Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Wordnik and plural form definitions #150

zekiel opened this Issue Apr 3, 2013 · 9 comments


None yet
3 participants

zekiel commented Apr 3, 2013

When you search for the definition of a plural word, it only shows the singular form of the word and doesn't provide its definition:

I suggest that the singular form definition is shown just below it (or include a button to re-query for the singular form).

Something like this, only with way less clutter :) http://imgur.com/wCmaAy9

@ghost ghost assigned jagtalon Apr 3, 2013


moollaza commented Apr 3, 2013

I agree, that looks way better. @jagtalon what do you think?


jagtalon commented Apr 3, 2013

@zekiel @moollaza Ah, I'll see what I can do! Thanks for the report, guys.


jagtalon commented Apr 4, 2013

@zekiel @moollaza I'm getting there. 64d761e

define cacti definition at DuckDuckGo


jagtalon commented Apr 4, 2013

There's this problem of having multiple definitions:

Plural form of <xref>cat</xref>.
Plural form of <xref>category</xref>.

So which definition should we load? Maybe we can do a popover when either "cat" or "category" (that's what Wordnik actually does):

Screenshot from 2013-04-04 16:17:10


moollaza commented Apr 4, 2013

@jagtalon I don't quite understand:

  1. Why are multiple definitions a problem? We can put the first in item[0] and perhaps the rest in item[1] or do the top 3 definitions in the matching item array. Or, like the way I hide the items in HackerNews, we can have a list of the definitions which expand when clicked on. Does that make sense?

  2. What word results it both those definitions? If the user searched "cats" and Wordnik returns plural of "cat" and "category" i think it makes sense, at least as a good heuristic, to just show that word that is most similar. Ie "cats" vs "cat" is only a one letter difference.


jagtalon commented Apr 5, 2013

@moollaza totally makes sense. I'll try that one out, too. But I also tried Wordnik's method (thanks to Bootstrap):



Might be buggy right now, but tell me what you guys think!


moollaza commented Apr 5, 2013

@jagtalon it certainly looks nice but i think the behaviour is unexpected and doesn't keep with how the rest of the plugins react. As I usually say, I would like to maintain uniformity across the plugins. Also I don't want users to get the idea that they can just start grabbing bits and pieces of 3rd party libraries because again that's not something we want. Bootstrap is great and although I use it personally, we haven't used it elsewhere and if we want to incorporate it, that's part of a bigger discussion. For now lets keep the user experience as similar to other plugins as possible. I think we should utilize a multi-item layout like HackerNews does.


jagtalon commented Apr 5, 2013

@zekiel what do you think of this?


You can try it out here: https://jagtalon.duckduckgo.com/?q=define+talons, and you can compare it with this: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define+talons


moollaza commented May 6, 2013

@jagtalon is this fix finished?

@jagtalon jagtalon closed this in c69d0a5 Jun 15, 2013

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment