annoying, but not necessarily incorrect

[waider]

I skimmed through yet another attempt to explain Google's PageRank system (summary: "we trawled everyone else's documents and glommed them into ours, producing zero new information in the process") and found, right near the start, the statement that "not all links weight the same". Personally if I'd been asked to proof the article I'd have flagged this as a typo for "weigh", but I guess in the context in which it's used it's actually a valid if annoying use of "weight".

I still think the article as a whole is pointless, though.

Comments

"weigh" vs. "weight"

[littleamerica.livejournal.com]

The only difference I can find is that when you weigh something you discover what its value is, while when you weight something you assign a value to it. "Weigh" involves some intrinsic property, while "weight" doesn't.

But maybe not.

Re: "weigh" vs. "weight"

[waider.livejournal.com]

I think, despite my geek nature, I'm more bothered by the verbing of the noun in this particular context. "weighted average" seems fine to me; "this link weights differently" seems wrong.

Re: "weigh" vs. "weight"

[littleamerica.livejournal.com]

I discussed it with the local proficient but non-native speakers of English and we came to the conclusion that one should be "weigh" and the other should be "assign weight to," and anything else is probably colloquial at best.

I suspect the latter of your two constructions has the wrong thing doing the action. The link doesn't weight; someone else is assigning it a weight.

Re: "weigh" vs. "weight"

[waider.livejournal.com]

LINKS CAN HAS WEIGHTS?

(this needs a cat picture, obviously)