c4countdown

Although CountMax is excellent and I take my hat off to Jim for putting in the huge effort of compiling the dictionary, I have just noticed a few mistakes recently: UNBOOT (not in the dictionary, but listed in CountMax), HIRABLE (American spelling, but listed in CountMax), POTENCES (should be listed in CountMax, but isn't).

Jim/Charlie would you be able to correct these? Also is there a better way of reporting such errors (which are very very few, I hasten to add) than posting them here?

Julian wrote:Jim/Charlie would you be able to correct these? Also is there a better way of reporting such errors (which are very very few, I hasten to add) than posting them here?

Nope. Thanks for these, I'll pin the topic so other people can use it whenever.

Julian wrote:Although CountMax is excellent and I take my hat off to Jim for putting in the huge effort of compiling the dictionary, I have just noticed a few mistakes recently: UNBOOT (not in the dictionary, but listed in CountMax), HIRABLE (American spelling, but listed in CountMax), POTENCES (should be listed in CountMax, but isn't).

Jim/Charlie would you be able to correct these? Also is there a better way of reporting such errors (which are very very few, I hasten to add) than posting them here?

Are there any more words that are/aren't meant to be in, that you may know off?

I've only just completed the front hooks and started on the end hooks and have loads of other word lists that may all contain errors now

Here's one that came up a couple of weeks ago.

29 May, R12. PELAGES. Allowed by Susie, but not by CountMax.

I guess there may be quite a few affected by the rather ambiguous exception to the mass noun rule.

In one of my games, IODINES was accepted but not by CountMax. Also TREASONS isn't accepted by CountMax

Julian wrote:Although CountMax is excellent and I take my hat off to Jim for putting in the huge effort of compiling the dictionary, I have just noticed a few mistakes recently: UNBOOT (not in the dictionary, but listed in CountMax), HIRABLE (American spelling, but listed in CountMax), POTENCES (should be listed in CountMax, but isn't).

Thanks for these, Julian (and, in advance, anyone else who spots any more) and don't be reticent about posting them; if the dictionary can be improved, let's do it. I'll add/delete these ones, of course, and whenever you want me to post a word list update, just let me know and I'll upload it to the usual place (current, slightly-out-of-date file is at http://www.fahnn.co.uk/ODE3RDEC2007.txt).

While I'm on the subject, I can't take credit for it all; Jon Corby helped immensely with revisions following the move from the first to the second editions, and Charlie, Craig, Jono and others (sorry to anyone I've forgotten) have pointed out numerous omissions, additions etc. in the past. I know it's still not perfect (and never will be) but it's probably pretty close by now, although as previously mentioned, the mass noun plurals are open to interpretation, so there's no way of getting them completely right.

Anyway, when Oxford release a new edition of the book, I'll get hold of one and have a thorough revision of the list (might need a bit of help with this, as I'm pretty feckless and lazy really, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it). Until then, the more mistakes you can find, the better.

To Joseph: don't have any concerns about using CountMax for whatever you're doing. Errors in it OTHER THAN those relating to mass noun plurals, such as those mentioned by Howard and Jason above (which aren't really errors at all, given that the mass nouns rule is completely up in the air, and that DC repeatedly go back on their own past rulings etc. etc. - don't get me started!), are so rare as to be negligible. I've only noticed these three among all the dozens of words it comes up with for every letters round; there are 11 letters rounds a show, 100-odd shows a series, and I've been using CountMax since the start of this series. I'd say it's as near to infallible as you can get; it's a fantastic resource.

When you compare it to that Official Countdown words book which came out 5,6 years ago, which was compiled by people who were (presumably) being paid for their time, yet every page was littered with really glaring mistakes... well, there is no comparison, and I think massive plaudits should go to Jim, and those who helped tweak the word list afterwards. Well done guys.

Julian wrote:and I think massive plaudits should go to Jim, and those who helped tweak the word list afterwards. Well done guys.

For the record, I didn't "help tweak" Jim's word list - I compiled my own from scratch (actually completely oblivious to the existence of Jim's) and then I later performed comparisons between the two files and manually screened the differences. But, meh.

