Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 153 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

There are currently 3500+ results for "loose focus" on Stack Overflow, the vast majority of which are misspellings of "lose focus".

Is this worth addressing, and if so, how?

I am aware of other ongoing efforts to perform bulk-cleanup of a large volume of posts, but I'm not sure if the same thing is necessary here, or desirable by the community.

share|improve this question
2  
I'm amazed at how 3000 or so people cannot spell lose... – Simon Sheehan Nov 11 '11 at 20:19
9  
@SimonSheehan or the same person 3,000 times :) – ChrisF Nov 11 '11 at 20:24
    
It is worth mentioning that the problem is common to every site in the SE network. Server Fault has lots of talk about "loosing connections", for example :| – meagar Nov 11 '11 at 20:31
3  
The same problem is common to every site on the entire internet. Part of me wonders if lose -> loose is possibly the most common misspelling around. – Grace Note Nov 11 '11 at 20:33
    
No that would be its/it's or your/you're. – Toomai Nov 11 '11 at 20:47
    
@Toomai I still think of "it's" instead of "its" because it's like agf's / meagar's / etc. and have to mentally beat myself into submission as I type. But I doubt that is nearly as easy to autocorrect as the loose / lose pair. – agf Nov 11 '11 at 21:21
10  
The problem with bulk corrections like this is their loose focus. – Ben Brocka Nov 11 '11 at 21:35
    
@Ben The question is, would there be fewer errors after a mass loose->lose correction? Would the change result in less than 3500 errors afterwards? – meagar Nov 12 '11 at 0:30
    
@meagar I understand and I would assume that significantly less than half of those "loose focus" statements are correct, but I would never would to auto-correct things like this unless A) it was a serious problem and B) it significantly impacted readability. IMO it's neither of these things and I'd hate to set precedent to autocorrect things based on this. I do like Truth's suggestion of making it a "low quality" style indicator that makes it show up in review though. If possible it would be a good inclusion in out "low quality" algorithm. – Ben Brocka Nov 12 '11 at 1:09

I am aware of other Q/A sites which have some very good bots built to address these kinds of issues. The bot identifies the potential misspelling, and batch displays it to a moderator or a community tool (such as the reviewing tool).

The problem can be fixed by the corresponding people then.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .