[jstanley]

I tried this out on one of my blog posts, and it classified it as "average", suggesting only single-word corrections that don't even make sense in the context.

A few examples:

It suggested changing "attack" to "defense", in "in order to carry out the attack".

It suggested changing "helpful" to "supportive", in "ifconfig gives helpful statistics".

It suggested changing "grow" to "better", in "expect [a number] to grow continuously".

So while it's a cool idea, I'd say it didn't seem to work very well for me.

[cs02rm0]

For me it suggested changing specific to specific. And key (as in encryption key) to decisive, vital, key, critical, fundamental or integral.

Then I realised it classified it as average when writing for accountants. So I flicked it over to writing for software engineers and the classification went to fairly effective (39% better than average) and the suggested changes remained the same.

I really like the idea, but the execution seems like it needs some work, at least for the examples I tried too.

[kawin]

Thanks for trying it out! The possible changes you can make stays the same across different cohorts of people, but the score assigned to the word changes (e.g., 'security' has a higher score for retirees than college students). The pinker the word, the higher the score.

Would it be better if only the top 3-4 options were given for each word?

[cs02rm0]

The number of them's fine, it's probably even desirable not to limit it too much and find the suggestions stuck in a local minima. It's the relevance; listing adjectives as alternatives to a noun.

[kawin]

Got it. The system does use a state-of-the-art POS tagger, but I think 'key' was mistakenly tagged as an adjective instead of as a noun for your sentence. I'll try to fix that -- thank for pointing it out!