Julian wrote:To Joseph: don't have any concerns about using CountMax for whatever you're doing. Errors in it OTHER THAN those relating to mass noun plurals, such as those mentioned by Howard and Jason above (which aren't really errors at all, given that the mass nouns rule is completely up in the air, and that DC repeatedly go back on their own past rulings etc. etc. - don't get me started!), are so rare as to be negligible. I've only noticed these three among all the dozens of words it comes up with for every letters round; there are 11 letters rounds a show, 100-odd shows a series, and I've been using CountMax since the start of this series. I'd say it's as near to infallible as you can get; it's a fantastic resource.

When you compare it to that Official Countdown words book which came out 5,6 years ago, which was compiled by people who were (presumably) being paid for their time, yet every page was littered with really glaring mistakes... well, there is no comparison, and I think massive plaudits should go to Jim, and those who helped tweak the word list afterwards. Well done guys.

I actually don't use CountMax to be honest. I have downloaded it before though, but that was just so I could get a copy of the dictionary. I have used a program called Aide aux Jeux de Lettres to get some of my word lists (eg 4-vowelled words, 5-vowelled words, common suffixes etc). I would then finish off the word lists in Excel 2007, using IF, AND and OR formulas to filter the words if needed .

Joseph Bolas wrote:I actually don't use CountMax to be honest. I have downloaded it before though, but that was just so I could get a copy of the dictionary. I have used a program called Aide aux Jeux de Lettres to get some of my word lists (eg 4-vowelled words, 5-vowelled words, common suffixes etc). I would then finish off the word lists in Excel 2007, using IF, AND and OR formulas to filter the words if needed .

You make me horny when you talk French like that.

Corby wrote:For the record, I didn't "help tweak" Jim's word list - I compiled my own from scratch (actually completely oblivious to the existence of Jim's) and then I later performed comparisons between the two files and manually screened the differences. But, meh.

Sorry Jon, I didn't mean to downplay all your hard work. It was only when we compared our lists that I realised that mine still contained a shitload of legacy errors and lacked an equal shitload of newly-introduced words. In fact, to this day I reckon your list is more accurate than mine, as I've stubbornly refused to exorcise quite a few dodgy mass noun plurals which arguably wouldn't be allowed.

So, give credit to the Corby, folks. His preferred method of receiving credit is by way of sexual favours, the exact nature of which are determined by the relative attractiveness of the one bestowing said favours.

jimbentley wrote:Sorry Jon, I didn't mean to downplay all your hard work.

You didn't dude, they were someone else's words

Tsk - you young men with your lists.

If you want the complete ODE, without definitions, as a text / word document, just ask.

If you want every 9-letter word in the ODE, without definitions, just ask.

If you want an Indian head massage, don't ask.

Yes I know it was me who said that Corby - I just understood that it was Jim's dictionary (with help/tweaking from others) which was being used in CountMax, so I directed the main congratulations to him, because it was CountMax that we were talking about; I knew that you'd made your own version, but I didn't know to what extent that was being used in CountMax. But yes well done for the effort you put in as well - either way, manually like Jim or electronically like Corby, I certainly couldn't have done it myself!

Damian E wrote:Tsk - you young men with your lists.

If you want the complete ODE, without definitions, as a text / word document, just ask.

If you want every 9-letter word in the ODE, without definitions, just ask.

I don't suppose you have a list Damian, of every 9-letter word allowed on Countdown, that has at least 1 alternative anagram, also allowed on Countdown?

Also there is 2,222 words that are 9-letters long in length, where each letter in the word is different.

Damian E wrote:Tsk - you young men with your lists.

If you want the complete ODE, without definitions, as a text / word document, just ask.

If you want every 9-letter word in the ODE, without definitions, just ask.

If you want an Indian head massage, don't ask.

Don't suppose you've got a complete list of 10-12 letter words have you?

Bowlarse wrote:I don't suppose you have a list Damian, of every 9-letter word allowed on Countdown, that has at least 1 alternative anagram, also allowed on Countdown?

Also there is 2,222 words that are 9-letters long in length, where each letter in the word is different.

Am afraid not, sorry.

Ben Wilson wrote:
Don't suppose you've got a complete list of 10-12 letter words have you?

Am afraid not again Ben.

Was looking at the recap for Jono's COMA quarter-final and realized that NUDISMS technically should be allowed, and should be listed in CountMax, even though it's completely ridiculous - but NUDISM isn't specified as a mass noun so there you have it.

Also WAZOO, as mentioned by Charlie, still I assume he's added that by now...

Edit to say, I think POLICINGS should also be listed (again with the admission that it's completely ridiculous in common-sense terms), seeing as they've allowed MAULINGS on the show before... though whether they'd actually allow POLICINGS on TV is debatable (think they disallowed BLEATINGS once in the NODE era, so it's a moot point). Any views? Damian is there any particular rule on words like MAULINGS, POLICINGS, BLEATINGS? I suppose you could align it with the "comparative/superlative of one-syllable adjectives" thing - allow them as long as they're not completely ridiculous...

Hi Julian,

The rule of thumb is that if the word is listed as a noun in its own right, then we'd tend to accept the plural.

All three words you mentioned are listed as nouns. It's harder to find a logical usage for POLICINGS, but with MAULINGS and BLEATINGS its fair to say these are pretty much used in everyday parlance. Frank Bruno took a few maulings in his time and the constant bleatings of some can be an irritant.........that sort of thing ....

In general, any -ING word has to be printed in its own right for us to consider accepting the plural. Having said that, POLICING is listed in exactly the same way as the other two, so while it may be harder to think of how to use it, we'd have to accept it. We tend to go with the policy of accepting words when debatable rather than carte blanche turning everything down. That way, if both players spot it, then we'd want to encourage both to go for it, then whatever is decided upon doesnt end up penalising one and not the other.

Hope this clarifies.

Cheers
D

jasoncullen wrote:In one of my games, IODINES was accepted but not by CountMax. Also TREASONS isn't accepted by CountMax

Was IODINES and TREASONS both allowed when you were on TV Jason?

Another error which came up in Damian's practice game last night: SKEPTIC is listed in CountMax, but it shouldn't be because it's an American spelling

Edit to say: just noticed that none of the errors reported above (UNBOOT, HIRABLE etc.) have been corrected... Jim / Charlie would you be able to do that when you get chance?

You can edit the dictionary file yourself if you're so inclined, it's just a text file.

Julian wrote:Another error which came up in Damian's practice game last night: SKEPTIC is listed in CountMax, but it shouldn't be because it's an American spelling

Edit to say: just noticed that none of the errors reported above (UNBOOT, HIRABLE etc.) have been corrected... Jim / Charlie would you be able to do that when you get chance?

Hi Julian (et al).

Actually, SKEPTIC is one of those ODE oddities (a bit like INDORSE): if you look at its own entry, it's listed as a US spelling; but if you look under SCEPTIC, SKEPTIC is listed as being the archaic & US spelling. So it stays in!!

Mike

I'm sure PICKETS is a lot easier to spot anyway (says Dinos who couldn't spot 781 when given 50, 75, 100, 1, 5 and 7)

Ah right yes, thanks for putting me right Mike. Although you'd have to rely on DC's knowing that they have to look under SCEPTIC to find it...

Ok thanks Charlie I've edited my downloaded copy of CountMax... but everybody else's will still have the mistakes in Guess there's not much you can do about that except refer them to this thread... luckily there are v v few errors in the dictionary file

I rely on Jim to keep things up-to-date and send me the occasional new version. If I start maintaining my own corrected version then we'd soon get out of synch and it'd be a big mess.

A few more anomalies which have come up recently: FERREL(S) - in CountMax but no longer in the dictionary; BASSLINE likewise

Julian Fell wrote:A few more anomalies which have come up recently: FERREL(S) - in CountMax but no longer in the dictionary; BASSLINE likewise

I'm pretty sure FERREL is one of my mistakes, sorry 'bout that, one of the hangers-on from the old Official Countdown Words. However, BASSLINE has got to be in, surely? I didn't have it in my original version (circa 2002) but added it 'cos Big Jon Corby had it in his dictionary and his is based on a newer edition of the ODEx (also, he is always right, and is fantastic).

I can't believe it's fallen out of the current version - are you absolutely sure, Julian?

Well I've scoured the BASS- words several times, can't see it anywhere

It's definitely not there.

jimbentley wrote:I didn't have it in my original version (circa 2002) but added it 'cos Big Jon Corby had it in his dictionary and his is based on a newer edition of the ODEx (also, he is always right, and is fantastic).

