You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Thanks already for the work you did, it's a very useful tool for me.
I just remarked that there is some inconsistencies on how your terms_BCCWJ.js is build :
BCCWJ gives 2 frequencies : One based on "short form" and one for "long form". The first one is the frequency of the word when it's a standalone usage, and the long form is when it compounds.
Example : さん is extremely popular as a compound but very rare as a standalone one.
So BCCWJ gives this value :
But your dictionnary is setup to give it 4024 :
Sometimes, it takes the long form, sometimes, the short form rank, yet, it does not seem to follow any specific rule :
上げる
160
BCCWJ: 160
BCCWJ: 229
本来
1605
BCCWJ: 1394
BCCWJ: 1605
As you can see, for あげる it took the first number which is the lowest, and for 本来 it took the second which was the highest.
So while I could understand that only one value would be returned, I think it's a bit inconsistent to not really know which one is taken.
What do you think about it ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello !
Thanks already for the work you did, it's a very useful tool for me.
I just remarked that there is some inconsistencies on how your terms_BCCWJ.js is build :
BCCWJ gives 2 frequencies : One based on "short form" and one for "long form". The first one is the frequency of the word when it's a standalone usage, and the long form is when it compounds.
Example : さん is extremely popular as a compound but very rare as a standalone one.
So BCCWJ gives this value :

But your dictionnary is setup to give it 4024 :

Sometimes, it takes the long form, sometimes, the short form rank, yet, it does not seem to follow any specific rule :
As you can see, for あげる it took the first number which is the lowest, and for 本来 it took the second which was the highest.
So while I could understand that only one value would be returned, I think it's a bit inconsistent to not really know which one is taken.
What do you think about it ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: