WordNet and Google

[Garson O'Toole]

 Randy Alexander wrote:
> Does anyone know anything about why Google searches using the define
> operator no longer return results from Princeton Wordnet?  (At least for me
> they don't.)
>
> I found this article:
>
> http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2011/05/googles-define-operator-no-longer.html
>
> It mentions that the results are different (and gives a screenshot of the
> way it was before), but it doesn't say anything about WordNet.

I tried a few examples: define:castigate define:obstreperous
define:quintessence.

In these cases it was possible to find definitions from Wordnet by
clicking on the "More" label appearing in the main definition
displayed by Google. If you type castigate or obstreperous alone
without the define operator Google will still display a definition.
However, quintessence alone does not produce a definition. (Your
experience may differ based on customization.)

define:noctivagant gives a Wikitionary definition, but clicking "More"
does not lead to a Wordnet definition because it is not listed in
Wordnet.

define:posslq gives a definition from Wikipedia, but clicking "More"
does not lead to a Wordnet definition because it is not listed in
Wordnet.

define:clapperdudgeon does not directly give a definition, but the
third link goes to Wordnik which provides a definition.

I do not know why Google changed the items displayed when using the
define operator. Google has changed its behavior in this domain more
than once.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org