|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:10 pm
Most of the time I need spell checkers. I am slightly dyslexic, and so when I proofread, often my eyes won't pick up on typos or spelling mistakes because I will read them as correct. I am also a horrible speller, or rather I am average at spelling by American standards, and so I need a spell checker because there are a lot of words that I just don't know how to spell and it is much easier to use a spell checker then look up 3 dozen words in the dictionary for a school paper.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:44 am
I use spell check on MS Word all the time. But first I proofread the essay or whatever by myself. Since spell check can't really correct grammar I have to correct it, or send it to a friend. I also find the red and green squiggly lines quite useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 10:40 pm
Well, I avoid the laziness by formatting my spellchecker so that it doesn't automatically correct my words. When I'm done typing whatever I need to type, I correct grammatically wrong sentences, correct misspelled words, reread the entire thing so that it sounds correct.
Spell check is not all that great. If you type something wrong and the thing you typed happened to be a word, it misses it. That's why I always reread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:53 am
First off, the grammar setting is almost always absolutely awful (at least on Microsoft Word, anyway). It's pure crap.
Second, the only thing spell-checks are good for is as an accessory to a good proof-read. Not only do they let through homonyms, but if a word does not happen to be in a database, they often change it automatically (this became a source of great frustration for me when I tried to type up a paper about Atalanta the huntress). Also, proofreading is obviously better for picking up grammatical issues, flow issues, and problems with the actual content (overuse of a certain word, logistical issues, flawed arguments, etc.). Spell-check is no substitute for having a friend go over your paper, and nor should it be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 7:19 am
For me, spell checkers are the ultimate waste of time and energy. Not only do they tell me that I've spelled words wrong that are, in fact, correct, but it also "corrects" my grammar when I've made no mistakes. I see no good use for them; I rely on my own ability to proofread what I've written.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 7:22 am
Sola Catella First off, the grammar setting is almost always absolutely awful (at least on Microsoft Word, anyway). It's pure crap. Second, the only thing spell-checks are good for is as an accessory to a good proof-read. Not only do they let through homonyms, but if a word does not happen to be in a database, they often change it automatically (this became a source of great frustration for me when I tried to type up a paper about Atalanta the huntress). Also, proofreading is obviously better for picking up grammatical issues, flow issues, and problems with the actual content (overuse of a certain word, logistical issues, flawed arguments, etc.). Spell-check is no substitute for having a friend go over your paper, and nor should it be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 6:35 pm
Yes, they do promote laziness, but I would hate to have to search through the old 1000 page dictionary. BOO!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:33 am
I love the things, but I almost never use a program that has a half decent one. So I use Merrium-Webster, which I happen to like better than dictionary.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:39 pm
Spell checkers can be very helpful, because a lot of times we don't catch small mistakes. However, they aren't good if you want to improve your typing skills. Spell checker automatically capitalizes the first word of every sentence, for example. So, people have stopped capitalizing the first word, and just type it like all the others. Things like these promote laziness. So I guess spell checker is good, but shouldn't be depended on. And, as mostly everyone has said here, it doesn't catch everything and corrects things that don't need corrections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:14 pm
I'm going to have to say, that it's hard to find spelling mistakes sometimes. On those days, I use the spell checker. And I use the spell checker if I'm not sure about weather I spelled something properly. I like to think of it as a profreeding tool. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:10 am
Honestly, I use the spell checker in microsoft word a lot but at the same time, when in doubt, I trust myself more than it; I have fairly good grammar and (for the most part) excellent spelling.
Spell checkers are not a replacement for human proofreading- more people need to remember this. It's not meant to fix everything for you, and it certainly isn't perfect. Nonsensical sentences get through all the time, and the grammar check is atrocious.
I do believe that it is promoting laziness in some ways, and that needs to get fixed, but pulling spell checkers from word processing programs is not the answer. *sigh* I wish I could say I knew what was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:25 am
I like spell checkers, but I also agree that it does increase laziness. Proof reading is probably the best method to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:02 am
Hmm, I am not sure on the topic of Spell-checkers, because they help with spelling, as the name implies, but they also encourage us Americans to become even the more lazier. Just whe I thought Americans could not any lazier, sitting with our bums glued to the chair, our eyes pratically stuck on the Televisions...
We do not even excerise as much as we used to.
Sheesh.
And Please do not take any offnese on this.
I am an american as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:32 am
While spell checkers are indeed useful, I was pleased to see that most people who voted feel that they aren't a substitute for proofreading. I can't resist sharing this little anonymous poem: Quote: I have a grate spell checker It came with my PC It plane lee marks four my revue Miss steaks aye can knot see. Eye ran this poem threw it Your sure real glad two no Its very polished in its own weigh My chequer tolled me sew A cheek or is a blessing It freeze yew lodes of thyme It helps me right awl stiles two reed And aides me when aye rime Now spilling does not phase me It does knot bring a tier My pay purrs awl due glad den With wrapped words fare as hear To rite with care is quite a feet Of witch won should be proud And wee mussed dew the best wee can Sew flaws are knot aloud So ewe can sea why aye dew prays Such soft wear four pea seas And why eye brake in two averse Buy righting want to please Author Unknown Cheers! cheese_whine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:35 am
They're alright, but shouldn't be used as a substitute for proofreading. It may correct spelling errors, but it doesn't always catch misplaced words; like writing eight instead of ate. It also doesn't catch all the grammer mistakes and can say there is a grammer error when there isn't. I always proofread and have someone else check my work as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
![[ falling`star ]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/11/26/5a6dcb053c2611_flip.png?t=1321905896_6.00_10)
