Bug Stomp
Upgrades and changes sometimes have unpredictable results, so post your bugs and glitches in here and I'll get out my trusty wrench and get to fixin'!
Posts 184 - 195 of 8,680
Posts 184 - 195 of 8,680
Some bots and people leave out the apostrophe when using contractions...I recently saw a doesn't typed by a bot as "doesnt"...
I was wondering if the apostrophe could be stripped and the words still be recognized? I was also wondering if there could be collisions with other words...I've gone through a few in my head (and in my head, that would be VERY few) and they seem to be unique in their spelling (doesnt dont wont wouldnt wasnt werent shes hes theres etc etc)
Mind you, I realize that this could be a horrific amount of work to alter these...
I was wondering if the apostrophe could be stripped and the words still be recognized? I was also wondering if there could be collisions with other words...I've gone through a few in my head (and in my head, that would be VERY few) and they seem to be unique in their spelling (doesnt dont wont wouldnt wasnt werent shes hes theres etc etc)
Mind you, I realize that this could be a horrific amount of work to alter these...
Roget, the only exception I can think of is when the apostrophe could be used for a noun that "is" doing something or, in some cases, "owns" something. Like in "a case of mad cows disease" or "that mad cow's running after me!".
Prof, at one time I was using "*" instead of "xnomatch" for seeks, and now they still seem to be acting strange. At one time you mentioned that I should specifically use "xnomatch" so I went back and changed all the "*" entries. Now those entries display "xnomatch" in the main page of the Language Center, but when I click it to add xnomatch responses, I get a "*" that's displayed at the top and it's not even in a text field (I can't edit it). Arrgh! Hard to explain... anyways, let me know if you need a specific keyword example.
Prof, at one time I was using "*" instead of "xnomatch" for seeks, and now they still seem to be acting strange. At one time you mentioned that I should specifically use "xnomatch" so I went back and changed all the "*" entries. Now those entries display "xnomatch" in the main page of the Language Center, but when I click it to add xnomatch responses, I get a "*" that's displayed at the top and it's not even in a text field (I can't edit it). Arrgh! Hard to explain... anyways, let me know if you need a specific keyword example.
Roget- not a bit. I just add it to the list. I added 7 of those that werent on there. I'm an apostraphe-dropper myself, so this should improve things. If you can think of any others, I'll check the list for them.
Rahz- Ah yes. I fixed that. That was a function in place to prevent people from changing the Context of the x Keywords, but xnomatch doesnt fall into that category. You can edit that field now.
The login page will shortly remember your user name.
Rahz- Ah yes. I fixed that. That was a function in place to prevent people from changing the Context of the x Keywords, but xnomatch doesnt fall into that category. You can edit that field now.
The login page will shortly remember your user name.
Re/ contractions
How about I've and you've, for ive and youve. You could also add weve and theyve, although they're not very common.
On a related subject, how about "cannot" and "can not". They're both correct, as far as I know, yet they aren't recognized as synonyms.
Also, I'm sure you noticed this, but a list of contractions is popping up in the chat windows.
How about I've and you've, for ive and youve. You could also add weve and theyve, although they're not very common.
On a related subject, how about "cannot" and "can not". They're both correct, as far as I know, yet they aren't recognized as synonyms.
Also, I'm sure you noticed this, but a list of contractions is popping up in the chat windows.
Yah, I saw that. It's gone now.
Good suggestions. I've added them, including cannot->can not. So there's no need to use cannot as a Keyword now.
Good suggestions. I've added them, including cannot->can not. So there's no need to use cannot as a Keyword now.
I don't know if this is a good idea, but tell me what you guys think:
We have x-introduce, x-initiate, x-goodbye, x-hello and x-none.
How about a new one called x-terminate? (no pun intended)
I don't know if this is possible, but could x-terminate be created that would perform the same function as x-gottago? This would work in the same way except the bot doesn't log off. It closes a specific chat window of one conversation.
We have x-introduce, x-initiate, x-goodbye, x-hello and x-none.
How about a new one called x-terminate? (no pun intended)
I don't know if this is possible, but could x-terminate be created that would perform the same function as x-gottago? This would work in the same way except the bot doesn't log off. It closes a specific chat window of one conversation.
I think that would appear to many as a bug. A Bot stops responding without any reason- people will thing something is wrong. Plus x-words indicate that a Response is coming.
On the compounds, is there a way you can add a checkbox so we can designate which lines work well in them and which don't. Lines like "If you have to ask..." don't look too good with a following statement.
Not yet, but that might be a good idea. Does anyone else have bad compounds coming up (aside from a few repetition errors earlier on)? Or is it generally working well?
Re/ compounds --
So far so good. I've seen a few "clunkers", but generally they seem to work well. I need to rephrase a few of the xnone's to accomodate the new process.
I was going to suggest any response that has a possible SEEK should not get a compound tacked on, as that could potentially ruin the nested contexts we've all worked so hard on. That would also allow people to effectively designate certain responses as non-compounds, simply by specifying a Seek response.
Then again, I have yet to see a compound come up on a potential Seek answer, so maybe it already works that way.
So far so good. I've seen a few "clunkers", but generally they seem to work well. I need to rephrase a few of the xnone's to accomodate the new process.
I was going to suggest any response that has a possible SEEK should not get a compound tacked on, as that could potentially ruin the nested contexts we've all worked so hard on. That would also allow people to effectively designate certain responses as non-compounds, simply by specifying a Seek response.
Then again, I have yet to see a compound come up on a potential Seek answer, so maybe it already works that way.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar