Yahoo Forum Archive

Hi Marta,

This is just a heads-up, something that the liaisons probably should be
aware of:

On the Nomination form, in the Length field, there's a link for the
question: "Does my wordcount need to be precise?" which leads to a very,
very nicely-written blurb saying, basically "Yes, if it's an FLF." Which is
great, but it also says "You can also calculate your story length by copying
and pasting your story into the form here."

And it links to a word-count tool. Which, unfortunately is even
*more*inaccurate than the word counts in MS Word or any other tool
I've ever
tried, which are frequently off by 1 or 2 percent.

I tried counting the words in each of my 3 nominated drabbles by hand (not
directly: I copy the drabble, break it up into groups of 5 words, and then
count the groups), and they are all precisely 100, which is not surprising,
since I tend to be a bit... er... well... *cough* obsessive *cough* about
that sort of thing....

But the MEFA word-count tool gives counts of *98*, *95*, and *92!*

*Sigh*

So, if an author of a true drabble is confused about whether to trust their
own count (by hand), or the count with any software, including the tool
provided by the MEFAs, you might want to tell them that a hand count is
still the only one guaranteed to be accurate.

The tool is perfectly fine for estimating approximate word counts (like, to
see if a story qualifies as a novel...), but it is *far* too inaccurate to
use for FLFs. I will squirrel away a reminder to myself to bring this up at
the post-mortem... it probably should not be linked to the blurb about FLF
lengths, where precision is needed.

- Barbara

*Note to self: I am not paranoid if word-count tools are really out to get
me.*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Barbara

I've goggled and found what seems to be a more accurate online word
count tool at http://www.wordcalc.com/. So we'll be changing that link
to point to this new one shortly (maybe this evening - it depends when I
do my next upload of bug fixes).

Tanaqui

Elena Tiriel wrote:

>
>
> Hi Marta,
>
> This is just a heads-up, something that the liaisons probably should be
> aware of:
>
> On the Nomination form, in the Length field, there's a link for the
> question: "Does my wordcount need to be precise?" which leads to a very,
> very nicely-written blurb saying, basically "Yes, if it's an FLF." Which is
> great, but it also says "You can also calculate your story length by copying
> and pasting your story into the form here."
>
> And it links to a word-count tool. Which, unfortunately is even
> *more*inaccurate than the word counts in MS Word or any other tool
> I've ever
> tried, which are frequently off by 1 or 2 percent.
>
> I tried counting the words in each of my 3 nominated drabbles by hand (not
> directly: I copy the drabble, break it up into groups of 5 words, and then
> count the groups), and they are all precisely 100, which is not surprising,
> since I tend to be a bit... er... well... *cough* obsessive *cough* about
> that sort of thing....
>
> But the MEFA word-count tool gives counts of *98*, *95*, and *92!*
>
> *Sigh*
>
> So, if an author of a true drabble is confused about whether to trust their
> own count (by hand), or the count with any software, including the tool
> provided by the MEFAs, you might want to tell them that a hand count is
> still the only one guaranteed to be accurate.
>
> The tool is perfectly fine for estimating approximate word counts (like, to
> see if a story qualifies as a novel...), but it is *far* too inaccurate to
> use for FLFs. I will squirrel away a reminder to myself to bring this up at
> the post-mortem... it probably should not be linked to the blurb about FLF
> lengths, where precision is needed.
>
> - Barbara
>
> *Note to self: I am not paranoid if word-count tools are really out to get
> me.*

Excellent!

And you're right, that one is *far* more accurate... I tested it with all 3
of the drabbles I mentioned, and it agreed with my hand count every time. I
did try to fool it by adding all sorts of extraneous dashes (both en-dashes
and em-dashes), which usually fool MS Word... and it was off, but only by
one character!

Very good tool! I've kept a bookmark so I can use it again on my own.

Thank you, Liz!

