BBC 'Mozilla Search Engine' WTF



  • This latest article on BBC News - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7560742.stm leads with 'Internet search engine Mozilla Firefox has launched a project in
    Uganda to translate its searches into the local Luganda language.'

    The article then continues in correct detail about translation workshops taking place in Uganda, but I am staggered that no-one involved in the article seems to have had any idea what Firefox is(of course, if the Mozilla Foundation is planning to take on Google, I stand to be corrected). 

    Presumably this means that the BBC is an entirely IE shop? 



  • @j_pilborough said:

    Presumably this means that the BBC is an entirely IE shop? 

     

    Or they just don't know what a search engine is. There are a lot of people out there who think that Google and Yahoo are web browsers, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised if someone has it the other way around.



  • Journalists don't generally know much about technical stuff.  Of course, most other people don't know much about technical stuff, but they don't have to write newspaper articles about it.



  • @Someone You Know said:

    @j_pilborough said:

    Presumably this means that the BBC is an entirely IE shop? 

     

    Or they just don't know what a search engine is. There are a lot of people out there who think that Google and Yahoo are web browsers, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised if someone has it the other way around.

    That reminds me of those computer courses where the teacher begins talking about the Word Operating System.



  •  Well they've now fixed the first para to read "Web browser Mozilla Firefox has launched a project in Uganda to translate its searches into the local Luganda language." Does this mean it will convert any English search results to Luganda, or convert Luganda in the search box into English, or both, or neither? Sounds like someone's really cocked up their research / writing. 



  • It's obvious: browser == internet == google == search engine



  • They've rewritten it again... and it makes sense now:

     African software and language experts have launched a project to
    translate Mozilla's Firefox web browser into the local Ugandan language
    of Luganda.

    Shame about the use of the phrase 'computer programme'. Everyone UK IT literate person I know writes it 'program'. Even BBC does elsewhere. I reckon their usual technology reporter is ill.



  • @mxsscott said:

    African software and language experts have launched a project to
    translate Mozilla's Firefox web browser into the local Ugandan language
    of Luganda.

    I'm sure they'll get it right eventually.



  • @pqueue said:

    @mxsscott said:

    African software and language experts have launched a project to
    translate Mozilla's Firefox web browser into the local Ugandan language
    of Luganda.

    I'm sure they'll get it right eventually.

     

    Just because they don't start with the same letter doesn't mean it's wrong.



  • @anthetos said:

    Just because they don't start with the same letter doesn't mean it's wrong.
    Just read the whole article or the previous versions, do yourself a favour, and shut up.



  • @pqueue said:

    @anthetos said:

    Just because they don't start with the same letter doesn't mean it's wrong.
    Just read the whole article or the previous versions, do yourself a favour, and shut up.

     

    Do you have a point, or are you just being needlessly hostile?



  • @anthetos said:

    Do you have a point, or are you just being
    needlessly hostile?
    My italics could be too confusing for you,
    so I'll make it simpler for you - ask Aunt Wikipedia aboot Uganda and Luganda. Then come back and re-read that sentence. After that, re-read the previous versions. See if anything strikes you.



  • You know what? This is the only forum I have been to where I can be flamed for questioning a post that contains only emphasis with no explanation at all. Instead of an informative reply I get a condescending and useless response. What a lovely community.



  • @pqueue said:

    @anthetos said:

    Do you have a point, or are you just being
    needlessly hostile?
    My italics could be too confusing for you,
    so I'll make it simpler for you - ask Aunt Wikipedia aboot Uganda and Luganda. Then come back and re-read that sentence. After that, re-read the previous versions. See if anything strikes you.

     

    Like anthetos, I do not see any problem with the sentence you quoted. Luganda is a language spoken in Uganda. Perhaps you need to study your English textbooks more thoroughly.



  • @spamcourt said:

    Like anthetos, I do not see any problem with the sentence you quoted. Luganda is a language spoken in Uganda. Perhaps you need to study your English textbooks more thoroughly.
    Technically, you could s/Ugandan/Luganda and s/Luganda/Uganda and it's just as right, and just as unclear. Without prior knowledge, were you sure about the exact meaning from the get-go? And previous versions were all clearer there.



  • @anthetos said:

    You know what? This is the only forum I have been to where I can be flamed for questioning a post that contains only emphasis with no explanation at all. Instead of an informative reply I get a condescending and useless response. What a lovely community.

    Blaming the community is a little knee-jerk, don't you think?  pqueue has only 8 posts and joined the forum yesterday.  I would suggest sticking around a bit and not basing your entire opinion of the forums on the actions of one new member.



  • @pqueue said:

    @spamcourt said:

    Like anthetos, I do not see any problem with the sentence you quoted. Luganda is a language spoken in Uganda. Perhaps you need to study your English textbooks more thoroughly.
    Technically, you could s/Ugandan/Luganda and s/Luganda/Uganda and it's just as right, and just as unclear. Without prior knowledge, were you sure about the exact meaning from the get-go? And previous versions were all clearer there.

     

    Unless you're advocating everybody start speaking in symbolic logic, I do not see your point.



