I use the server for more than just the Hypertext Webster Gateway, so just hit counts are slightly little misleading. But since they were easy to produce, that's what I have. You can see the weekly hit rate graph -- the data consists of hits placed into 10-minute buckets, shoved through a low pass filter, then folded to average multiple weeks worth of data together (not that many yet). The graph starts sometime during Saturday.
I've also produced pie-chart plots of hits (gathered from about a week's worth of accesses) categorized into hits by domain and hits by country. The country code chart may be a little misleading, since the .com, .net, etc addresses are not counted. A chart without those accesses is also available.
Unfortunately, I cannot give you any personal help. I am merely a software engineer -- and a not-so-recent immigrant whose grammar suck -- who barely has time to feed his cat. Your local librarian at your local (corporate/public) library is likely to be a more appropriate resource for simple word/vocabulary questions.
A better answer comes from George Fields
"Angry and hungry are common english words that end in 'gry'. What
is the third word that ends in 'gry'? It is a common word that you
use every day and if you were listening closely, you've already heard
it".
The answer is hungry - the third word of the puzzle that ends in
gry.
See also the GRY FAQ
at the Internet Public Library
Furthermore, because the dictionary servers are located elsewhere, I
have no control over their content. If there is an error or words
missing, you should use contact the back-end server's
administrator. As the interface now says, I only wrote the interface
and am not responsible for the contents. Plus, I do not wish to exercise
editorial control.
Do NOT write a software web robot client that ignores the
/robots.txt convention and mechanically try to dump the dictionary contents
through this web interface. This is unreasonable behavior, since (1)
you should ask the people running the dictionary server for
permission, (2) you can do it much easier by talking directly to the back-end
dictionary servers and not waste
the hypertext interfaces gateway's cycles, and (3) you will be
disproportionately loading the hypertext interface and the back-end
server(s) so that other users may have difficulty accessing the
dictionary.
New: you can get the back-end software and databases from
http://www.dict.org/. A direct download
is much simpler than trying to dump a database through the web.
Since I have left UCSD and am now hosting this at pair.com, I am trading a
hosted-by icon for a discount on the cost of web hosting. I still pay
some out-of-pocket cost, but since I get other services (email, other
web pages of mine), it's okay.
If you still want to donate money/resources, please give it to
your local educational institution. I'd appreciate an email message
letting me know if you do so. And support research -- without the
opportunity to think broadly in a research environment and play with
ideas (even though they are not in my own area of research), I would
not have had the chance to come up with the simple ideas leading to
this webster's interface.
Yes, I have bent my own rules a little by displaying the GIFs for
the ``good deed'' causes like the Red
Cross, advertisment-for-donations, etc.
The definition to which this particular email is probably referring
is from a 1912
edition of Webster's dictionary. The person who came up with the
definition is quite likely to be long dead. This database is in the
public domain (the copyright has expired), and is, as the Hypertext
Webster Gateway FAQ (this document) says, not served by the gateway
but by a server machine elsewhere on the Internet. The gateway can't
do anything about it; the server FAQ
server credits / FAQ page
has some contact info.
I think most people would (prudently) be hesitant to update such a
database, since by actually taking editorial control of it, that would
be accepting responsibility and make the editor a possible lawsuit target.
(This is why you can't sue the phone company for an obscene phone call --
they are just carriers of the phone call.)
While I honestly believe that some of the definitions are a bit
outdated and perhaps even possibly offensive to some people, I certain
am not willing to touch the database and exercise editorial control.
Plus, I don't think anybody involved at the server back-end has the
time to do this -- if you want to download a copy of the database and
update it yourself and offer its use to the public, it's available,
and I encourage you to do so. The beauty of the Internet is that setting
up a web site / information source is cheap, and grassroots cooperation
is very easy.
Note that the 1912 edition of Webster's contains the word "Chinaman",
the definition of which, unlike the entry from the WordNet database,
does not indicate that it's considered offensive either.
As I understand it, this whole brouhaha started with a bad puzzle -
To Whom It May concern,
I am very disturbed with the definitions of the word BLACK
in the Webster's Dictionary. I understand that you may not be the
person who wrote the definitions, but regardless you had something
to do with it being put into this system. I would like some names,
numbers, and address' of all of those who are responsible for these
definitions. All the way up to the person who came up with the
definition.
(Authorship intentionally omitted. Not all email about offensive words
are about the word black; other words on other topics
have been found offensive by various people as well.)
bsy+www@bennetyee.org, last updated
email bsy.