Replacing my favorite thesaurus now that it's more "efficient"?
April 29, 2008 12:03 AM
Subscribe
Recommendations for a good, verbose online thesaurus for wandering through words? thesaurus.com seems to have changed how they serve search results and my working style is screwed.
I use thesaurus.com for hours a day. Their overly detailed results, as well as weird and obscure words that aren't even defined on dictionary.com, were perfect for the way I work (in naming).
I take a few days off, however, and "smart" has 8 results? I used to get pages of entries that were even vaguely related to smart, allowing me to travel interesting pathways and ideas.
I've tried Merriam-Webster's thesaurus and it works the limited and terrible way thesaurus.com does - great for the practical writer, not so great for a word wanderer. onelook.com is great for some applications, but their "limit to a specific concept" is wonky at best. Paper thesauri(?) are fairly useless for this purpose. Word Menu is a little more useful, but limited and slow, as I'm quicker with a mouse than paper.
Are there any tools that work in that wander and get lost way, particularly with a lot of words? Is there some way to get the way-too-prolific results from thesaurus.com again?
posted by Gucky to writing & language (12 comments total)
23 users marked this as a favorite
Tell me about it. They changed from a good licensed thesaurus to a crappy one. There was some discussion of this on Political Animal.
What happened to the original isn't clear. Supposedly the old one was attributed to "Roget's New Millennium Thesaurus", but that's published by Lexico -- the owner of Reference.com. There is no such listing in Worldcat. They also claim that "Roget's Classic Thesaurus" is being revised, but the only hits for that title are their own site.
This is a site that's been online since 1994 and worked perfectly until it was acquired last year, expensively, by Answers.com. Even when they added premium content in 2003 or so, the free stuff was still useful. So looks like they bought it and couldn't afford to use whatever customized licensed content they had.
All I can suggest is Google's similar sites.
posted by dhartung at 12:20 AM on April 29, 2008