  • @spamcourt said:

    Unless you're advocating everybody start speaking in symbolic logic, I do not see your point.
    No, Lojban would be enough.

    My point is that while they improved their facts, they screwed clarity at the same time. (It had been worded much better, as I pointed out.)

    In retrospect, expecting clarity from journalists is totally unreasonable, and I do appologise.



  • @spamcourt said:

    Unless you're advocating everybody start speaking in symbolic logic, I do not see your point.

    Wingdings!



  • @spamcourt said:

    Unless you're advocating everybody start speaking in symbolic logic, I do not see your point.

    He's probably one of Dubbya's relatives, so didn't know that Uganda was a country. He probably thought Luganda was the country, and they spoke a language called Ugandan.

    You could say, for example 'the Mexican language of Spanish' or 'the Spanish language of Mexico'. Both make sense, and require some knowledge of context to deduce which is the language and which is the country. Given that the BBC website is aimed at British people, they could reasonably expect people to know that Uganda was a country. If people from certain other countries are reading it, a higher proportion might have difficulty knowing this.



  • @pscs said:

    He's probably one of Dubbya's relatives, so didn't know that Uganda was a country. He probably thought Luganda was the country, and they spoke a language called Ugandan.

    You could say, for example 'the Mexican language of Spanish' or 'the Spanish language of Mexico'. Both make sense, and require some knowledge of context to deduce which is the language and which is the country. Given that the BBC website is aimed at British people, they could reasonably expect people to know that Uganda was a country. If people from certain other countries are reading it, a higher proportion might have difficulty knowing this.

    Ah, yes, the immortal "Stupid Americans." arc.



  • Also - my bad, I didn't make it with the edit - it's only natural to assume that in "fooan
    language", the adjective aplies to the closest noun, which is
    "language", since it's not German we're talking aboot. See? I can do
    gross generalisations and get all dismissive aboot a different culture,
    too! And I'm not even American.

    Luganda looking like a place name at first glance doesn't
    help, now does it? To be clearer for you - knowing that Uganda is a country does not disambiguate the sentence. So much for your implications aboot my general level of knowledge. You also seem to have cleverly sidestepped my main
    grief, which is that the sentence had originally been clearer in that
    regard.



  • Read this true story and everything will be revealed. Maybe they got Mr Guy Goma back to explain what Mozilla Firefox is...



  • @pqueue said:

    the adjective aplies to the closest noun
     

    Great. TDWTF is now hosting the ultimate Grammar Nazi and pedant.

    And he can't even spell. It's "applies", not "aplies", mein Herr. And "about", not "aboot", although that's probably a side effect of being Canadian, ey? 

     



  • @KenW said:

    Great. TDWTF is now hosting the ultimate Grammar Nazi and pedant.
    Way to snip quotes there, skipper. I was making a point, and the point was that while they did make the sentence more correct, they also made it more confusing at the same time. Is this clear enough? I explained it for the benefit of some people who didn't get it. And you proceeded to cut my explanation of why exactly was it more confusing and depict me as a Grammar Nazi. And people were irritated that I was reluctant to do this. Great, I hope the irony is not lost on you.

    @KenW said:

    And he can't even spell. It's "applies", not "aplies", mein Herr.
    Thank you, I did miss that typo there. I shall be more careful next time.

    @KenW said:

    And "about", not "aboot", although that's probably a side effect of being Canadian, ey?
    Which part of "Fake Canadian accent." is confusing you?



  • @KenW said:

    And "about", not "aboot", although that's probably a side effect of being Canadian, ey?

    He keeps tagging everything with "Fake Canadian Accent".  It was after seeing this that I realized nothing he was wrote was worth reading.



  • @pqueue said:

    I was making a point
     

    I know that. I read every post you made before I made mine.

    @pqueue said:

    depict me as a Grammar Nazi
     

    If the shoe fits...

    @pqueue said:

    Which part of "Fake Canadian accent." is confusing you?
     

    None. Which part of "humor" don't you understand?

    Oh, wait, I got it. I didn't write a spoiler tag for you to point out it was humor. Of course, if I had you probably wouldn't have gotten the joke anyway, ey? Especially if I wrote "humor" and not "humour (har har)".

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    He keeps tagging everything with "Fake Canadian Accent".  It was after seeing this that I realized nothing he was wrote was worth reading.
     

    Yeah, I got that and joked about it. He missed the joke, though. Must be because I wasn't pedantic or egotistical enough for him.

    I'd figured out that nothing he wrote was worth reading long before the tagging started, though.




  • @KenW said:

    If the shoe fits...
    Well, if being anally rententive about words makes one a Grammar Nazi, then, Mister Ambiguous I guess I could be called one. Trying to get better, though.

    @KenW said:

    None. Which part of "humor" don't you understand?
    Guilty as charged.



  • A sales trainer that used to work for my company told me once that he goes on the "blue internet" for personal email and the "yellow internet" for company email.



  • @PileOfMush said:

    A sales trainer that used to work for my company told me once that he goes on the "blue internet" for personal email and the "yellow internet" for company email.

    facepalm


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.