Comments on: N.Y. Times mines its data to identify words that readers find abstruse

By: Friday Pix: Recommended Reading For The Weekend « RealDelia

Friday Pix: Recommended Reading For The Weekend « RealDelia — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:48:25 +0000

[...] If you’re a wordsmith, you’ll love this piece from The Nieman Journalism Lab about words New York Times readers find [...]

By: Napster 2.0: Now with news « Warren Tillery's Blog

Napster 2.0: Now with news « Warren Tillery's Blog — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:15:25 +0000

[...] So will linking, whether to other Web sites with more information or to in-house sources providing definitions of strange words and concepts like The New York Times does. [...]

By: Zach Seward

Zach Seward — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:49:38 +0000

Thanks for that link, Anna. The NYT post was published after mine, which was based on a leaked memo.

By: Anna Haynes

Anna Haynes — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:21:32 +0000

Grrr. I know I’m 6 months out of date, but Zachary, did you give a link to the NYTimes blog post that you’re writing about? I don’t see it in this post (though perhaps my poor aged eyes are at fault) – it’s
Big, Fancy Words
http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/big-fancy-words
- and, it seems, even that post doesn’t provide the words in a way that’ll let readers easily find out their definitions by double-clicking.
Grrrr.

That’s passive-aggressive journalism. “We’ll tell you about stuff you want to know, but no, we will not tell you _what_ you want to know”

(either that, or I am too dense to figure out where you’re providing the latter)

By: Merlinaut

Merlinaut — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 03:43:56 +0000

Wow! Only the ads click for me on the NY Times.
Thanks for sharing all this.

By: Weekend Reads | Ditchwalk

Weekend Reads | Ditchwalk — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:14:26 +0000

[...] N.Y. Times mines its data to identify words that readers find abstruse An older (6/11) post, but one I found interesting. Coincidentally, I noticed for the first time this week that I couldn’t highlight|copy from the NYT site because it wanted to treat my highlighted text as a query. Fortunately, the Ctrl-C key combo still works for copying highlighted text, even if the Copy option is no longer available in my right-click menu.) [...]

By: The Nieman Journalism Lab « Reporting at Colorado State

The Nieman Journalism Lab « Reporting at Colorado State — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:17:24 +0000

[...] http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/06/ny-times-mines-its-data-to-identify-words-that-readers-find-abstrus... [...]

By: Stephan Faris - Ground Up – The daily grind - True/Slant

Stephan Faris - Ground Up – The daily grind - True/Slant — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:10:11 +0000

[...] N.Y. Times mines its data to identify words that readers find abstruse Highlighting a word on the Times website calls up a question mark that users can click for a definition and other reference material. Yesterday, deputy news editor Philip Corbett offered reporters a fascinating glimpse into the 50 most frequently looked-up words. [...]

By: Maxine

Maxine — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:28:02 +0000

oh and I forgot to tel comment 40 that louche is a French adjective, still commonly used for something which doesn’t seem very honest. It comes from latin word luscus that means one eyed, and what is funny is that one-eyed is “borgne” in French, a word that can be used like “louche”, but only for places, not for people : un hotel borgne, or un hotel louche…
Intersting isn’t it ?, but the verb loucher also means to squint

By: Maxine

Maxine — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:07:19 +0000

There is some interesting thing I notices from being a native French speaker : a large amount of those word are obvious for a mediumly educated French speaker because of the latin origin : abstruse

By: Mary Rothschild

Mary Rothschild — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:59:36 +0000

This reminds me of when I came to NY over forty years ago and carried a little notebook around so I could jot down abstruse words (mainly from the Times) and look them up. I’d try to use them three times so I’d learn them, which led to some strange expressions on friends’ faces and hilarious misunderstandings, but it was grand. Really should start doing that again.

By: Ted Morris

Ted Morris — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:58:05 +0000

Ah, feel much better now that I can finally decipher some of the language of management consultants. “Abstruse” was always a favourite of one I remember…

By: Firannion

Firannion — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:19:19 +0000

Brief definitions leave out so much of the rich flavor and texture of words. To me, the English language is the biggest, best toy in the world (and it’s free!), so that defining “laconic” as “concise,” for instance, is supremely unsatisfying. A laconic person is someone who needs a vigorous kick in the posterior to get them to utter more than two words at a time. When I read or hear the word “laconic” I think of someone like the Scots farmer saying, “That’ll do, pig,” in response to Babe’s triumph in the sheepherding competition.

It’s this qualitative level of sheer, vivid associational pleasure in the English language that I see as being jeopardized by what modern communications technology is doing to our information sources. I do hope that the Times resists the advice of the marketing consultants who are leaning on them to dumb down; looking up an unfamiliar word never hurt anybody. I had to do it all the time as a kid tackling big, thick Victorian novels, and I ended up making a decent living off my writing.

By: Charlie Harris

Charlie Harris — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:25:27 +0000

I don’t believe the almighty fuss this is causing over there. Most of these words would be perfectly well understood by even an averagely well-educated newspaper reader here in England, the home, please remember, of the English language. It’s a pity that one of the greatest cultural achievements of all time is being so impoverished in your country. Oh, and please learn the difference between “what” and “which”. they are not synonyms.

By: 13-Sep-2009 | MohanArun.com

13-Sep-2009 | MohanArun.com — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:56:11 +0000

[...] If The New York Times ever strikes you as an abstruse glut of antediluvian perorations, if the newspaper’s profligacy of neologisms and shibboleths ever set off apoplectic paroxysms in you, then you may be interested in reading this. Link. [...]