Re: LanguageTool in 2015 + the future
W dniu 08.12.2015 o 23:11, Daniel Naber pisze: > On 2015-12-07 19:30, Marcin Miłkowski wrote: > >> I think there's a community that we haven't addressed at all: language >> professionals, be it proofreaders or translators (and translation >> agencies). Translators are using suboptimal tools, such as Apsic >> XBench, >> for their proofreading tasks. If we could get interest of technically >> savvy translators, we could get new contributors. This might also mean >> some input from commercial companies. > > I think that's a good point. Don't you have experience translating whole > books? I only have experience translating software user interfaces. Am I > right that both the process and the software used is totally different? Not anymore. Right now, I use computer-aided translation (CAT) tools for all my translation tasks (for which I cannot find time anyway). But basically, without CATs modern translation feels like using pen and paper instead of a computer. But you're right, tools for UI translations are not based on word processors anymore. > > Are these (software UI and books) the two use cases for translation or > are there more? How does LT need to be changed to support these use > cases? Is it a change in core, in its UI, or does it "just" mean writing > more add-ons to integrate LT? Well, for more technical translations, people use tools such as CheckMate (mentioned on our wiki). But the integration isn't perfect and the tool itself difficult to use if you're not a technical savvy user. In contrast, Apsic XBench is extremely easy to use but not free anymore (at least in its more powerful, Unicode-supporting version). IMHO, we could simply see what open (and then closed) CAT tools are currently most popular, and see how we could interface them. I also know a company that would love to use LT as a terminology checker. I just don't have time to work with them right now. Terminology checker would take an approved translation glossary (these come as CVS files) and convert it to a set of LT rules (either on the fly or compile to XML for further customizations). For all morphologically complex languages, glossaries cannot be used directly for checking whether an approved term has been used or not. So this would fill a very important need. We could offer a web service for conversion, and XML rule file for download. But LT has to have good, intuitive support for additonal rule files (that's why I worked on these issues). Hope this helps a bit. > >> LanguageTool. There will be minority languages with poorer support, and >> that's always the case. > > Dutch, Spanish, and Italian are also among the languages with very few > commits in the last 6 month. Which doesn't mean that the support is necessarily bad... Regards, Marcin -- ___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
Re: LanguageTool in 2015 + the future
2015-12-07 19:30 GMT+01:00 Marcin Miłkowski : > I think there's a community that we haven't addressed at all: language > professionals, be it proofreaders or translators (and translation > agencies). Translators are using suboptimal tools, such as Apsic XBench, > for their proofreading tasks. If we could get interest of technically > savvy translators, we could get new contributors. This might also mean > some input from commercial companies. > I agree. I'm using LanguageTool for proofreading whole books and other long documents, and I'm trying to convince other people to use it in professional environments. The best tool for this is the command-line version of LanguageTool. In a few seconds or minutes you can get a 'quality report' of a long document without the need of re-reading the text. If you can proofread a 300 pages book reading it two instead of three times, you save a lot of time. The 'quality report', of course, needs to be well structured and readable. This idea has been implemented here in softcatala.org[1]. It's a compilation of translation memories (English-Catalan) of open source software. Periodically a quality report (the right column in the table) is generated for every translation memory. Regards, Jaume Ortolà [1] https://www.softcatala.org/recursos/memories.html -- ___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
RE: LanguageTool in 2015 + the future
On 2015-12-09 11:40, Mike Unwalla wrote: > But, that suggestion leads to another question. What is the business > model > for LT? We don't have a business model and we don't need one. The only situation we'd need one is if we think that LT development will come to a stop unless we start paying developers. I don't see that happening. But I do see that progress is very slow due to the small number of people who contribute regularly. The natural solution to that is to find people who contribute regularly. But how? > LT is open source and people contribute time to the project. But, > time is not sufficient. Time does not pay for web hosting, and optional > extras such as paid advertising. Web hosting costs have never been a problem, and paid advertising only makes sense once you have a business model or want to build one. > who are dissatisfied with (the current market alternative) The current market alternative for most users is "not using a text checker at all". > Refer also to my comments in > http://sourceforge.net/p/languagetool/mailman/message/34446200/ Your questions are valid, and my hope was that we find someone who supports us with marketing, just as we have people who care about language X. So far that didn't work and I don't understand why. Regards Daniel -- ___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
