|
|
Post by Kaez on Nov 25, 2009 22:22:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 25, 2009 22:24:11 GMT -5
We may never figure it out. But yours consistently gets ranked harder to read than ours. Which is weird because I like to keep it simple while you can be quite 'high flowing'. ... Which means, I'm claiming I broke this thing as well. |
|
|
|
Post by WJChesek ((Evern)) on Nov 25, 2009 22:26:42 GMT -5
I remember typing the names of my characters a lot more than the word "you" |
|
|
|
Post by Kaez on Nov 25, 2009 22:27:07 GMT -5
We may never figure it out. But yours consistently gets ranked harder to read than ours. Which is weird because I like to keep it simple while you can be quite 'high flowing'. ... Which means, I'm claiming I broke this thing as well. Apparently it judges complexity differently than we do. You definitely average longer sentences than I do, no question about it. That's probably relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 25, 2009 22:28:31 GMT -5
Which is weird because I like to keep it simple while you can be quite 'high flowing'. ... Which means, I'm claiming I broke this thing as well. Apparently it judges complexity differently than we do. You definitely average longer sentences than I do, no question about it. That's probably relevant. But the long sentences are simple still when regarding the words inside it. Which is something a computer doesn't get. |
|
|
|
Post by Kaez on Nov 25, 2009 22:30:12 GMT -5
Apparently it judges complexity differently than we do. You definitely average longer sentences than I do, no question about it. That's probably relevant. But the long sentences are simple still when regarding the words inside it. Which is something a computer doesn't get. Yeah, a computer obviously has no way of knowing when something is a metaphor and such, which are obvious factors into complexity. That's why this one is better than the last one -- it's more than just an index, it's full of data about your story's linguistics. |
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 25, 2009 22:31:21 GMT -5
That's why this one is better than the last one -- it's more than just an index, it's full of data about your story's linguistics. I wouldn't say 'better'. Maybe 'slightly less useless'. |
|
|
|
Post by Kaez on Nov 25, 2009 22:33:27 GMT -5
That's why this one is better than the last one -- it's more than just an index, it's full of data about your story's linguistics. I wouldn't say 'better'. Maybe 'slightly less useless'. You're the worst optimist, ever. |
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 25, 2009 22:34:56 GMT -5
I wouldn't say 'better'. Maybe 'slightly less useless'. You're the worst optimist, ever. That really had little to do with being optimistic. Now if I said "There'll never be anything that can actually be useful regarding these numbers." ... Then sure. ... But I didn't say that. |
|
|
|
Post by Kaez on Nov 25, 2009 22:36:30 GMT -5
You're the worst optimist, ever. That really had little to do with being optimistic. Now if I said "There'll never be anything that can actually be useful regarding these numbers." ... Then sure. ... But I didn't say that. You thought it. |
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 25, 2009 22:38:06 GMT -5
That really had little to do with being optimistic. Now if I said "There'll never be anything that can actually be useful regarding these numbers." ... Then sure. ... But I didn't say that. You thought it. Nuh-uh. |
|
|
|
Post by Kaez on Nov 25, 2009 22:40:01 GMT -5
Oh. Sorry, I thought you did. |
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 25, 2009 22:40:34 GMT -5
Oh. Sorry, I thought you did. Well, you thought wrong... bitch. |
|
|
|
Post by Kaez on Nov 25, 2009 22:41:05 GMT -5
Oh. Sorry, I thought you did. Well, you thought wrong... bitch. Nuh-uh. |
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 25, 2009 22:42:33 GMT -5
Well, you thought wrong... bitch. Nuh-uh. Oh. Sorry, I thought you did. |
|
