Created attachment 67729 [details] Example The correct answer is 5. Word counting in documents is not a joke and needs to work correctly.
On pc Debian x86-64 with 3.6 branch updated today, I reproduced this behaviour. I'll give a try with master sources asap.
I reproduced the same behaviour with master sources updated today. I can reproduce it with a brand new file. Caolán: one for you?
Created attachment 68225 [details] Another Example
The problem also occurs with the parenthetical citations in the MLA citation format. MLA uses page numbers in parenthesis for citation. For some reason, the citation (89) is treated as three words! {See attached example}
No, word counting is not a joke, but it's not an exact science either. Whatever way Writer counts words, there will always be somebody who disagrees with it, because "word" is not a simple and easy concept for complex documents. (Is a number a word? If yes, are "10.5" and "10,5" 2 words? Is "off-duty" 1 or 2 words, and what about dates like "1/1/2010"? Should headers and footers be included in the count?) Word count is something that has been discussed at length, see for example OpenOffice-Bugs 80815 (Word count differs from MS Word): https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=80815 86537 (word count should display count excluding footnotes): https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=86537 102135 (Document the rules used to count words in a document) https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=102135 Back then (2009) the developers aimed at having a word count that is compatible to MS Word, not because Word did a particularly good job at that, but because it defines a de facto standard. I think this is still true (judging from the patches made to the word count algorithm for Bug 46757), and Word/Writer compatibility here does make some sense. Re attachment 67729 [details]: The correct answer is 7, as far as it concerns me - footnotes are part of a document and should be included in the word count because they appear on the page, they are not metadata. (One could argue that counting the 2 footnote characters as 1 word is a bit inconsistent.) Including footnotes/endnotes in the count is not a bug. One should be able to exclude them (like in Word) if an organisation measures text in words _ex_ footnotes, but there are also people who need them in the word count (see OpenOffice-Bug 86537/comments 2+4) and expect LO not to ignore them just like that. Changing this behaviour (having options like in Word) would be an enhancement, not a bug. Re attachment 68225 [details]: Writer does not count the brackets as words. If you delete " (89)" from your document, it still has 7 words (and 42 characters!), 2 more than you can actually see. The problem is: Where does Writer see these 2 words? Writer also counts 1 line, but 3 paragraphs. This looks like a bug, but it has nothing to do with the parentheses.
Created attachment 68463 [details] ODT with same contents as 68225/"Another example", but different word count ODT created with LO 3.5.4.2. Has the same text contents as wordcount.odt (attachment Comment #3), but correct word count.
*** Bug 55586 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Urmas from comment #0) > Created attachment 67729 [details] > Example > > The correct answer is 5. > > Word counting in documents is not a joke and needs to work correctly. still reproducible with LibO 4.3.2.2 and 4.4.0.0.alpha1+ Build ID: 6ba8b7f5eacac969e4781d63718083a05491b1bc TinderBox: Win-x86@42, Branch:master, Time: 2014-10-24_02:23:51
Reproducible under LO 5.0.4.2 (x64) Build ID: 2b9802c1994aa0b7dc6079e128979269cf95bc78 Locale: nl-BE (nl_BE) on Windows 10.
** Please read this message in its entirety before responding ** To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present on a currently supported version of LibreOffice (5.1.6 or 5.2.3 https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the version of LibreOffice and your operating system, and any changes you see in the bug behavior If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a short comment that includes your version of LibreOffice and Operating System Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to "inherited from OOo"; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add "regression" to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug-20170103
still reproducible under Win8.1 x64 in LibO 5.2.4.2 and a recent 5.4.0.0 daily build
I have the same problem with version 5.1.6.2 under Ubuntu 16.04 LTS
I have the same problem. 9 words written and 14 counted in LO.5.4.3.2 It seems to be counting spaces and carriage returns as words. That's the only thing I can think of for the discrepancy on a blank page that only contains 9 words. There are no headers, footers, or footnotes or notes to count.
Version must correspond to the "earliest one"
** Please read this message in its entirety before responding ** To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo'; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.freenode.net/#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug
I don't have a problem with the word count on LibreOffice 6.0.4.2 release. Some idiot set up my computer that I can't download .exe files for earlier releases and open them and I don't know how to fix it.
Cheryl: field version must correspond to "earliest affected" as indicated so please don't put a more recent version here. Just for the record, I could reproduce this on 6.1.4.2 on Win7 with the attached file and on a brand new odt. Now I agree with stfhell's comment 5, after all, why not counting words in footnotes, both views are understandeable. If it's just to do like Word, I don't think it's sufficient, but I know that some people are ready to mimic MsOffice until reproducing the same bugs sometimes. Just to avoid some confusion, when I'm talking about bugs, I don't have word counting in mind. Of course, I suppose we may add another option in UI with default value corresponding to Word. Michael: as Writer expert, thought you might have some opinion here.
This bug and bug 99189 look the same. Although we normally mark latter as duplicate, and it was mistake to confirm without search, I'll mark this one because it has poor description "look into document" and some discussion that's not the point of the bug. Other bug makes it clear: "add option..." and that's the only way, no exact solution nor agreement what to count. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 99189 ***
Note to CC users: please subscribe to bug 99189 because LO has a policy of raising importance of enhancement based on duplicates and users. (not that I agree and not that it will speed up the fix, but that's how it goes).