RE: LanguageTool in 2015 + the future
Hi All, I agree with all that Dominique wrote. For the unmaintained languages, make clear to users that the quality is sometimes low. In the GUI, possibly have 2 groups of rules (as Ray suggested): maintained and not maintained. Call the rules 'unmaintained' or 'archived' or 'prototype'. Daniel wrote: -LT addresses mostly end users, not businesses -LT is a nice-to-have tool - if you don't use it, you can keep working, you might not even miss it * How do you know that LT is mostly for end users, not for business? (And what do you mean by 'end user'? Non-commercial user?) * Why is LT nice-to-have rather than essential? I don't need an accounting program. I could use paper and pencil. * What is the importance of 'end user' versus 'business' for this discussion? * If someone does not miss LT, then they are not our target market. Why waste time chasing people who get no benefit from LT? (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/spirit-non-competition-gianni-taraschi). Everyone and his dog (myself included) will take something that is free. For some free services, I contribute a few dollars, because I want the project to be successful. I suggest that we have a 'donate' button on the LT website. But, that suggestion leads to another question. What is the business model for LT? LT is open source and people contribute time to the project. But, time is not sufficient. Time does not pay for web hosting, and optional extras such as paid advertising. Is a freemium business model (https://hbr.org/2014/05/making-freemium-work) a way to get money for business development of LT? Marcin wrote: I think there's a community that we haven't addressed at all: language professionals, be it proofreaders or translators ... If we could get interest of technically savvy translators, we could get new contributors. This might also mean some input from commercial companies. I agree. LT is amazing. But, if people do not know about it, they will not use it. I think of LT as platform. The default English rules are not much use to me. But I can develop rules that deal with my problems. I can sell those rules. (That is my business model.) The marketing job. Marketing of what? For whom? LT is an open-source proofreading software. So what? Who cares? Complete the unknowns (taken from 'Crossing the chasm' Geoffrey A. Moore, second edition, October 2008. Capstone. ISBN 13:978-1-84112-063-8 (PB). Page 148): For (target customers) who are dissatisfied with (the current market alternative) our product is a (new product category) that provides (key problem-solving capability). Unlike (the product alternative), we have assembled (key whole product features for your specific application). Refer also to my comments in http://sourceforge.net/p/languagetool/mailman/message/34446200/ Although some of my questions are a bit harsh, I want LT to be very successful. My success with the STE term checker is dependent on the success of LT. Regards, Mike Unwalla Contact: www.techscribe.co.uk/techw/contact.htm -Original Message- From: Dominique Pellé [mailto:dominique.pe...@gmail.com] Sent: 09 December 2015 04:19 To: development discussion for LanguageTool Subject: Re: LanguageTool in 2015 + the future Daniel Naber wrote: > Hi, > > the year is slowly coming to an end, so I thought I'd try to summarize what > we've achieved this year and how we can move LT forward in the future. In > 2015, we... > > * made three releases so far (2.9, 3.0, 3.1), another one is planned > * more than doubled the number of visits to languagetool.org (January: > 156,000, November: 326,000) > * released a Chrome extension with more than 1,500 users now > * added support for ngram models to detect confusion of (mostly) homophones > (English, German) > * did several things I forgot to list here Good progress! > * added and improved many language-specific rules. Specifically, 14 > languages are maintained if you define this as "had at least ten commits in > its grammar.xml and disambiguation.xml files this year". However, this also > means 17 languages are not maintained. > > This last point of unmaintained languages highlights what I think is an > important issue: In the last three years, we increased our number of users > by a factor of 10. At the same time, the number of commits and people who > regularly contribute didn't grow at all (see attachment). Many languages are > not maintained, and even those that are often only have a single > contributor. If that contributor becomes inactive, finding a new one seems > almost impossible. If we continue like this, LT will some day end up with > very few languages that are actually maintained. As there doesn't seem to be > any correlation between number of users and number of regular contributors, > user gr
Re: LanguageTool in 2015 + the future
07.12.2015 21:58 пользователь "Marcin Miłkowski" написал: > > > I think there's a community that we haven't addressed at all: language > professionals, be it proofreaders or translators (and translation > agencies). Not really. OmegaT users are quite active in using LT (as a plugin). I remember that just a couple of days ago the LT plugin was discussed in the OmegaT mail list: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/OmegaT/conversations/topics/36804 Best regards, Dmitri Gabinski -- ___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
