I touch-type in a rather eccentric way which involves only three fingers and one thumb.* This occasionally produces really awful results if I'm not correctly oriented on the keyboard when I start. Despite this flawed technique, I regularly type 80+ WPM and can do 100+ for short bursts if I'm on a friendly keyboard. (Yes, I've done some professional transcription. No, I do not want to do yours, though I'll reconsider if you want to pay me ridiculously high hourly rates or if you're as witty as Joss Whedon.)
So today I horribly mistyped a search request as:
Google actually parsed this and brought up a page of results pertinent to what I'd meant to type. It also helpfully asked me whether I really meant to search for
Just on a whim, I agreed that I had and clicked on it. I got a similar list of results in a slightly better order: my desired website was the top result rather than second this time. I was rather impressed.
I tested the same two searches on Yahoo and Bing, and they baffled both of them: no results at all.
I can't help wondering whether this sort of thing could be used somehow in "captcha" testing to sort out humans from, um, Yahoo and Microsoft. So here's the riddle: is what I was searching for as obvious to you as it is to Google? Can anyone reading this translate the search request into regular English? Yes, you could cheat and run the search to get the answer. But that would be, y'know, cheating, and you would know deep inside yourself that you are not a sporting sort of person and would be shunned by polite society if they really knew what you were like. I trust that no one here wants to have to bear up under this bit of sad self-knowledge.
(Why yes, I do get in trouble for trusting people. How did you know?)
But how's this: for extra credit, explain exactly what I did to produce that little bit of gibberish.
Please rot13 answers in the comments. I'll flag correct ones.
*They tried to teach me proper typing technique in school when I was twelve, but it was already too late then to undo my ingrained bad habits.
I was way wrong, but I am oriented elsewise this evening and have something entirely different on the brain.
In other notes, I need a participant information form from you, as you as you can, bitte. We have a third - Mike Cramer has got one that will loosely fit. Someone else is taking this from me next year.
Posted by: liadan-m.livejournal.com | September 25, 2009 at 06:43 PM
It was obvious to me... unless my answer is wrong, of course.
Lbh zrnag gb glcr obfgba havirefvgl, ohg lbhe evtug unaq unq vgf fgneg cbfvgvba bar xrl gb gur evtug (zrnavat lbhe svefg gjb svatref jrer ba xy vafgrnq bs wx: V glcrq gung vafgrnq bs gur shyy sbhe-svatrerq fgneg cbfvgvba cnegyl orpnhfr chapghngvba qbrfa'g punatr jvgu gur ebg guvat naq cnegyl orpnhfr lbh fnvq lbh qba'g hfr nyy sbhe svatref naljnl).
Posted by: Carol Witt | September 25, 2009 at 06:43 PM
Bu, bayl bar unaq'f jebat. V jnf gelvat gb fuvsg obgu unaqf bar jnl be gur bgure naq trggvat abjurer. Fb V purngrq ol purpxvat Tbbtyr.
Posted by: Mary Aileen | September 25, 2009 at 06:48 PM
obfgba havirefvgl -- lbhe yrsg unaq vf bxnl, ohg lbhe evtug unaq vf bar gb gur evtug.
Posted by: Marilee J. Layman | September 25, 2009 at 06:48 PM
Lbh bssfrg lbhe evtug unaq ol bar cbfvgvba
I was tempted to reply:
Hcv cssfrg hcve ebtwg wnzq oh czr [cfbgbcz/
Posted by: David H. Silber | September 25, 2009 at 07:15 PM
I'm guessing you meant to type "obfgba havirefvgl" and now I have to go rot13 all these long answers to see what everyone else is saying.
I also type with only a few fingers and get lots of comments about how fast I type, and occasional complaints about how loud :P This used to be a quiet touch keyboard, but five years of being abused by me has left it loud, with the E and I keys permanently gouged by my nails.
Posted by: AJ | September 25, 2009 at 08:40 PM
Yes to everyone (and gaaaaaah to David!) I think I gave away the game by including my typing technique, though I suspect no one actually realizes which three fingers and thumb I use. Trying to pay attention to my typing, I've realized that I occasionally use others to hit the shift, enter, and delete keys. But I cover all the letters and numbers with the three-plus-thumb set.
I'm still enormously impressed that someone at Google thought to program that particular sort of ongoing typo into their error-fixing algorithms. I'm not quite willing to turn my electronic life over to Google, but they really are quite good at covering the bases.
This might be an interesting second layer to use with rot13 or some other simple substitution code in the unlikely event that I need to send coded messages. Maybe I'll try to do an entire post that way.
AJ,
I learned to type at that speed on a manual typewriter. I still hit keys with vastly more force than needed. I've found that I can't answer email while proctoring an exam; the students complain about the noise of my typing.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | September 26, 2009 at 01:02 AM
'obfgba havirefvgl'
ROT-26:
You didn't give it away. Someone on Facebook asked about my favorite typo, and I responded 'dovisl nrhsbiot,' so I was already familiar with the principle.
I used to type away with a couple of fingers, but they offered typing in 9th grade, and I went over to the touch system. I'd been keeping up a fierce correspondence with my cousin up to (and after) then, filling a couple of pages each time, writing as soon as a letter arrived. I still have his old letters. Fortunately for me, he lost the ones I wrote in a move.
I devised an unbreakable cipher once, where you add one letter to 'y' and two to 'x' and three to 'w' and so on. It seems to put the readers to sleep, though.
Posted by: Kip W | September 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM
ps: I came up with another stunning* keyboard-based encoding scheme in one of my letters to my cousin, which I was sure he'd never get. The decoded message taunted him for not getting it. Of course he got it and shoved my face in it for my arrogance. He didn't even need the fat clue I gave him, I'm pretty sure.
*-ly obvious
Posted by: Kip W | September 26, 2009 at 11:13 AM
I'm glad someone else figured this out because I've never been good at riddles. Not even a little.
Posted by: Serge | September 26, 2009 at 08:07 PM
Yeah, once I bothered to check, it was pretty obvious what it was (it was, in fact, exactly the kind of error, and I, with my perfectly normal touch typing techniques, make that kind of mistake all the time).
I'm not surprised that Google (actually, not surprised is an understatement; I know they've caught that in my own typing) catches these in their misspelling detector; pretty much every touch typing technique is prone to this kind of mistake.
Posted by: mneme.dreamwidth.org | September 28, 2009 at 02:03 PM
Mneme:
So maybe I should be more surprised that Bing and Yahoo don't autocorrect for this kind of error?
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | September 28, 2009 at 02:34 PM
I've always thought of "touch typing" as simply meaning typing without looking at the keyboard, which is what I generally do. Does it automatically imply the official eight-finger method that I did for exactly one semester in seventh grade (long enough to ace the class) before deciding it slowed me down too much and reverting to me mostly-three-fingers method?
Random weirdness: despite being right-handed, I type primarily with my left hand, though I suppose my right hand travels more overall. I mostly drive left-handed too, but for that I have the excuse of having at one point learned to use a manual transmission and generally saving my right hand for the (usually nonexistent, nowadays) gearshift.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | September 28, 2009 at 02:38 PM
The idea was that if you weren't taught to use all eight fingers and two thumbs, you'd have to look to use the keyboard.
Posted by: Marilee J. Layman | September 28, 2009 at 06:05 PM
Well, that's just silly.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | September 28, 2009 at 06:10 PM
Susan... that's just silly
I couldn't agree more.
Posted by: Serge | September 28, 2009 at 06:25 PM
I mean... I too use the self-taught 3-finger method and I don't look at the keyboard. Not much, anyway.
Posted by: Serge | September 28, 2009 at 06:27 PM
Whereas I use the approved two-full-hands method, and I have to look at the keyboard at least part of the time.* In my typewriter days I used a four-finger method, which was slightly slower but more accurate (partly because easy error correction has made me sloppy).
*the rest of the time I'm looking at the screen. When I'm transribing something, I can't just look at that like you're supposed to, I have to keep looking back and forth.
Posted by: Mary Aileen | September 28, 2009 at 06:59 PM
Well, Mary Aileen, if it works well enough for you, who gives a tin whistle what the 'proper' method is?
Posted by: Serge | September 28, 2009 at 11:30 PM
I expect the system I was taught was pretty standard. Four fingers of each hand rest at the home row. They also stressed evenness -- we typed groups of letters, then short words, then paragraphs, along with rhythmic recordings made for the purpose.
