Move PW corrections Form to Google Docs

[gasyoun]

"PW corrections" are hard to use, because I have to copy paste a lot of data. There is only one field that has to be filled by me, the "new". Data like PW115797 could be pasted with no user help, just a JS. I could help with that, I guess. http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/PWScan/disp2/corrections.html "com" should be a dropdown list of possible variants, they are not endless, I guess. So I would go for a form, that does not goes to an email, but piles up in a sheet in the cloud. You can set up email notification when something is add ed, but it's a nice table and not just in your inbox. See how it works at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22eVYplSJQ8 http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlresources/training2/google/googleforms.pdf https://drive.google.com/templates?q=form&sort=hottest&view=public&type=forms#

[funderburkjim]

I have wanted to change the correction submission procedure for sanskrit-lexicon for some time. The current system provide only my local email history as the only documentation of the corrections submitted. Also, it uses my personal account at Hostmonster as the email recipient. So, your suggestion is of interest. It seems that the system you suggest requires a google account; I have such an account, but the drawback of it pertaining to me personally remains. Perhaps this objection should be ignored for the time being. I wonder if the github sanskrit-lexicon could be used as the 'owner' of the GoogleDocs form? (probably not)

You also mentioned the desirability of having some of the information of a correction form record filled in automatically by the system (for instance dictionary, also perhaps transliteration scheme, key1; L number (more problematic if there are multiple L numbers for the user). Anyway, there is some information that Javascript could scrape from the page and send to the form, in theory. However, I wonder if Google forms supports automatic filling in of info into a form?

Another question with the Form approach is whether there is a way for me to indicate the resolution of the correction issue raised by a form. How could the form interact with an issue tracker? In a sense, the form is just a regularized way to open an issue; but it may not provide a way to close an issue.

So, I guess my conclusion is that the Google form approach for submitting sanskrit-lexicon corrections is worth a try, despite some unanswered questions. If you want to set up a form, I'll make a modification for PW to use for testing it. Or, I can give it a try at a later time.

[gasyoun]

You'll add several people with the right to Edit the document and than the issue of the owner will not be an issue anymore. As per "Google forms supports automatic filling in of info into a form?" have to do additional research. Seems possible. To close an issue you can mark it as closed in a special column. The table could be with open (read-only) access for everybody, so one could check if he wants to. Yes, I would definitely want you to try to compile a form. All the crucial questions have a positive answer, the rest can be added, if we will get more Sanskrit coding help. Which will come, if we'll ask. We have never ever asked before.

[funderburkjim]

A 'beta' version of a Google Form for Corrections to Sanskrit Lexicon Dictionaries is constructed. It is currently activated in the three main displays for PWG (2013 ed.), at links: Basic: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/PWGScan/2013/web/webtc/indexcaller.php AdvSearch: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/PWGScan/2013/web/webtc2/index.php List: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/PWGScan/2013/web/webtc1/index.php

You should be able to submit corrections now. Give it a try! Feedback is requested. When the form of the form seems relatively satisfactory, this correction form can be added to displays for other dictionaries.

[gasyoun]

Nice one! 1) add URL http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/ under title Sanskrit-Lexicon Correction Form 2) Which Dictionary? - I'm thinking that it should be "Choose from a list" and not "Text". Depends on if we can do autocopy when submitting errors from when inside a definite article. 3) Old -> Old Entry, New -> New Entry 4) You do not mention should I write in devanagari or HK.

[Shalu411]

Namaste

0. Is it for Advanced Dictionary? or Basic?
1. "Which dictionary" has no go. Which one to put? Option 1 is what? Whether to put URL or Dictionary name? If drop down menu, then- will options be given as URLs or Dictionary names?
2. L-Code - Add Comment - "You can find it left side above the right block (in Advanced) and display block in Basic."
3. Head Word - Whether to copy paste? (or will any system be enhanced that you are on certain word and then you press corrections option -then you get the word in that column automatically? :))
4. Instead of "This is a required question" everywhere, you can put one statement- "Filling all blocks is necessary for correction to be made"
5. "New- The Text that is correct" - Could it be in Colours? Like highlighting the "error area" in the word. Eg. उद्यमेने (wrong word)> उद्यमेन (right word)- then न could be put in Red and Bold or underline.. something like that.
6. Is description of the correction needed for user? If done, better. Options could be given from site's side- like- extra /unnecessary space, space-missing, letter missing, grammar gone wrong, typo error, etc. If description of error is added, it may help in statistics of errors too. Thankyou

[funderburkjim]

1. Regarding 'which dictionary': The way things are set up now, this will be 'pre-filled-in' according to the dictionary page in which the 'Corrections' link is clicked. Thus, it would be better if this pre-filled-in value (like "PWG 2013ed.") was not available for the user to modify; i.e., if it were locked. But, I don't know how to do this in Google Docs yet.
2. Regarding 'Is it for Advanced Dictionary? or Basic?' : In one of these issues, Shalu411 suggested that the Corrections button should be accessible for Advanced Search, as well as Basic. So, the answer is 'Yes', meaning wherever the correction button appears, you can enter corrections for the dictionary from there. Since both the Basic Display and Advanced Search Display use the same underlying data, a correction submitted, say, from the Advanced Search page will improve both displays. Keep in mind that the correction form only submits a correction - it does not make the correction. In order for the correction to be implemented or made, I have to do something on the Cologne server to change the underlying data. So there will be a time lag between correction submission and correction implementation. One reason for putting the Email field in the Corrections Form was so that someone who submits a correction could be notified when the correction is implemented. But there may be a better way to handle this notification.
3. I added a link to a 'help page' in the corrections form. Read that, and try submitting some corrections (if they 'dummy' or 'test' correction, just so indicate in the Comment field, and I'll ignore any so marked. Then, resubmit further comments/suggestions here. I'm glad to make further changes, if I can.

