Merriam-Webster and Unstructured Data Processing
I recently finished reading Word by Word: The Secret Life of Dictionaries by Kory Stamper, which was an unexpected page-turner. What intrigued me most was (perhaps unsurprisingly) Stamper’s description of how Merriam-Webster gets written, and what a striking resemblance that process has to many successful unstructured data projects in the wild. I want to use this blog post to ruminate on this.
First it begins with collection and curation of raw, unstructured data. Stamper describes a fascinating process called “reading and marking”, whereby editors are assigned reading of current magazines, periodicals, blogs — almost anything written in English, it seems — and read and underline any words that catch their eye: new words, or words that get used in new ways. (This is, contrary to first impressions, a non-trivial task for which requires training: good readers-and-markers will pick up on the recent trend of “bored of”, instead of the more historically common “bored with” — this doesn’t imply that bored is picking up a new meaning, but rather that of is… which as you can imagine, can get lexicographers very excited.)
Stamper also describes the use of corpora, which are basically large structured datasets of English being used in the wild — a dataset of tweets, say, or transcripts of popular TV shows. As data gets increasingly commoditized, data projects will increasingly have the luxury of starting with structured data (or at least, supplementing their raw unstructured data with structured data).
Second is the actual structuring of the data. This entails a small army of editors dividing the entire dictionary amongst themselves, and defining (or revising definitions of) each word by hand. In practice, that means opening up the database of read-and-marked words (and maybe also the structured corpora), seeing if the current definition needs to be revised to accommodate new senses or usage of the word, and potentially writing or rewriting a definition for new words… all in the span of maybe 15 minutes per word, on average.
This seems to be the most labor-intensive step in the “Merriam-Webster data pipeline”, but of course is also the one that adds the most value. There’s no reason to think that this phase (or any of these three phases, really!) needs to be technologically sophisticated — the dictionary-maker still makes use of index cards and filing cabinets today. Lucrative products being underpinned by vast amounts of manual human labor is unfortunately nothing new, but it’s good to be reminded of it. The fact that product value and technological sophistication are unrelated is underappreciated: you don’t unlock more value from your data by writing better code or training better machine learning models.
Finally comes any ancillary features or datasets that Merriam-Webster offers on top of their existing data (a.k.a. the dictionary), simply because they are best positioned to deliver them. Think of things like etymology, pronunciations and dates1.
It can seem funny that a dataset’s true value to users (or, if you like, the dataset’s “product-market fit”) might come from one of these subsidiary datasets or features, instead of “the real thing”. This makes sense though: just as companies pivot products and business models to stay relevant, so too can unstructured datasets — after all, it’s not a huge stretch to think of unstructured datasets as products in their own right.
So here we have a recipe for a successful data project:
- Collect and curate raw, unstructured data,
- Structure it (ideally also adding some value to the data in the process, but structuring the data is value enough), and
- Offer subsidiary datasets that you are best positioned to offer
What other data projects have followed this recipe?
Google Search: Google crawled the internet, and continues to do so on an ongoing basis; they invented PageRank and other methods algorithms to make searching (a weak form of “structuring”, I suppose) the internet possible; and their question-answering and carousels are good examples of ancillary features on top of their core offering.
cryptics.georgeho.org: my dataset of cryptic crossword clues started by indexing several blogs for cryptic crosswords; I then wrote a ton of
BeautifulSoupto parse structured clue information out of the blog post HTML; finally, I ran some simple searches and regular expressions to produce more valuable resources for constructors of cryptic crosswords.
I wouldn’t be convinced that this is the only way for data projects succeed, but it does seem like a helpful pattern to keep in mind!
I was surprised to learn that words with multiple definitions are defined in chronological order of first usage, and not, as I imagined, some kind of “importance” of definitions. ↩︎