I can't see it anywhere either. Weird. The fact that mine was done largely by automation suggests that it might be elsewhere, but I'll be fucked if I can think where. What I mean is, it's not like I was sat there thinking "what, basslet to basso? They've forgotten bassline surely, I'll just stick it in."

It's a shame, I had a free sign-on to the ODE until the end of last year, and the entire dictionary was searchable. If bassline is mentioned anywhere, that would find it. Doing that manually is a bit more awkward They want £95 for a year's subscription to the online resource, and I ain't paying that. Such a facility enabled me to also know that the words "doorless" and "homepage" do not have their own entries, but are used in the definitions of other words

Jon Corby wrote: Such a facility enabled me to also know that the words "doorless" and "homepage" do not have their own entries, but are used in the definitions of other words

Wow, isn't that exactly the kind of thing that any decent dictionary authoring software would flag? I once considered writing some such software, but I assumed all the low hanging fruit (like using words you don't define) would have been plucked. You could do more interesting stuff like looking for pairs of words that appear in each other's definitions (leading to a bootstrap problem) or more general cycles of words defined in terms of each other (which is inevitable, but you want the cycles to be as long as possible.) I guess I overestimated the cleverness of OUP.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote: Such a facility enabled me to also know that the words "doorless" and "homepage" do not have their own entries, but are used in the definitions of other words

Wow, isn't that exactly the kind of thing that any decent dictionary authoring software would flag? I once considered writing some such software, but I assumed all the low hanging fruit (like using words you don't define) would have been plucked. You could do more interesting stuff like looking for pairs of words that appear in each other's definitions (leading to a bootstrap problem) or more general cycles of words defined in terms of each other (which is inevitable, but you want the cycles to be as long as possible.) I guess I overestimated the cleverness of OUP.

Yeah, I was quite surprised too. From memory (I can't be arsed to walk over to the cupboard) "doorless" is used in the definition of paternoster. Don't recall where homepage was used, but it probably wouldn't be too difficult to find, there's only so many places it's likely to be mentioned.

It's still bugging me how bassline got in

I noticed one of these today, without any fancy computerized search facility ( ) - "unsifted" doesn't have its own entry, but is used in the definition of GRAHAM.

Also, OINTMENT is a mass noun, but if you want to persuade Susie to allow the plural, tell her to look under LANOLIN, where it says "ointments"

Don't be too harsh on OUP though Charlie, despite the slurs thrown at them by the likes of David Williams and Malcolm James, I still think ODE and NODE are excellent dictionaries.

Can only find 'home page' in the ODE. Don't see it anywhere as one word.

My biggest beef is words like ANDISOL. Has no entry in its own right, so if a contestant offered this, you'd expect it to be disallowed on the grounds that it isn't in the book. But if you look at ANDOSOL, then you'll see ANDISOL listed in tiny print as an alternative spelling. Great if you know the word to begin with, but very difficult if you are adjudicating with no electronic back up. You'd not realy expect the adjudicator to keep on reading further down the page to look for ANDOSOL.

My favourite entry is Eggs and Bacon......(another term for Bacon and Eggs).

Damian E wrote: You'd not realy expect the adjudicator to keep on reading further down the page to look for ANDOSOL.

I can't remember where I saw this - maybe it's in the dictionary introduction somewhere - but I think if a headword has an alternative spelling, then the alternative spelling will have its own entry UNLESS that entry would be within three headwords either side of the main spelling. So if you find where a word entry should be, and it's not there, and you look three entries above and three entries below, you'll find it if it's there at all. ANDOSOL is within three entries of where ANDISOL would be. That's not to have a go at you Damian, I'm just saying.

There are just one or two occasions when this rule is flouted - e.g. if SHMEER (or SHMEERED, SHMEERING) came up, you'd have to know to look under SCHMEAR which is many pages back! But those are pretty rare, just oversights I imagine.

There are also a few occasions where, although the alternative spelling does have its own entry, you'd have to look under the main spelling to discover that the alternative spelling complies with Countdown rules, e.g. as discussed recently, INDORSE (you have to look under ENDORSE to find out that INDORSE can be a legal as well as American spelling) and SKEPTIC (have to look under SCEPTIC to see that SKEPTIC can be archaic British English as well as American).

So it can be a bit of a minefield, I think DC do pretty well with it. It's interesting that subsequent dictionaries after the NODE list salts / esters of acids (FORMATE, ADIPATE etc.) with their own separate entries, rather than under FORMIC ACID or ADIPIC acid etc. I did wonder whether that was done specifically to help out with Countdown adjudication, since FORMATES was once wrongly disallowed in the NODE days (again that's not to have a go at you Damian)...

The interesting thing about TREASONS is that you'd never actually need to play it as long as you know that it's the anagram of SENATORS. There are quite a lot of words like this where there's a word you could be unsure of but there's an anagram that's perfectly valid and a common word, so you can just offer that one. CREMATION/MANTICORE comes to mind, perhaps inspired by Julian.

It's a major difference between Scrabble and Countdown is there's no point in learning anagrams of words, since when one of them is there, the other one will be there as well. I always try and go for the prettiest word I can find of the longest length, words that don't end -ING or -ED or even better compound words like SUNDIAL that look hard to find. It doesn't show up in the score mind you, but it does show up in the recaps.

Martin

CREMATION/MANTICORE comes to mind, perhaps inspired by Julian.

Don't talk about CREMATION to me!

Dont worry about having a go at me, Julian. All is fair in love and wordplay.

I agree with your points. It is a minefield, and i didnt realise the dictionary explained that words with alternatives would be listed within 3 entries etc. You mean you read all those pages of blurb before the first real page of the dictionary?

Still, its good to know. I check everything Susie does electronically, so it doesnt really matter to me. But for people using the book at tournaments or at home etc, its a bit of a nuisance to say the least.

The ODE for me at least, tries to be too many things at the one time. Its almost like they've chucked in a few hundred South African words, then a few hundred USA words, then thousands of encyclopaedic entries like BLACKPOOL (population 175,000 a seaside town) etc, and lost focus on the main reason they are there.

I think the 'alternative within 3 entries' is lazy, the mass noun stuff is utterly lazy and completely ridiculous, and as Charlie pointed out, to use words like DOORLESS in an entry but not list in it its own right, is very strange indeed.

Would it not be best them to change the dictionary to the Scrabble one . With Scrabble dictionaries, all the words are listed A-Z without the definitions so you don't have to look elsewhere for the word, if it aint in the alphabetical list then its not allowed .

Also is SHMEERING and SHMEERED actually allowed because I have been looking in the dictionary and I can find SCHMEAR, SCHMEER, SHMEAR and SHMEER, but it doesn't actually mention SHMEERING or SHMEERED in any of the two definitions (SCHMEAR and SHMEAR).

Damian E wrote:Its almost like they've chucked in a few hundred South African words, then a few hundred USA words, then thousands of encyclopaedic entries like BLACKPOOL (population 175,000 a seaside town) etc,

That's exactly what I like about it - I know there's a debate about encyclopaedic entries in dictionaries but I'm all for them, I think they're great. And I like the fact that it's a proper dictionary which is meant for ordinary people (not lexonerds) to use, not an abstract word-list divorced from reality (so no to Joseph's suggestion).

With mass nouns, if they've got no evidence in their databases and research that a word is ever used in the plural, why shouldn't OUP say so in the entries? Ok I concede there are a few anomalies like REMOVALS and LAGERS but they're usually pretty spot on - to blanket-label it "lazy and utterly ridiculous" is going a bit far. There are a few genuine mistakes, like words being used in definitions which aren't themselves defined, or CHLORINE not being marked as a mass noun etc... ok it's not 100% perfect but there are hundreds of thousands of entries! Do Chambers / Collins etc. not contain a single mistake anywhere?

(Btw Joseph - SHMEER is a verb... )

Julian Fell wrote:Ok I concede there are a few anomalies like REMOVALS and LAGERS but they're usually pretty spot on - to blanket-label it "lazy and utterly ridiculous" is going a bit far.

A few anomalies.......you mean a few hundred surely?

Either a word can be pluralised or it can't. There is no grey area, or at least there shouldn't be. At the end of the day, if you can't look at a dictionary for a definitive answer, then i dont know where you do look.

I don't get the encyclopaedic stuff either. I can look up Mick Jagger or Eric Clapton, but not Bono or Sting. I can find Dudley Moore but not Roger Moore. American actress Lucille Ball is listed, but not 1966 England World Cup winner Alan Ball. Doesn't seem right to me somehow. Am sure Chambers / Collins have errors too, but there is no danger of us changing to either of those. I just wish the ODE was more user friendly. I bet they'd have sold a lot more had it been more compact and less crammed. I must weigh the size of a small dog, which doesn't help either.

Damian E wrote: I must weigh the size of a small dog, which doesn't help either.

Lovely mental picture there Damian

I like OUP and would happily work for them one day (judging by the number of purely logical errors, it seems they need some decent programmers.)

But it's true that the ODE2r as used on the show is dodgy. The encyclopaedic entries are pointless. It would be like including some thesaurus entries, but not all, so half the time you look something up it's not there and you have to get a proper thesaurus anyway. Not every book should serve every purpose. It's easy to feel like having extra entries is always better, but when you have to lug around a massive dictionary and it takes twice as long to find any actual words, the trade-off is not worth it. There are many errors from the previous version which were known but not corrected (INDOORSES etc) and plenty of other anomalies as we've already discussed. Other dictionaries inevitably have errors, but they do at least fix them in later editions.

Julian Fell wrote:(Btw Joseph - SHMEER is a verb... )

I'm confused then. I always thought the word had to be mentioned, in some form, in the dictionary for it to be allowed on Countdown.

Joseph Bolas wrote:

Julian Fell wrote:(Btw Joseph - SHMEER is a verb... )

I'm confused then. I always thought the word had to be mentioned, in some form, in the dictionary for it to be allowed on Countdown.

Joseph Bolas wrote:

Julian Fell wrote:(Btw Joseph - SHMEER is a verb... )

I'm confused then. I always thought the word had to be mentioned, in some form, in the dictionary for it to be allowed on Countdown.

Are you joking?

Damian E wrote:Either a word can be pluralised or it can't. There is no grey area, or at least there shouldn't be. At the end of the day, if you can't look at a dictionary for a definitive answer, then i dont know where you do look.

I terms of Countdown, obviously this is correct - there needs to be an objective list. But in terms of the actual language itself, there is not a definite list of words that can be pluralised. If the dictionary has been made to describe the language (as opposed to prescribe) rather than been made specifically for Countdown, they are probably quite happy to list something as "mass noun" and leave the rest up to you. They don't need to decide if it can be pluralised (although I suppose they do in the cases where the plural would not be of a regular form).

Gev - if they don't need to decide what words can be pluralised, then why go to great lengths to list mass nouns in the first place?

They list plural nouns, indicating that the plural is the same as the singular, so you'd be forgiven for assuming that when they list mass nouns, these words ought not to be pluralised, surely? But we know that is not the case.

If you look up the word 'apple', they don't put 'we think its some kind of fruit'........they give a thorough and proper definition. Considering the book is sold as a dictionary, i think its fair to expect the same with the mass nouns.

Damian E wrote:Gev - if they don't need to decide what words can be pluralised, then why go to great lengths to list mass nouns in the first place?

They list plural nouns, indicating that the plural is the same as the singular, so you'd be forgiven for assuming that when they list mass nouns, these words ought not to be pluralised, surely? But we know that is not the case.

If you look up the word 'apple', they don't put 'we think its some kind of fruit'........they give a thorough and proper definition. Considering the book is sold as a dictionary, i think its fair to expect the same with the mass nouns.

Then why decide to allow plurals of some mass nouns in the first place? If the dictionary says 'congee' is a mass noun, why allowed the plural on Countdown?

Martin

I don't know. Gevin told me to do it.

MORTICER yes or no? Was playing Jimmy today on msn and it came up on Countmax but not Countgen2.

I think yes. Maybe need a second opinion though.

Jon O'Neill wrote:I think yes. Maybe need a second opinion though.

Seconded.

Damian E wrote:If you look up the word 'apple', they don't put 'we think its some kind of fruit'

I'm going to write a dictionary like that

If you do, Julian, i've already given you Lionel Blair's entry for free.

brilliant

Dinos Sfyris wrote:MORTICER yes or no? Was playing Jimmy today on msn and it came up on Countmax but not Countgen2.

Doesn't someone have the dictionary used by Countdown? There seems to have been no definite answer to this.

I think yes. Maybe need a second opinion though.

and

Seconded.

don't inspire confidence.

MORTICER is in the dictionary Vagin.