[gasyoun]

1) "But there may be a better way to handle this notification." - if there would be an official changelog, maybe even in RSS, that would help, maybe, solve the reporting of what's implemented part. 2) "Corrections" is a bad way of naming. One could think it's about what JIM has changed in the dictionary and not what they can actually contribute. It should contain a verb. Like :Found and error? or Submit a typoe. And add "Keep in mind that the correction form only submits a correction - it does not make the correction. In order for the correction to be implemented or made, I have to do something on the Cologne server to change the underlying data. So there will be a time lag between correction submission and correction implementation." - and state the time, will 1 month be enough? 3) http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/doc/corrections/help.html great, but Comment field should be a dropdown box I guess. Telling the page does not help. If you have the L number, you have it all. So it would be a waste of time. We would want to make it possible submit an error in less than 10 seconds, I guess. 4) Consider http://www.labnol.org/internet/google-docs-email-form/20884/

[funderburkjim]

I discovered a way to customize the Google Form used for corrections. Marcis, Note that looking at the form itself won't show the changes. You'll have to link to the correction form from one of the PWG 2013 pages. The Help page has not been updated. I'll wait 'until the dust settles' on changes to the form before rewriting. In addition to reformatting changes, there were wording changes, incorporating some of the suggestions made in this issue. Please look, and take for a test drive. Submit a real correction or two for PWG if you have any at hand, or just make up some, and note them as a test.

[Shalu411]

Namaste http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/aequery/index.html Its Apte English-Sanskrit Dic. Please add a correction form on this page too. There are errors being noticed. Want to correct them.

[funderburkjim]

There is now a corrections link for aequery. This required changing the aequery url to point to a php file: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/aequery/index.php . When you submit the first correction, please send me an email so I check that the correction was properly recorded.

[funderburkjim]

There is now a functioning Sanskrit-Lexicon correction form. This is based on a Google Form, but required specialization outside of Google to be useful. The Form feeds a Google spreadsheet, which is currently visible by me, Marcis, and Shalu. To date, about 50 corrections have been submitted. In the last couple of days, software and procedures to make use of these corrections has been developed and used. This has been done for Vachaspatyam, and for the Apte English-Sanskrit Dictionary, 2014 edition; and all the correction-form corrections for these two dictionaries have been processed, and are thus evident in the displays. One question regarding Apte-ES remains: There are two displays of Apte-ES, the 'legacy' one and the 2014 ones. The correction process applies only to the 2014 one. Currently, the legacy display uses a different data source, and thus the corrections made to the 2014 data source do not show up in the legacy display. From my point of view, it would be easiest to simply deprecate the legacy display, and remove the Correction button therefrom; it seems to me that the 2014 displays are much better. Do others think that there are advantages to the legacy display, and that it should be retained? If there's a strong case for the legacy display, I can work to emulate it from the 2014 data. Let me know what you think.

Also, when this Apte-ES detail is resolved, I think this 'correction-form' issue can be closed; and will do so unless there are objections.

[gasyoun]

Even if https://github.com/sanskrit-lexicon/Cologne/issues/26 will get live one day, I would not kill the Correction submission form.

It has got much better. Only think I lack is I can't leave comments (no comments field) as per when the error is in the markup, and not the text itself, as in the case of "marman" in Grosses Petersburger Wörterbuch (2013 edition). Maybe instead of removing the link from the legacy version link it to the one which can have changes, the new version? To continue 2 versions of the same does not makes sense. The old are old. The new are good. The only issue that I've seen is that new sometimes contain new errors as compared to older ones (as per MW). For that purpose we would want to have both for reference, but not both for implementing of changes. But without a changelog nothing makes much sense.

[funderburkjim]

"I can't leave comments" - Comments can be put in any of the fields - they are just text. Several of the corrections from the old PWG (see below) involve errors in italics.

"I would not kill the Correction submission form." I agree. The correction form is useful for the randomly observed error. #26 approach is for more sustained proofreading.

"new sometimes contain new errors " Main reason for this with PWG is that there is a backlog of old-edition PWG corrections that have not been implemented in new PWG. I have the data to implement this backlog, and this task in on my (very long!) TODO list. I'll aim to do this via the new corrections, so there will be a log (in the response form file).

"link it to the one which can have changes" This might be the way to go, once the old and new are in sync.

[gasyoun]

Comments should not be mixed with the rest. Technically they can be but in every field, but I would not want to put them in "Type" field, because it's logically not correct. It's the first time I actually.