We weren't supposed to look at our fingers. I suppose a lot of us were expected to end up typing for a living. They said looking at your fingers while typing would mess us up, and maybe they were right. Then again, they said piano players found it harder to learn typing, because the activities were similar but not identical. Hey, maybe that's why I'm not a better piano player! My typing's okay, though. When I got 100 wpm on a test for a temp agency, I never had to take another -- I just referred employers back to that one.
There's an online typing speed test, though, and I have taken that. After a couple of warmup rounds, I can do pretty well.
Posted by: Kip W | September 29, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Serge: if it works well enough for you, who gives a tin whistle what the 'proper' method is?
Not me. :)
Looking back and forth does slow down transcription, though.
Posted by: Mary Aileen | September 29, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Mary Aileen... Sometimes it's good to slow down, especially when computer programming is involved.
Posted by: Serge | September 29, 2009 at 01:51 PM
Serge: Very true.
Posted by: Mary Aileen | September 29, 2009 at 06:58 PM
Mary Aileen... Especially when one misspelled word may correspond to an instruction that could have unfortunate results. ("What do you mean, the database is empty?")
Posted by: Serge | September 30, 2009 at 07:36 AM
When I took a programming class in college (1983? around then), we had to schedule time in the lab to input programs that we had pre-written. There was no way to delete anything, so if I made a typo, I had to erase it all and start over. That'll teach you to slow down and do it right the first time! And, of course, if the program wasn't right, it took time to get the results, figure out where the problem was, and schedule time to re-enter the corrected version.
At least it wasn't punch cards. (That was high school.)
Posted by: Mary Aileen | September 30, 2009 at 11:47 AM
When I mentionned having to use a card puncher in the early days of my programming career, one co-worker said she had seen one of them once... in a museum.
Darn kids.
No respect for their elders.
Posted by: Serge | September 30, 2009 at 01:15 PM
I used punch tape for my first programs.
Posted by: Marilee J. Layman | September 30, 2009 at 06:25 PM
Marilee... Paper tapes? I saw them in a couple of places, circa 1977. Thankfully I never had to use them myself.
Posted by: Serge | September 30, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Yep, paper tape. This was 1963.
And for those of you who like steampunk (I emailed AJ since she's at a beading retreat), Tor.com is doing Steampunk Month for October -- free stories and pictures and all.
Posted by: Marilee J. Layman | October 01, 2009 at 05:29 PM
Marilee... 1963? I'll have to ask my father-in-law if he ever had to deal with them. The idea of a paper tape, as opposed to the discrete units of code found on punched cards, sounds like a ghastly thing.
Speaking of steampunk... I'll be having a steampunk-movie night at my place on November 21. I don't know which movie we'll watch. I'll let my guests choose from my extensive colllection. Oh, and the week before, I'll be giving my steampunk-movie talk at the local SF club. I'll post the whole thing on my blog, with all the pretty photos.
Posted by: Serge | October 01, 2009 at 06:05 PM
Yes, plus if you push any wrong buttons on the keyboard, you have to start from scratch!
Posted by: Marilee J. Layman | October 02, 2009 at 05:48 PM
I am too tired to work this out.
Also, for a variety of reasons a national newspaper is visiting the school next week to see how we get success under adverse circumstances (their words). For once I've NOT been told to say nothing to the press. I expect that's because, compared to the kids, anything I might say is the least of their worries.
Posted by: Neil Willcox | October 03, 2009 at 09:50 AM
Could it be an oversight on their part, Neil? Or could they be assuming that they told you often enough that it'll be understood that loose lips sink ships?
Posted by: Serge | October 03, 2009 at 01:13 PM
I've just been told I've been included in a press release, and a friend's mother just pointed me at the latest issue of New Jersey Monthly. Read that article carefully to see why!
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | October 03, 2009 at 05:47 PM
Social dance historian!
Posted by: Mary Aileen | October 03, 2009 at 06:32 PM
Well, that's what I am!
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | October 03, 2009 at 07:18 PM
Hip hip hurrah for Susan!
Posted by: Serge | October 03, 2009 at 10:02 PM
How neat! And did you see the next performer is a psychic?
Posted by: Marilee J. Layman | October 04, 2009 at 06:11 PM