# Searching for terms containing an apostrophe



## pointvirgule

When doing a FR→EN search for a term such as "d'autre" or "quelqu'un", whatever follows the apostrophy is dropped, yielding results that are not useful. I thought this worked a few days ago.

http://www.wordreference.com/fren/d'autre
http://www.wordreference.com/fren/"d'autre"


----------



## mkellogg

I'm aware of this and we are looking for a solution.  It might take a month or two to find one, though.


----------



## Peterdg

When I do this, it just works as it should. Have you found a solution in the meanwhile, Mike?


----------



## mkellogg

Oh, in the dictionaries!  We will get this fixed few soon.


----------



## pointvirgule

Peterdg said:


> When I do this, it just works as it should.


What results do you get, Peterdg? The first link gives me a dictionary page titled *d'*. The second link opens a page titled *"*.


----------



## Peterdg

I wasn't looking in the dictionary but in the Forum, so I used the forum search, not the dictionary search. 

The Forum search tool does it correctly.

That explains it, I guess.


----------



## pointvirgule

Yes, sorry, I should have specified that I was referring to the dictionary search feature.
(But then, I did post links to show the problem. )


----------



## Peterdg

pointvirgule said:


> (But then, I did post links to show the problem. )


But I didn't click them


----------



## mkellogg

I've got a fix. I'll roll it out over the next few minutes, though some results might be cached for a while.

Thanks for alerting me to this.

The forum search has its own problem with apostrophes that will take much longer to get fixed.


----------



## pointvirgule

Thanks Mike for the quick response.

At this point, the first link in the original post works fine. 

However, unfortunately, the second one, with the query between double quote marks, doesn't (no dictionary or thread title results). Unless we're not supposed to use quote marks in search queries?


----------



## siares

pointvirgule said:


> Unless we're not supposed to use quote marks in search queries?


Could someone confirm this? Are some other marks allowed?
Thank you.


----------



## mkellogg

Apostrophes shouldn't be a problem.  I see putting a search in double quotes is causing problems, but we can fix that.

You should be able to type in anything reasonable and we should return reasonable results.  If you find something (reasonable) that doesn't work, please let me know!


----------



## siares

mkellogg said:


> I see putting a search in double quotes is causing problems, but we can fix that.


There are 2 types of search it seems
1) dictionary search
2) thread title search

I don't use the dictionary page for finding threads, but after yesterday I noticed the 2 searches react differently to including the double quotes.
- Dictionary finds nothing (or sometimes untruly suggests entries starting with -A to contain the search term* - I think the search sometimes picks up the term from the history),
- threads are shown normally. 
I think it is misleading this way.
---------------------------------------

*I was originally asking about the first type of search, of the dictionary.*
I used 'synonym' search to find the entry where is "in good odour" and nothing came up, single quotes were the same. Without quotes it works.
I don't understand why searching for
_good odour _(without preposition)
brought up nothing - does it not search words individually?

--------------------------------------
_No dictionary entry found for 'as it were'_
*
_'*as it were*' also found in these entries:_
_-able - 2,4-D - A - A2 - A2 level - Abba - Abbasid - Abbe - Abbevillian -Aberdeenshire - Abkhazia - Abo - Aborigine - Abu Simbel - a - aardvark -aback - abacus - abase - abbé - abdomen - aberrant - abeyance -ablation - ablative - abled - abomasum - abominate - abort - abortion pill- about - about turn - abrasion - abrasive - abraxas - abrupt - abscess -abscissa - absentee - absolute - absolute magnitude - absolute majority- absolute pitch - absorb - absorption spectrum - abstract noun - abuzz -abyss - academe - aˈbatement_


----------



## mkellogg

siares said:


> _good odour _(without preposition)



This search? good odour - English-French Dictionary WordReference.com

What are you expecting to see there?

Edit: This works fine for me: as it were - English-French Dictionary WordReference.com


----------



## siares

Uhm, so maybe the difference isn't so much in search, as in suggestions '*also found in these entries*'


mkellogg said:


> This works fine for me: as it were - English-French Dictionary WordReference.com


Hmm.
*AS IT WERE in Eng - Russian *
(I attach printscreen for search term in quotes, without quotes.)
The russian dictionary doesn't have dedicated 'as it were' entry.
But the 'as it were' can be found under 'как' (this is *correctly suggested in quoteless search* (although there is a space missing))

*The quoteful search* for "as it were"
- suggested there are threads with the title although in fact there are none- see on printscreen.
(I cannot reproduce it on all tries)
- it doesn't say that 'as it were' can be found under 'как', in instead says it can be found under: long list of *nonsensical entries *from the beginning of alphabet



mkellogg said:


> This search? good odour - English-French Dictionary WordReference.com
> What are you expecting to see there?


No, in *English Synonyms*.
I once came across 'good odour' in the dictionary when I was learning a word 'meritorious'. Then I forgot the word 'meritorious' and when I tried to remember it, I remembered there was some exotic connection with good odour.
When I put 'good odour' (without qutes) only, it didn't come up.
When I put in 'in good odour' (without qutes), the result came - the dictionary search correctly suggested I look up 'meritorious'.
in good odour - WordReference.com English Thesaurus
Same search for "in good odour" with quotes doesn't suggest I look up 'meritorious' entry
in good odour - WordReference.com English Thesaurus


----------



## jann

hi Siares,

I confirm what you see.  Let me also clarify a little bit.

In many databases, "double quotes" let users specify that they only want to see exact/perfect matches for the search string inside the quotation marks.  But here on WR, it looks like there are some problems with consistency that we'll want to get fixed!

