Eggcorn Forum

Discussions about eggcorns and related topics

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Registrations are temporarily closed as we're receiving a steady stream of registration spam.

Anyone who wishes to register, please email me at chris dot waigl at gmail dot com with the desired username and a valid email address, and I will register you manually.

Thanks for your understanding.

Chris -- 2011-03-08

#1 2007-12-07 17:44:18

punksysmom
Member
Registered: 2007-12-07
Posts: 1

optical delusion instead of optical illusion

This was in the end essay of the November 2007 Fine Home Building

Offline

 

#2 2007-12-08 05:03:19

Tom Neely
Eggcornista
From: Detroit
Registered: 2006-09-01
Posts: 121

Re: optical delusion instead of optical illusion

This is a wonderful thing. But, if you look in the Google Search part of this web site, somebody wrote it here (no comments) in March 2007. I do not understand how the Search Function here works. You Eggcorn Gods, should we always check our ideas in that Google Search window? But it only seems to Google this site? Or? Need direction.

Offline

 

#3 2007-12-08 19:12:11

patschwieterman
Administrator
From: California
Registered: 2005-10-25
Posts: 1665

Re: optical delusion instead of optical illusion

I don’t think anyone fully understands how our search engines work—or don’t work. But two things….

First, the basics are fairly clear. The Search engine that has a button above the forum page is really good for finding things in forum posts—especially if you enter just one word (say, “delusion”). By contrast, the Google search engine on the home page of the Database supposedly searches the whole site (and only the site, unless you give it different directions), but it’s a bit dodgier about returning hits for forum posts. On the other hand, it does return hits for the old comments list that was in place before the forum was established in the Fall of 2005. So if you’re worried that Ken Lakritz may already have had your idea back in March of 2005 (and you should be), that’s the place to go.

Second, in this case all my qualifications above prove unnecessary. I put “optical delusion” into both search engines, and in both cases I instantly found the post Tom was talking about. Not a problem. Sometimes just trying it turns out to be a lot quicker than worrying about it.

Offline

 

#4 2007-12-09 12:51:38

jorkel
Eggcornista
Registered: 2006-08-08
Posts: 1455

Re: optical delusion instead of optical illusion

The search engine on this website only seems to work when you enter a single word; in this case “delusion”...

“Optical delusion,” for “optical illusion.” by COsborne Contribute! 0 2007-03-26 14:31:32 by COsborne

Isn’t this usage just a case of modifying the prefix—often intentionally?

Offline

 

#5 2007-12-10 03:01:13

patschwieterman
Administrator
From: California
Registered: 2005-10-25
Posts: 1665

Re: optical delusion instead of optical illusion

Yesterday, I actually got the hits in question when I put “optical delusion” (both words) into the search engine on this page. I tried it again just now with the same results. I can’t explain it, but it worked without a hitch. And just to be sure, I entered “delusion” by itself, and got a slightly larger range of results. So putting in two words does sometimes work. Obviously, we need to experiment more and see if we can define the patterns more closely.

Offline

 

#6 2007-12-10 17:39:39

jorkel
Eggcornista
Registered: 2006-08-08
Posts: 1455

Re: optical delusion instead of optical illusion

Looks like you’re right about that Pat; it worked for me too. I wonder if mult-word searches are fruitful only if the words are adjacent in the post.

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
PunBB is © 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson
Individual posters retain the copyright to their posts.

RSS feeds: active topicsall new posts