Re: LanguageTool in 2015 + the future
Hi, First of all, thank you very much for creating and developing this awesome tool! My thoughts are in-line. On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Daniel Naber wrote: > Hi, > > the year is slowly coming to an end, so I thought I'd try to summarize > what we've achieved this year and how we can move LT forward in the future. > In 2015, we... > > * made three releases so far (2.9, 3.0, 3.1), another one is planned > * more than doubled the number of visits to languagetool.org (January: > 156,000, November: 326,000) > * released a Chrome extension with more than 1,500 users now > * added support for ngram models to detect confusion of (mostly) > homophones (English, German) > * did several things I forgot to list here > * added and improved many language-specific rules. Specifically, 14 > languages are maintained if you define this as "had at least ten commits in > its grammar.xml and disambiguation.xml files this year". However, this also > means 17 languages are not maintained. > > This last point of unmaintained languages highlights what I think is an > important issue: In the last three years, we increased our number of users > by a factor of 10. At the same time, the number of commits and people who > regularly contribute didn't grow at all (see attachment). Many languages > are not maintained, and even those that are often only have a single > contributor. If that contributor becomes inactive, finding a new one seems > almost impossible. If we continue like this, LT will some day end up with > very few languages that are actually maintained. As there doesn't seem to > be any correlation between number of users and number of regular > contributors, user growth won't help us. > > I have no solution for this problem, but some ideas I'd like to get > feedback on: > > (1) Clean up: throw out all unmaintained languages that also have less > than 100 rules. This way users don't get the false impression that their > language is supported when it actually isn't. It might also create some > motivation to contribute when users notice that "their" language is being > thrown out. > Instead of throwing out, you might try to move them into a separate repository/package/whatever, that can be downloaded/enabled separately - maybe after a warning that these rules do not cover too many problems. > > (2) Grow the contributor community: somehow find new contributors to > revive the unmaintained languages and find contributors to support the > maintainers of languages that are already doing well. The thing is: I have > no idea how to do this. For example, we have a text on languagetool.org > saying we're looking for help with marketing. This text has been shown to > more than 40,000 visitors and the effect so far has been zero (actually > four people have contacted me, but three of those have already > disappeared). What is holding people back from becoming a regular > contributor? > Getting contributors is always difficult, there are much more people that simply want to use a product. You might find some ideas in the book of Jono Bacon, former community manager of Ubuntu: http://www.artofcommunityonline.org/ * turn feature development into smaller projects, that can be done as part of a diploma thesis, and somehow have it available for students at local universities * another option might be to submit project ideas to Google Summer of Code (though the chances of having them accepted might be slim) * you could try to contact the localization groups of Openoffice/Libreoffice, and try to convince them to include Languagetool in their localized distribution, and to write the missing rules for it, or maintain the existing ones. > > (3) Crowdsourcing: give up on finding qualified contributors, instead > develop tools that allow contribution via very, very simple means, like > clicking on correct and incorrect sentences. It's not clear how well this > could work. It might be combined with (4). > That might work as well, especially if somehow it could be turned into a game. (No idea how.) Another possibility could be to have a very simple way to submit custom rules (for example, if languagetool app would periodically "phone home" to check for a new version - many software does that - and would also display a note to the user if he has custom rules, encouraging him/her to submit them for review.) > > (4) Statistics: give up on finding qualified contributors and find errors > using ngram statistics etc. With statistics, finding errors is > language-independent. Quality might be worse than with hand-written rules, > but for languages that are not maintained anyway there are often hardly > hand-written rules. Of course, everybody could still contribute manually > written rules and maybe revive language support that way. > > (5) Business: develop a business model and pay people for working on LT. > This is difficult, developing a business is a full-time job on its own. > Even if it worked, it would only cover very few main
Re: LanguageTool in 2015 + the future
