I'm thinking similar to a , but you could break the word at a different or multiple places.  Granted I cannot think of a real-world example, but I have included two situations where this has happened.  If I had a domain name that was photospork.com, this could be interpreted as:   photo + spork, a gallery of a cutlery collector's obsession with sporks, or photos + pork, a culinary site dedicated to showing users the best cuts of pork.   Another example is when I named a work project toolscore, which can again be represented as either:   tools + core, to represent the core component of the tools, or tool + score, to show the highest score reached using that tool.
12950
For example, therapist may be split into the + rapist, neither of which (arguably) has anything to do with the original words.  Another example would be conflagration: con + flag + ration. Or weather: we + at + her.  Note that words like threesome and purebred would not qualify, because the parts are intentional and contribute to the original word's meaning.  It seems to me there might be a word for this, which I would describe as "accidental lexical componentry" — but I'm not sure there is one. And if I do think of one I will be sure to add a supplemental (supple + mental) section (sect + ion) to this question (quest + ion).
87715
On Stack Overflow, I see a set of :  (bronze),  (silver), and  (gold). Their common description is &quot;Shared a link to a question that was visited by x unique IP addresses in y days&quot;. Now, how do I share a link? Is this a harbinger of assimilation by Reddit/Facebook/whatever? The blog is quiet...too quiet... There is now  for this. Later, many of the actual numbers in the blog post changed, like  and .
84013
We're a web design company that have created several websites for clients, all of which have a back link to our own website. I was just wondering the best strategy for this:   Should the keywords be in the title, alt and link text? E.g &lt;a href="domain.com" title="keyword"&gt;Keyword&lt;/a&gt;? Should we make the keyword the same on all the client web sites? Should we incorporate our company name as the link text?   Are there any other general things I should follow?  UPDATE: Currently we have "designed &amp; built by ". Are we better off having something like ""?
13078
Something a bit professional sounding?  In a scenario where there was also a bunch of Requirements, this situation could be easily solved by labelling one as Required and this specific bunch of things as Optional. But in an independent context, where no requirements exist to provide contextual flavor, what can be a concise way of referring to a bunch of things that would be great if you could have / have access to, but they're not things you need to have / have access to.  Perhaps the word which fits -  Required : Optional :: Requirements : ????  ETA: Though I'm also hoping for a better word than optional which also conveys the extra / positive nature of 'it would be really good to have this, even if it's not a requirement'.
80272
I want to know, is there a huge difference in terms of SEO between these URLs:  example.com/ontario/toronto/listings   or  example.com/listings.php?p=ontario&amp;c=toronto   Will one URL rank higher than the other? Is there a huge difference here?
5556
On the  are two categories: "Reputation &amp; Privileges" and the seemingly redundant "Privileges". Both have a small entry count and were likely intended to be merged.  They probably should be merged or the first should be renamed to "Reputation".  Showing the word "Privileges" twice looks like a mistake.
18450
My colleagues are in the design department of a given product, and when asked to add that information to the e-mail signature, they have written:     ProductName's Design   I'm objecting that the usage of the Saxon genitive there is incorrect, because the product is neither a person or animal owning anything, and Design in this context is not even a property of the product (Maybe I would admit the Saxon genitive in a context like "I think ProductName's design is not fail-safe"), but an activity.  Am I right? ^_^  update:  After reading the answers and the comments, I think the issue has been clarified a little bit. In this case ProductName is acting as an adjective qualifying Design [Department], so that's the actual reason for not using the genitive case (rather than the product being a "weak entity" unable to possess things, that is merely an stylistic rule of thumb).
39776
If i want to say that a certain tool can only only do one thing then how do i call it? I thought of unifunctional,but i don't think it's a real and formal word.
64784
So, you have a web site to which you've posted a review stating "How to Kick Ass". This gets censored, which I can understand.  What's a very colloquial, not necessarily modern slang, easily recognizable equivalent to kick ass?  This review is in a military context.  The metric is, would it be inspiring for a graduation speech at West Point but also easily recognizable to a civilian? If it's a bit… colorful, then all the better. But it should be able to pass profanity filters.  Clarification of the context.  It's about a German WWII armored tactics history/handbook.  My original review title was going to be 'Kick Butt 103' - I wanted to convey the sense that it was an impressive course to instill advanced organizational wisdom and experience, in this case on how to dominate your enemy.  Besides the title, my review goes into more details about how it is very much a 'how to' combat manual.  But I did want the title to be somewhat clear on its own.  Amazon wasn't keen on 'butt' however - which I thought a bit over the top.  Butt is colloquial, and colorful, but hardly obscene or profane.  'Kick Ass 103' would work as well.  But 'Trounce 103' or 'Dominate 103', to take two good suggestions below, would, in my opinion, leave a reader rather puzzled as to what I was trying to say - about the only thing those two evoke are edgy website user names.  Pown 103 might work, but that is gamer slang and might be too obscure to older readers.