- Barbara

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Tanaqui <tanaqui@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi Barbara
>
> I've goggled and found what seems to be a more accurate online word
> count tool at http://www.wordcalc.com/. So we'll be changing that link
> to point to this new one shortly (maybe this evening - it depends when I
> do my next upload of bug fixes).
>
> Tanaqui
>
>
> Elena Tiriel wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Marta,
> >
> > This is just a heads-up, something that the liaisons probably should be
> > aware of:
> >
> > On the Nomination form, in the Length field, there's a link for the
> > question: "Does my wordcount need to be precise?" which leads to a very,
> > very nicely-written blurb saying, basically "Yes, if it's an FLF." Which
> is
> > great, but it also says "You can also calculate your story length by
> copying
> > and pasting your story into the form here."
> >
> > And it links to a word-count tool. Which, unfortunately is even
> > *more*inaccurate than the word counts in MS Word or any other tool
> > I've ever
> > tried, which are frequently off by 1 or 2 percent.
> >
> > I tried counting the words in each of my 3 nominated drabbles by hand
> (not
> > directly: I copy the drabble, break it up into groups of 5 words, and
> then
> > count the groups), and they are all precisely 100, which is not
> surprising,
> > since I tend to be a bit... er... well... *cough* obsessive *cough*
> about
> > that sort of thing....
> >
> > But the MEFA word-count tool gives counts of *98*, *95*, and *92!*
> >
> > *Sigh*
> >
> > So, if an author of a true drabble is confused about whether to trust
> their
> > own count (by hand), or the count with any software, including the tool
> > provided by the MEFAs, you might want to tell them that a hand count is
> > still the only one guaranteed to be accurate.
> >
> > The tool is perfectly fine for estimating approximate word counts (like,
> to
> > see if a story qualifies as a novel...), but it is *far* too inaccurate
> to
> > use for FLFs. I will squirrel away a reminder to myself to bring this up
> at
> > the post-mortem... it probably should not be linked to the blurb about
> FLF
> > lengths, where precision is needed.
> >
> > - Barbara
> >
> > *Note to self: I am not paranoid if word-count tools are really out to
> get
> > me.*
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Two things

1) The FAQ on the nomination form now links to the new Word Count tool
at http://www.wordcalc.com

2) Elena Tiriel also let us know about a bug in the way the stories were
displayed on the QuickLinks pages, so that you couldn't get to all the
stories. This has now been fixed.

The pages have been modified so that now when you click on an item, the
site displays all the stories for that item item rather than displaying
them in pages of so many stories at a time.

That means you will also no longer see the navigation bar (with the
Search box, page links, and jump to page and per page dropdowns) on
those pages.

It also does mean that as we add more stories, the QuickLinks pages will
take a little longer to display on your screen - but once you have the
page loaded, clicking on any of the items will bring up the list of
stories instantly.

I've taken this approach to the fix because the navigation bar code and
the QuickLinks code didn't want to play nicely together, and this was
the best way to get something that worked properly in a reasonable
length of time. I may revisit this when I have more time to get a more
"ideal" solution. Meanwhile, if you find the QuickLinks pages slow to
load, you can always use the filter on the main Stories page.

Tanaqui

Thank you for both fixes, and the clear explanation, Liz!

You are a hero among unsung heroes! *vbg*

- Barbara

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Tanaqui <tanaqui@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Two things
>
> 1) The FAQ on the nomination form now links to the new Word Count tool
> at http://www.wordcalc.com
>
> 2) Elena Tiriel also let us know about a bug in the way the stories were
> displayed on the QuickLinks pages, so that you couldn't get to all the
> stories. This has now been fixed.
>
> The pages have been modified so that now when you click on an item, the
> site displays all the stories for that item item rather than displaying
> them in pages of so many stories at a time.
>
> That means you will also no longer see the navigation bar (with the
> Search box, page links, and jump to page and per page dropdowns) on
> those pages.
>
> It also does mean that as we add more stories, the QuickLinks pages will
> take a little longer to display on your screen - but once you have the
> page loaded, clicking on any of the items will bring up the list of
> stories instantly.
>
> I've taken this approach to the fix because the navigation bar code and
> the QuickLinks code didn't want to play nicely together, and this was
> the best way to get something that worked properly in a reasonable
> length of time. I may revisit this when I have more time to get a more
> "ideal" solution. Meanwhile, if you find the QuickLinks pages slow to
> load, you can always use the filter on the main Stories page.
>
> Tanaqui
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]