When I use the Google Translate web tool it breaks the translated result into short phrases and offers alternate translations for each phrase. When I read the Translate API Reference it appears that if I use the API I can only get a single translation. I want a lot of alternate translation information. Is there any way I can do this? I am willing to pay for the API, I just need this functionality.
No, in this moment there is no way to get an alternate translation through Google Translation API.
Related
I searched for an API which takes a document as an input and translates that document into a specified language but I'm unable able to find such an API.
I know Google provides an API to translate text but here I need to translate a whole document and return it translated. Please let me know if any API like this is available.
You might want to look into the Pairaphrase translation API.
It will translate documents (and other files) from one language into another.
Just note that Pairaphrase is really meant to be used as a translation productivity tool for businesses. It won't give you perfect translation.
Instead, it facilitates secure, high-quality translation by doing the following.
It uses machine translation and translation memory to translate your files quickly (as a 1st draft).
Then, it's up to the user to share (using the "share" feature inside Pairaphrase) the translated files with bilingual users inside and/or outside their organizations to edit the translations within Pairaphrase.
When this is done correctly, Pairaphrase learns human-translated words and phrases so that you never need to translate the same phrases or sentences twice.
All translation data is encrypted and two-factor authentication is available to provide data security.
They have a demo video that you can check out. This will give you a feel for the functionality and if this translation API is right for you.
I'm brand new to web technologies, and in researching a web app that I want to create I got a little bogged down. I want to be able to use a Google Map on my site, including the functionality that allows you to use layers and draw shapes and lines on top of it, but I'm confused at the difference between the Google Maps API and Google Maps Engine and which one would best suit me.
Is one of those a better option for me? There seems to be a lot of red tape on getting Maps Engine for a site, but I'm unclear on if Maps API has all the functionality I'd want.
Sorry for the beginner question, but I haven't found any sort of FAQ that's addressed this. I'd really appreciate any insight. Thanks!
So Google actually offers three different products.
Google Maps JavaScript API is intended for developers, and it lets you take Google's base maps and draw on them programmatically by writing your own JavaScript that calls the API.
Google Maps Engine is for creating your own base maps. You could use it to render shapes and lines on top of a map, but if that's all you want to do, it's probably overkill (and it's not free).
Google Maps Engine Lite is the new boy in town, and it's still beta as I type this, but it might fit your use case the best: you can draw by hand on top of Google's standard maps, import a variety of formats with geo data, and then share your results or embed them on your website, all without having to write a lick of JavaScript.
It all depends on how comfortable you are with coding. Google Maps API requires the application to be built in JavaScript.
As Google Maps Engine has now been shelved by Google I would suggest taking a look at MangoMap. It allows maps to be built using only an interface, you can built really powerful web ma applications without writing a single line of code.
Disclaimer: I'm the CEO of MangoMap ;-)
With Google Maps API, Google supplies a blank map and you add points, line, polygons, etc. to the map via JavaScript. This is great until you start having to add thousands of map objects.
With Google Maps Engine, (now deprecated), you upload, store, and process the geometry data on Google's servers for optimal rendering. You can turn a large group of points and lines into image files with transparent backgrounds which can display quickly on a map.
https://www.google.com/reader/api/0/stream/contents/feed/FEEDHERE?output=json&n=20
I'm using this right now to parse RSS and Atom feeds, for a lot of reasons. But there is no official API key or something so I'm afraid something may break in the future, like Google stopping my access if I make a lot of queries.
Is there an alternative to this with API keys?
I suggest trying out Simplepie, I wrote a nice RSS reader with it once. Pretty easy to use.
There are multiple alternatives.
There's Feedly. It’s not the minimalistic, omnipresent glory that is Google Reader, but it’s close, and in some ways exceeds Reader’s capabilities. They've got even a guide for transitioning.
There's NewsBlur. It's developed "in the open", aka you can just check it out on their GitHub.
There's Netvibes. However. Unlike Feedly there's no simple import route in Netvibes for integrating your Google Reader subscriptions. Instead, you need to export your Reader subscriptions as a .ZIP file, extract them to find the 'Subscriptions.xml' file and then import that into Netvibes.
There's also another question on the same subject on Stack Overflow.
And there's many more, just do a Google search.
In my (and many others') opinion, Feedly's the best alternative. But each their own. Good luck!
Try Google Feed Api, it is easy to use. It supports JSON and XML formats, but it is limited to a maximum of 250 feeds per url.
I am using Google's Speech2Text API and would like to optimize the results I get, correcting misunderstood words by performing Google searches to find possible phrases within a chosen topic. Is there a service I can use for that?
No, I don't think there is a service like that already in existence. But it wouldn't be too much work to write one.
You're already using Google's API to perform the speech recognition, so presumably you'd be comfortable using it to perform a search for the "chosen topic".
Once you've done that you can take all the answer pages and concatenate them together to make a corpus of phrases that match the chosen topic. From those you can implement an algorithm to find the closest possible substring (try these). You're looking for the substring of that whole corpus that is closest to the speech recognition results you got from Google. That should give you your answer.
So I've been looking into the different mapping API's out there, and I've narrowed it down to Google Maps API and MapQuest's API. I'm leaning towards the MapQuest API for:
Unlimited queries
Support for draggable routes. Google's API allows multiple way points, which is not the same thing.
The draggable routes is a pretty important feature for what I'm working on, but am I missing any big reasons to avoid MapQuest's API? Some caveat in the EULA perhaps? The draggable route support sucks in practice?
It's kind of a late answer, but I ended up using the Mapquest API because they work better as small maps, and don't look quite as cluttered, especially after I extracted the zoom control from the map and implemented it via jQuery UI Slider.
I thought it was rather intuitive and easy to use. If I'm just looking up directions somewhere, I still always opt for Google Maps. If I need to build an API map, especially to fit smaller dimensions, MapQuest seems to do the trick.
If you need to actually PAY for their HTTPS services (e.g. you need to use their maps BEHIND a password protected site), it costs less with Mapquest
Are you sure Google Maps doesn't support draggable routes? There are plenty of times I've accidentally dragged a planned route when using the website, throwing everything off. Not sure about the API though.
As accuracy goes I've noticed that for directions here in North Carolina, MapQuest is slightly more accurate. Google doesn't always map addresses to the right position. MapQuest and Google use different data providers in some places. Google uses a variety of data, and in some places the providers will be the same (NAVTEQ and Tele Atlas).
Otherwise it is largely user preference: I rarely do see sites though that don't use Google Maps. Microsoft seems to force their projects to use Bing for some reason ;)