One more idea: the rule editor is now a bit hidden, I don't know how many visits it has. It could be made more visible/accessible, and have a verification step at the end, something like two buttons saying: Yes, this rule works for me / Cancel this rule. If the user clicks Yes, the page could submit the rule for the language maintainer for review, who could include it in the main rules if he sees fit. On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Fekete, Róbert wrote: > > Hi, > > First of all, thank you very much for creating and developing this awesome > tool! > > My thoughts are in-line. > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Daniel Naber < > daniel.na...@languagetool.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> the year is slowly coming to an end, so I thought I'd try to summarize >> what we've achieved this year and how we can move LT forward in the future. >> In 2015, we... >> >> * made three releases so far (2.9, 3.0, 3.1), another one is planned >> * more than doubled the number of visits to languagetool.org (January: >> 156,000, November: 326,000) >> * released a Chrome extension with more than 1,500 users now >> * added support for ngram models to detect confusion of (mostly) >> homophones (English, German) >> * did several things I forgot to list here >> * added and improved many language-specific rules. Specifically, 14 >> languages are maintained if you define this as "had at least ten commits in >> its grammar.xml and disambiguation.xml files this year". However, this also >> means 17 languages are not maintained. >> >> This last point of unmaintained languages highlights what I think is an >> important issue: In the last three years, we increased our number of users >> by a factor of 10. At the same time, the number of commits and people who >> regularly contribute didn't grow at all (see attachment). Many languages >> are not maintained, and even those that are often only have a single >> contributor. If that contributor becomes inactive, finding a new one seems >> almost impossible. If we continue like this, LT will some day end up with >> very few languages that are actually maintained. As there doesn't seem to >> be any correlation between number of users and number of regular >> contributors, user growth won't help us. >> >> I have no solution for this problem, but some ideas I'd like to get >> feedback on: >> >> (1) Clean up: throw out all unmaintained languages that also have less >> than 100 rules. This way users don't get the false impression that their >> language is supported when it actually isn't. It might also create some >> motivation to contribute when users notice that "their" language is being >> thrown out. >> > > Instead of throwing out, you might try to move them into a separate > repository/package/whatever, that can be downloaded/enabled separately - > maybe after a warning that these rules do not cover too many problems. > >> >> (2) Grow the contributor community: somehow find new contributors to >> revive the unmaintained languages and find contributors to support the >> maintainers of languages that are already doing well. The thing is: I have >> no idea how to do this. For example, we have a text on languagetool.org >> saying we're looking for help with marketing. This text has been shown to >> more than 40,000 visitors and the effect so far has been zero (actually >> four people have contacted me, but three of those have already >> disappeared). What is holding people back from becoming a regular >> contributor? >> > > Getting contributors is always difficult, there are much more people that > simply want to use a product. You might find some ideas in the book of Jono > Bacon, former community manager of Ubuntu: > http://www.artofcommunityonline.org/ > * turn feature development into smaller projects, that can be done as > part of a diploma thesis, and somehow have it available for students at > local universities > * another option might be to submit project ideas to Google Summer of > Code (though the chances of having them accepted might be slim) > * you could try to contact the localization groups of > Openoffice/Libreoffice, and try to convince them to include Languagetool in > their localized distribution, and to write the missing rules for it, or > maintain the existing ones. > > > > >> >> (3) Crowdsourcing: give up on finding qualified contributors, instead >> develop tools that allow contribution via very, very simple means, like >> clicking on correct and incorrect sentences. It's not clear how well this >> could work. It might be combined with (4). >> > > That might work as well, especially if somehow it could be turned into a > game. (No idea how.) Another possibility could be to have a very simple way > to submit custom rules (for example, if languagetool app would periodically > "phone home" to check for a new version - many software does that - and > would also display a note to the user if he has custom rules, encouraging > him/her to submit them for review.) > > > >> >> (4) St
Re: LanguageTool in 2015 + the future
Daniel Naber wrote: > Hi, > > the year is slowly coming to an end, so I thought I'd try to summarize what > we've achieved this year and how we can move LT forward in the future. In > 2015, we... > > * made three releases so far (2.9, 3.0, 3.1), another one is planned > * more than doubled the number of visits to languagetool.org (January: > 156,000, November: 326,000) > * released a Chrome extension with more than 1,500 users now > * added support for ngram models to detect confusion of (mostly) homophones > (English, German) > * did several things I forgot to list here Good progress! > * added and improved many language-specific rules. Specifically, 14 > languages are maintained if you define this as "had at least ten commits in > its grammar.xml and disambiguation.xml files this year". However, this also > means 17 languages are not maintained. > > This last point of unmaintained languages highlights what I think is an > important issue: In the last three years, we increased our number of users > by a factor of 10. At the same time, the number of commits and people who > regularly contribute didn't grow at all (see attachment). Many languages are > not maintained, and even those that are often only have a single > contributor. If that contributor becomes inactive, finding a new one seems > almost impossible. If we continue like this, LT will some day end up with > very few languages that are actually maintained. As there doesn't seem to be > any correlation between number of users and number of regular contributors, > user growth won't help us. > > I have no solution for this problem, but some ideas I'd like to get feedback > on: > > (1) Clean up: throw out all unmaintained languages that also have less than > 100 rules. This way users don't get the false impression that their language > is supported when it actually isn't. It might also create some motivation to > contribute when users notice that "their" language is being thrown out. I'm against it for several reasons: * some unmaintained languages may still have good rules. It's a shame to discard the work. * having a few rules in unmaintained languages may help to find new contributors. But I understand that it's hard somehow to find new contributors. * number of rules is a useful metric, but it does not say how good and useful those rules are. Of course, assessing quality of support in a language is subjective,and it can only be done by someone knowing the language well enough, so there is no simple solution to decide how good LT is in each language. * support for many language is a tick in a box and one of the differentiating feature of LT compared to other grammar checker, even if quality varies between languages. Clearly indicating that support for a language is currently unmaintained is the best we can do in my opinion, and we already do that. > (2) Grow the contributor community: somehow find new contributors to revive > the unmaintained languages and find contributors to support the maintainers > of languages The thing is: I have no idea how > to do this. For example, we have a text on languagetool.org saying we're > looking for help with marketing. This text has been shown to more than > 40,000 visitors and the effect so far has been zero (actually four people > have contacted me, but three of those have already disappeared). What is > holding people back from becoming a regular contributor? I'm guessing that there are few contributors because of the learning curve. I remember looking at LT, being interested but it took me a while before I actually started to contribute. It's not that hard in end, but contributors have to be motivated enough to understand how to contribute. Documentation for developers has improved, but improving it further may be effective for finding new contributors. > (3) Crowdsourcing: give up on finding qualified contributors, instead > develop tools that allow contribution via very, very simple means, like > clicking on correct and incorrect sentences. It's not clear how well this > could work. It might be combined with (4). I'm against it. It would put quantity over quality. Well, crowdsourcing can be useful to find ideas of new rules for example, but I think that someone with LT experience has to validate the rules and transform into concrete and robust rules. Having a web page to report false alarms and ideas for new rules can be useful. Ideas for new rules are more important, as it's not always easy for rule maintainer to think of new rules, whereas it's easy to find false positive by just checking many texts. I have not added many new rules in Esperanto or Breton for example, partly because I ran out of ideas for new rules. For French, I had more ideas, because there can be so many ways to make mistakes when writing in French. > (4) Statistics: give up on finding qualified contributors and find errors > using ngram statistics etc. With statistics, finding errors is > language-
Re: LanguageTool in 2015 + the future
On 2015-12-07 19:30, Marcin Miłkowski wrote: > I think there's a community that we haven't addressed at all: language > professionals, be it proofreaders or translators (and translation > agencies). Translators are using suboptimal tools, such as Apsic > XBench, > for their proofreading tasks. If we could get interest of technically > savvy translators, we could get new contributors. This might also mean > some input from commercial companies. I think that's a good point. Don't you have experience translating whole books? I only have experience translating software user interfaces. Am I right that both the process and the software used is totally different? Are these (software UI and books) the two use cases for translation or are there more? How does LT need to be changed to support these use cases? Is it a change in core, in its UI, or does it "just" mean writing more add-ons to integrate LT? > LanguageTool. There will be minority languages with poorer support, and > that's always the case. Dutch, Spanish, and Italian are also among the languages with very few commits in the last 6 month. Regards Daniel -- ___ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