Please use my links to see the results I'm talking about, rather than typing the search words yourself.  That will help make sure we're all seeing the same thing.

Definitions or translations: These appear in the first part of a dictionary results page, assuming there are definitions/translations available. 
 Double-quotes are particularly inconsistent here.

When you include your dictionary search terms in _"double quotes" _we often fail to show you the definition/translation.  For example, if you search for "as it were" in English or "close" in EN-FR, you won't get any definitions or translations. That's not so great.  

If you omit the double quotes, we generally succeed in showing some sort of definition/translation, assuming we have one available.  Use my links to compare as it were (EN def) and close (EN-FR) to the links in #1.  Usually this is satisfactory, but look more closely...
The EN-FR translation results for _close_ are fine.  

Unfortunately, the EN definition results for _as it were _are not so good.  It seems there is no entry dedicated entirely to _as it were_, so instead the dictionary returns all the entries that are associated with the first word, _as_.  This makes for a lot of reading.  In the end, the idiom _as it were_ is listed as #22 in the Random House content for both Learner's and Unabridged parts of the as it were entry, and it appears as example #5 in the CONJ section of the Collins content.  (I found it by using my browser's Find-In-Page feature and searching for _it were_.)

Sometimes, adding quotes does help you to limit the results of your search to relevant translations.  This seems to work best with ©WordReference content.  Unlike licensed content from Random House, Collins, etc. the ©WordReference content is displayed in a table with alternating rows of light and dark gray background.  So for example, searching for "close up" (a two-word phrase with a space) in EN-FR gives you different translations than close up (which allows inexact matches such as _closeup _and _close-up_).  In some situations, this will be helpful.

Cross-references: WR also displays cross-references to other dictionary entries. These are the sections you circled in red in the screenshots you attached to the previous post. When we list _'*as it were*' also found in these entries_ we are not saying that those entries will give you the definition for "as it were".  Instead, we are saying that your search phrase appears in the full-text portion of those entries.
 Unfortunately, double-quotes are causing problems here.

When you include the double quotes, there are problems with cross-ref results for _"as it were"_.  It seems that only the first term of your search (_as_) is included in the full text search.  And since a very large number of dictionary entries contain the word _as_, that generates a long list of irrelevant words that have no meaningful association with _as it were_.
When you omit the double quotes, the full text search works correctly.  Each of the 9 full-text cross-reference results listed for _as it were_ in the English definitions dictionary do indeed contain the string _as it were_ somewhere within those entries (as - insult - like - manner - quote - shock - sort - speak - subjunctive). 

Thread titles: The final section on a WR dictionary results page is usually a list of thread titles that include your search words. 
 Here, double-quotes behave as expected.

If you include them, then all the thread titles in the list will contain a perfect match for _as it were.  _
If you omit the double quotes, you'll also get thread titles like _as if it were yesterday _and _as it did/is/were_, which contain your three search terms somewhere but allow other words to appear in between.

It should presumably be possible to get this working better, so hopefully my description will be irrelevant before long.


----------



## siares

That's what I call a clarification! An excellent summary for Mike.


jann said:


> Please use my links to see the results I'm talking about, rather than typing the search words yourself.


A question regarding this:
The dictionary is unaware who is searching it, even when we're logged in?
In all three cases:
searching Definitions or translations
searching Cross-references
searching Thread titles
?

I ask because once there were problems with the in-forum search of threads, which manifested various ways, and sometimes members saw different results to moderators or administrator, or to unlogged users.

If it is so (if the dictionary search is democratic), printscreens are unnecessary, links to search is enough.



jann said:


> Unfortunately, the EN definition results for _as it were _are not so good.


That is the same with any phrasal verbs, one needs to use Ctrl F. I didn't realise this could be fixed, but since double quotes are being tried out, there's chance!
For example 'get along'
with quotes, no results
without quotes,
get along - WordReference.com Dictionary of English
se 15th entry for 'along' - it says _*get along.* __See  *get* (def. 33)_.

however, def. 33 for 'get' has nothing to do with 'get along'.


----------



## jann

siares said:


> The dictionary is unaware who is searching it, even when we're logged in?


Yes, the dictionary search results are the same for everyone.  
The only reason I said to use my links was to be sure we were all looking at the results of the exact same search string, without typos or differences in how the quotes were entered. (Screenshots can still be useful in some situations, just because they are very clear...)



> That is the same with any phrasal verbs, one needs to use Ctrl F. I didn't realise this could be fixed, but since double quotes are being tried out, there's chance!


Yes, it affects phrasal verbs and any other multi-word expression, as best as I can tell.  I'm not sure there's a simple fix for part 1 content (definitions or translations) that is licensed from other providers, which includes the English definitions dictionary. The chances are probably better for getting it to work properly with ©WordReference content.



> without quotes,
> get along - WordReference.com Dictionary of English
> se 15th entry for 'along' - it says _*get along.* See *get* (def. 33)_.
> 
> however, def. 33 for 'get' has nothing to do with 'get along'.


Sure it does!  You're looking at the wrong def. 33.  

The 15th _along_ entry that references _get _def.33 is in the RH Unabridged portion of the entry.  That means you need to look at def. 33 in the _Unabridged_ portion of the entry for get -- not the RH Learner's Dictionary portion.  Just scroll down farther.  RH Learners #33 is _get off_...  RH Unabridged starts the numbering all over again, and #33 is _get along._


----------



## siares

Oh yes! I confused the 2 dictionaries, I thought they were the same. How about a slightly different background colour for each? Or is this difficult with the licensed content?


----------

