My iPhone autocorrects "Van Persie" to "Van Perdue". Clearly the ever-injured Arsenal and Holland striker isn't well known enough at Apple HQ.

Van Persie to Van Perdue

If as a result you end up searching for Van Perdue (because you don't notice and so don't undo the autocorrect), Google asks if you mean Van Persie.

Van Persie to Van Perdue to Van Persie

To sum the process up:

• You try to seach for Van Persie on your iPhone.
• Apple changes this to Van Perdue.
• Google asks if you meant Van Persie.
• You click and finally get to results for Van Persie.

End to end process sorted.

Searchers in the UK are starting to prefer the US spelling of some words. Although we can still spell centre, colour and theatre, with the following words the US spelling is now searched for more often than the UK version:

• donut vs doughnut
• yogurt vs yoghurt
• fetus vs foetus

Here are the graphs from Google Insights to show this - the blue line is the UK spelling, the red line the US one.

Donut vs doughnut

Donut has been preferred since 2007 or so

Yogurt vs yoghurt

Yogurt overtook yoghurt in 2009

Fetus vs foetus

These were neck and neck until about 2007.

No wonder Google is having problems with spelling if searchers can't spell ...

More evidence that Google has changed how it handles spelling errors. It is now fixing spelling in autocomplete (the list of suggestions it offers as you start to type in the web-based search form). (I think this is new, anyway ...)

Unlike yesterday's example, where Google was just deciding for itself which version of alternative, correct spellings you meant, I approve of this - partly because it's helpful, and partly because the user retains control (so they can search for wrong spellings if they want to).

Here are some examples - plus some where it ought to be fixing them but isn't. Note in each that the list of suggestions include the correct spellings (apart from millennium), even though I have spelled the word wrong.

Correcting common mis-spellings

Weird vs wierd

You type wierd, Google shows suggestions for weird

Acomodate vs accommodate

You type acomodate, Google shows suggestions for accommodate

Acceptable vs acceptible

You type acceptible, Google shows suggestions for acceptable

Greatful vs grateful

You type greatful, Google shows suggestions for grateful

Bellwether vs bellweather

You type bellweather, Google shows suggestions for bellwether

Please get these right however

Could of vs could have

This is not correct English - it should be could have.

There is no such construction as "could of". Please correct to could have.

Millennium - huh?

And millennium has two ls and two ns, however many results you've found for the wrong spelling ...

Right, I think it just can't spell millennium.

Conclusion

Looking at these, and the various other spelling examples that have emerged lately, it seems that Google must be using user behaviour in some way to deal with spelling errors.

For instance, where it observes people search for X immediately after Y (and X is a spelling variant of Y), it might decide to return X results when people search for Y. This probably explains the stationary / stationery issue from yesterday and the weird / wierd etc examples above.

Alternatively, it might be using its "did you mean" spelling correction data and, where people clicked this a lot, it's now just assuming they meant it all along.

I'm not sure it explains Google returning results for optimization when you search for optimisation, but there you go.

What do you think?

We've all been worrying about Google forcing us to search for search engine optimization when we want to search for search engine optimisation.

I think we can relax, as it turns out hardly anyone searches for either ...

Here's a graph from Google Insights:

It shows that people search for the term SEO about 15 to 20 times more often than they search for either search engine optimisation or optimization. Still, no excuse for Google forcing the -ize spelling on us ...

Not content with its various other spelling problems, Google is now trying to make us spell colour the US way.

Do a search for colouring, and of the first 10 results:

• 7 spell it coloring
• 3 spell it colouring.

I suppose you could argue that the relevance of the information is unlikely to be affected by whether the site uses US or UK spelling for a search time like this.

On the other hand, get your spelling Sherman T20 tanks off our lawns (or yards).

Search for colour, get color

As you can see, after the image results the first one spells it coloring. And don't get me started on all those Disney and Simpsons image - ie American - results ...

Updated with search trend data

There have been various posts about Google returning results with the American spelling (search engine optimization) when people search for optimisation.

But it's got much bigger problems with spelling than just -ise vs ize.

Whether vs weather

I wonder whether the weather will be inclement today? If you're Google, the second definition for a search on "whether" is the BBC Weather site.

whether vs weather

You can maybe see why from this date from Google trends, suggesting no one searches for whether.

When stationery isn't stationary

The way to differentiate stationary from stationery is to note that a car is stationary (both have "ar" in) while a letter is stationery (both have "er" in). So if I search on stationary, I don't expect to see a load of letter and envelope suppliers:

• First up it suggests that funky stationary and office supplies are related searches to stationery. Only among people who can't spell.
• Then it gives office supplies companies Rymans and Staples.
• Then Wikipedia on stationary - the meta description of which ironically says "not to be confused with stationery"
• Before a map of local stationers.

stationary vs stationery

The Google trend data here is interesting as there was recently a switch in the most searched for term, and the two terms have relatively similar search volumes. Maybe showing me stationery results is based on user behavior - people may be more likely to search again after searching on stationary with a letter a?

Licence vs License

With -ce and -se versions it can be hard to work out which is which. The best way to remember is that people advise (verb) by giving advice (noun). This is one of the few -se/-ce examples where it's pronounced differently.

So I don't expect Google to give the Wikipedia definition of license when I search for licence.

Here's the google search volume data:

Deer vs dear

What a dear deer. Do people get this SO wrong that after the first three results for "dear" I have to be shown results for "deer"? Apaprently so.

dear vs deer

And here's the search volume data:

To sum up

I can spell, Google. Please add an option in preferences something like the following:

• Yes, I can spell - show me results for what I actually searched for.
• No, I can't spell - you work it out for me, and reinforce my low literacy standards.

Yes, yes, you've spotted a misspelling somewhere. Don't point it out.

Update: There are suggestions on a Guardian story that the Sun moderators haven't been putting through comments that are critical of the Sun's position ...

Is the Sun censoring pro-Brown comments?

Original post

The Sun is running a despicable campaign against Gordon Brown. But I've analysed the comments on its website - and readers disagree with its stance by a ratio of more than 3 to 2.

Gordon Brown letter story in the Sun

The paper has exploited the grief of Jacqui Janes over her son Jamie's death in Afghanistan to attack the PM - because his handwritten letter of condolence was supposedly disrespectful due to sloppy writing and (disputed) spelling errors.

It's loathsome journalism that ignores the effect of his disability (the PM is blind in one eye).

And it seems Sun readers are mostly on the Prime Minister's side.

Of the 100+ comments on the story (don't worry, I've nofollowed those links) when I checked, 111 expressed a view for or against Jacqui Janes or Gordon Brown (the rest commented on other issues or corrected people's spelling errors). Of these:

• 42 were anti Gordon or pro the Sun's stance.
• 69 were pro Gordon or anti the Sun's stance.

So that's more than 60% who don't agree with the Sun, and less than 40% who do.

Sample comments from those who agree with the Sun's stance

Comments agreeing that Gordon Brown is "discusting"

Some comments from those opposing it

Comments defending Gordon Brown

Conclusion

The Sun is channeling this woman's grief into a personal attack on the Prime Minister.

It's refusing to make allowances for his disability (maybe we could next attack the war wounded for being workshy benefit scroungers?).

And it's facilitating her breaking data protection laws by releasing a recording of a private phone call.

The whole thing is sickening - let's hope that observing its readers' reactions will lead to an end to this (not that this happened in the Jan Moir case) - and preferably prosecution of the Sun over the data protection offence.