120442
I am working on an ecommerce site, I told our SEO consultant that I plan to make the URL scheme: /products/&lt;id&gt;/&lt;name&gt;. This is similar to Stackoverflow's URLs which are /questions/&lt;id&gt;/&lt;title&gt;.  He asked me if I could change the URL scheme to /p/&lt;id&gt;/&lt;name&gt; instead. I know why he wants this change, the word "products" isn't needed to find the correct product, and it doesn't offer any SEO, so shortening it to just p would make the relevant keywords in the &lt;name&gt; weigh more.  His main priority is maximizing SEO, but the part that I don't think he is considering is how this effects the semantics of the site. Also having the word "products" looks like it has meaning and a reason for being there, just having a p looks chaotic and ugly to me. I also don't think it makes that much of a difference does it? Stackoverflow doesn't use /q/&lt;id&gt;/&lt;title&gt; and they do just fine, I do realize that theres many factors at play here though, not just the URL.  So I want some outside opinions on which is the better way and why?
3533
On Stack Exchange sub-sites it seems to be a common practice to refer to other Stack Exchange sites by abbreviating the ".stackexchange.com" part of the domain to simply ".se" (often capitalized), as in "math.SE" or "unix.SE". These aren't actual Stack Exchange domains, but they could be, answering only to GET on the root path and redirecting to the relevant .stackexchange.com URL.  Pros:   Leverages an existing community custom from an abbreviation convention to actual references to the relevant sites. Shortens getting to the main page of a site by 15 characters.   Cons:   Some domains such as unix.se are already in use, which at the very least complicates things. Introduces an inconsistency if .se domains for some important sites cannot be bought.
21458
I don't know much more about SEO, but it's interesting to learn about it. When I tried to search my website with an associated keyword or you can say with the exact name of the domain, I got some suggestions by Google. Here's .  First of all, I don't want to spamming here, I just want prove my question and want to give a hint about what I am talking here. The above link display the Did You Mean, I know the specific reason why Google shows this, but I want to know the Google's guidelines and some guidance by you experts so that if someone search for the particular keyword then Google hide that Did You Mean and display the result.
54483
I am writing to my manager. I want to suggest making a new service to her. I have problem with this sentence:     Can you suggest to them that [Company Name] develops the Italian version of the website?   Am I using the word that correctly here?
10470
Usually a new term emerges and it becomes necessary to add a qualification to an old word for disambiguation.  examples:  &quot;mono sound&quot; versus &quot;stereo sound&quot; &quot;analog watch&quot; versus &quot;digital watch&quot; &quot;acoustic guitar&quot; versus &quot;electric guitar&quot; &quot;slow food&quot; versus &quot;fast food&quot;
39441
I'm writing a scientific/technical text which involves describing some low level code.  I need to complete the following sentence:     When two values are combined, their tags are _ _ _ _ _ _ together   Where the dashed line should be filled with a word specifying the tags have been combined using a bitwise OR operation (or AND operation).  I also need the word for the present tense.
74693
I can't recall if the word has a singular form. The plural form has a meaning closely analogous to "personal data" and my vague personal recollection is that it ends with an 'i' or an 'a'.  It is not a general word like 'miscellany', 'factoids', 'data', etc. It refers specifically and exclusively to bits of personal information such as name, age, favourite food, etc.  Any help jogging my memory would be much appreciated.  Example sentence:     When it came time to introduce himself, James divulged only the basest [word]: his given name, his occupation, and the names of his dogs.
98909
I'm looking for a noun to use in place of "comparable object," which would make sense in the following context:     Four "comparable objects" were ranked based on their performance in a recent comparison.   I keep thinking of the word "competitor," but I'm not satisfied with it, which made me think of the following analogy:  competitor : competition :: ??? : comparison