal of technical terms; the well does not run dry here. I can't even enumerate how many technical terms I personally know (and might use)-- adding them all would likely take way longer than a few hours of chatter. Finally, 3) you're assuming that they only have one dictionary of words to fill. Quite a number of users use IRC in multiple languages. Filling one dictionary full of jargon is one thing, but doing it in each language you speak over IRC? This has UI fatigue written all over it.
When I asked if you ignore chrome's spell checker I meant ignoring actual negatives, not false negatives.
Then you're asking the wrong question. No, I won't ignore an actual error, but I wouldn't care that much if I had over IRC (where data is temporal in nature). I have made spelling errors on IRC before. I correct myself, or someone points it out to me, and life goes on. Eventually that data disappears into the backbuffer, only to be seen accidentally when perusing a log file for a URL that I forgot about. The issue is, though, that for every actual spelling error that a spell checker catches (I'm using Chrome as an example here, but this is technically a bad choice, since my text on IRC is a lot more mangled than it is here), there are about ~50 false positives/negatives that I have to "ignore" as well. And that is a very conservative estimate. My guess is this probably is true for many other users, but you can disagree with this statement if you'd like.
You can actually test this theory (and I'm tempted to, myself) by scouring your log files on an arbitrary large channel, and count the number of
actual spelling errors, then run the text through a spell checker and see the total number of errors reported by the tool. My guess is number of
legitimate errors will be a small value, even on the absolute scale, and the number of false positive/negatives will be orders of magnitude larger. This is why I question not the
purpose, but the
effectiveness of such a feature. Is it worth the effort to catch a handful of errors when there are third party tools for those who care enough or need it? I don't think the idea that "spell checkers will help people and therefore be worthwhile at any cost" should necessarily be taken at face value. Studies have shown that they
don't make a difference for primary-school children, which is admittedly not the same demographic, but still somewhat enlightening. I'm not questioning that spell checkers
sometimes work, I'm questioning the value-add of this feature; will it work often enough to be worth the effort put into integrating and maintaining it?
And by the way, the error I made was a grammatical error, not a spelling one, and it's far from ironic (see first paragraph) (Thanks for pointing it out to everyone by the way... That was nice of you).
No problem. It's not every day the OP helps make my point for me. It was a spelling error, though. "I'v" is a typographical error-- your grammar was correct, you missed a letter-- your spell checker did not catch this because "v" is only one letter long (we discussed why single letters are exempt previously in the discussion). You'll notice that "I'vx" does properly show up as an error in Chrome. This goes back to my point about the ineffectiveness of spell checkers.
