On Mar 9, 14:05, Stephen Dauphin wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Pete Turnbull wrote:
>
> > That's not what I'd call "high". That means that on average, you have
to
> > correct or interpret every tenth character. I'd call less than 99%
"low",
> > not high.
> That's not what I meant. I did not study the results closely and so I
> wrote "high 90%" as a disclaimer to mean something like 98, 98.5, 99,
> 99.5, or 99.9. Perhaps I should have used the word "range". It seemed to
> me that I was getting less than 1 to no more than two words per hundred
> that needed correcting and I don't remember any punctuation or numerical
> errors.
Ah, that's a bit different, then :-) What software?
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
Received on Tue Mar 09 1999 - 19:50:36 GMT