Re: LanguageTool in 2015 + the future
Hi, W dniu 07.12.2015 o 14:56, Daniel Naber pisze: > Hi, > > the year is slowly coming to an end, so I thought I'd try to summarize > what we've achieved this year and how we can move LT forward in the > future. In 2015, we... > > * made three releases so far (2.9, 3.0, 3.1), another one is planned > * more than doubled the number of visits to languagetool.org (January: > 156,000, November: 326,000) > * released a Chrome extension with more than 1,500 users now > * added support for ngram models to detect confusion of (mostly) > homophones (English, German) > * did several things I forgot to list here > * added and improved many language-specific rules. Specifically, 14 > languages are maintained if you define this as "had at least ten commits > in its grammar.xml and disambiguation.xml files this year". However, > this also means 17 languages are not maintained. This is impressive overall! > > This last point of unmaintained languages highlights what I think is an > important issue: In the last three years, we increased our number of > users by a factor of 10. At the same time, the number of commits and > people who regularly contribute didn't grow at all (see attachment). > Many languages are not maintained, and even those that are often only > have a single contributor. If that contributor becomes inactive, finding > a new one seems almost impossible. If we continue like this, LT will > some day end up with very few languages that are actually maintained. As > there doesn't seem to be any correlation between number of users and > number of regular contributors, user growth won't help us. > > I have no solution for this problem, but some ideas I'd like to get > feedback on: > > (1) Clean up: throw out all unmaintained languages that also have less > than 100 rules. This way users don't get the false impression that their > language is supported when it actually isn't. It might also create some > motivation to contribute when users notice that "their" language is > being thrown out. > I'm strongly against. If there's already some initial support, getting less technical contributors is much easier. We could exclude such initial support in our releases, however, if that's supposed to help in getting maintainers. I think it would only mean wasted time and effort. > (2) Grow the contributor community: somehow find new contributors to > revive the unmaintained languages and find contributors to support the > maintainers of languages that are already doing well. The thing is: I > have no idea how to do this. For example, we have a text on > languagetool.org saying we're looking for help with marketing. This text > has been shown to more than 40,000 visitors and the effect so far has > been zero (actually four people have contacted me, but three of those > have already disappeared). What is holding people back from becoming a > regular contributor? Well, there's some learning curve, and that's why. I think there's a community that we haven't addressed at all: language professionals, be it proofreaders or translators (and translation agencies). Translators are using suboptimal tools, such as Apsic XBench, for their proofreading tasks. If we could get interest of technically savvy translators, we could get new contributors. This might also mean some input from commercial companies. > > (3) Crowdsourcing: give up on finding qualified contributors, instead > develop tools that allow contribution via very, very simple means, like > clicking on correct and incorrect sentences. It's not clear how well > this could work. It might be combined with (4). For it to work, we might need really lots of people... > > (4) Statistics: give up on finding qualified contributors and find > errors using ngram statistics etc. With statistics, finding errors is > language-independent. Quality might be worse than with hand-written > rules, but for languages that are not maintained anyway there are often > hardly hand-written rules. Of course, everybody could still contribute > manually written rules and maybe revive language support that way. > > (5) Business: develop a business model and pay people for working on LT. > This is difficult, developing a business is a full-time job on its own. > Even if it worked, it would only cover very few mainstream languages. > > These are the options I can think of that go beyond "let's just keep > going". Yes, we could just keep going - for some languages, LT is in > good health. But to be a sustainable project in the long term, I think > we need either more than one contributor per language or we need a > technological approach that works without a maintainer per language. > > Please, everybody, let me know what you think and what ideas you have > about the future of LanguageTool. I don't think varied level of support was ever a problem for LanguageTool. There will be minority languages with poorer support, and that's always the case. Yes, of course. Why worry? Life's too short
