this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
37 points (87.8% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36855 readers
873 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It seems like with the current progress in ML models, doing OCR should be an easy task. After all, recognizing handwritten numbers was one of the prime benchmarks for image recognition (MNIST was released in 1994).

Yet, when I try to OCR any of my handwritten notes all I ever get is a jumbled mess of nonsense. Am I missing something, is my handwriting really that atrocious or is it the models?

Here's a quick example, a random passage from a scientific article:

I tried EasyOCR, Tesseract, PPOCR and a few online tools. Only PPOCR was able to correctly identify the numbers and the words "J." and "Chem.". The rest is just a random mess of characters.

Edit: thank you all for shitting on my handwriting. That was not asked for, and also not helpful. That sample was intentionally "not nice" but is how I would write a note for myself. (You should see how my notes look like when I don't need to read them again, lol)

chatGPT can transcribe it perfectly, and also works on a slightly larger sample. Deepseek works ok-ish but made some mistakes, and gemini is apparently not available in my country atm. I guess the context awareness is what makes those models better in transcription, and also why I can read it back without problems.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Skua@kbin.earth 17 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

When I write them, I do the loop anticlockwise until I reach the ascender, continue the stroke straight up to drae the ascender, then back down to put the little tail down to the baseline or continue on to the next letter

[–] hinterlufer@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Also if you're not writing in cursive? I just checked some templates for kids to learn the letters, and at least the ones I've found do a circle first and then strike down. For example here. In cursive the materials I've found go halfway clockwise, then anticlockwise to complete the circle, up and down again like this.

I wonder whether this is something cultural.

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

My German is non-existent, but it seems to me that those two references can agree with this form for the lowercase d:

lowercase d handwriting

Of course, your second reference shows an initial stroke towards the top of the circle, but the rest of the stroke is one motion where the ascender double-backs on itself, completing the circle in a counterclockwise move that also starts the ascender. That is to say, the circle and ascender are naturally attached.

I could find only one reference which explicitly starts a new stroke for the ascender after completing the circle, but this example from cursive, not from standard form:

cursive d with separate ascender stroke

If I had to guess, the impetus for not doubling back is to prevent the ascender from becoming messy, since writing over the same part of the page can cause smudging. And perhaps in hurried writing, this form lends itself to detaching the circle from the ascender. But I personally draw my cursive d with the ascender more akin to how cursive l is drawn, with a looping ascender, which preserves the attachment:

cursive l with looping ascender stroke

There is no ambiguity in cursive doing it this way, and for standard form, it saves a lift from the paper.

Seeing as drawing the d with its circle separated from the ascender requires a lift, and also becomes ambiguous from an O and an L, I'm not entirely sure how that form would be clearer to read. Context of the language means there's usually no issue of confusion a D or OL, but that doesn't necessarily mean the drawn form is clear to read, which is going to mess up any OCR system prior to performing spell checking.

But some pathologal examples might include "olay" vs "day" vs "0 day".

[–] hinterlufer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

That's all very interesting. I might even consider re-learning the d (and the b for that matter).

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 4 points 4 hours ago

This is crazy to me. I have never seen it before, it seems incredibly weird to me, but your evidence is hard to argue against.