• Introducing XDA Computing: Discussion zones for Hardware, Software, and more!    Check it out!

Speech to Text Tips & Tricks

Search This thread

Paul22000

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2008
3,522
155
So for the past few weeks I've been using the speech to text, speaking slowly and enunciating every word as much as I can so that it gets it perfectly. But it always messes up. Hmm.

Well, the past few days I've started speaking faster, and I've noticed that it comes out with better accuracy. Even if I speak sometimes really fast, it still gets it perfectly. Anyone else have similar results?

What about some other tips and tricks for using the speech to text?

(One is of course swipe the keyboard left to right to bring up the voice input.)

Also, you can say "period" and "exclamation mark". What else is there?

And how do you do capital letters?
 

creepinshadow

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2010
78
0
another n00b question

this feature requires data services right? from what i've heard your voice is sent to google's servers for processing, is that correct?
 

Paul22000

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2008
3,522
155
If its caching, its for things you've spoken before....not for things you speak for the first time. Thats what caching means. It could also be part of the intelligence code on Google's side.

That was my point, that it's NOT caching. I know what caching is. Re-read the last few replies; your confusion on the "nope" mixed you up badly.
 

grainysand

Senior Member
Dec 16, 2009
701
9
Does anyone know whether Google's voice recognition software does in fact cache things, i.e. you can "train" it into understanding you better over time? I'm asking this because my accent's not exactly standard American, so I haven't made much use of the feature (it does get many of the things I say admirably, though).
 

Paul22000

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2008
3,522
155
How do you get voice search to Navigate to a someone's address? (Home Screen -> Search button)

I said "Navigate to John Doe's Home" and it got it 100% perfectly, but it doesn't actually bring navigate to my contact's address.

What's the trick to making that work?
 

AndyCr15

Senior Member
Apr 27, 2005
2,469
233
46
London, UK
www.lanarchy.co.uk
Does anyone know whether Google's voice recognition software does in fact cache things, i.e. you can "train" it into understanding you better over time? I'm asking this because my accent's not exactly standard American, so I haven't made much use of the feature (it does get many of the things I say admirably, though).

Someone somewhere said something about it learns as it goes, or it gets better at understanding you. I'd like to know how, as there is no way to tell it if it got things right...

I was trying to tell it 'Post Buzz' and it got it wrong every time, there was no way for it to learn, if I couldn't tell it when it was getting it wrong. :(
 

britoso

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2010
2,791
301
Orlando
It must be caching your previous STT (speech to text) files, so that could explain why it seems to get better.

Nope, I just said buzz.google.com for the first time and it got it perfectly ;)

I guess I will have to post :(

Let me check though, cause I'm confused. I thought caching was all about storing and bringing back something that had been used before? If it was the first time he said it, how had it cached that phrase before?
Andy, Your definition is exactly the same as mine. However Paul starts his retort (quoted) with a negative (nope) and tries to back it up by admitting that he said buzz.google.com for the first time and it worked. (absolutely no caching involved in this case so his 'nope' makes no sense and does not disqualify my statement. Hence the nope is pointless/illogical and only serves to demean me :(, His future posts (quoted below) illuminate his attitude/character quite clearly. ).

If it worked fine the first time and you accepted the translation...great.
Only accepted translations are remembered by the intelligence/caching logic. You can prove this my mumbling a few in-between words of a sentence that was translated correctly in the past... the translation will still be accurate.

Some memorable quotes:
Good, your idiocy is not needed in my thread ;) I tried to explain, but you didn't understand, so sure, good riddance.
That's what I was wondering... Apparently britoso's " definition " of caching is different from ours ;)
 
Last edited:

flarbear

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2009
513
77
Andy, Your definition is exactly the same as mine. However Paul starts his retort (quoted) with a negative (nope) and tries to back it up by admitting that he said buzz.google.com for the first time and it worked. (absolutely no caching involved in this case so his 'nope' makes no sense and does not disqualify my statement. Hence the nope is pointless/illogical and only serves to demean me :(, His future posts (quoted below) illuminate his attitude/character quite clearly. ).
You suggested that his increasing successes were due to caching.

If caching were the (only*) reason for the increasing successes then he would only be seeing increased successes on phrases he has previously spoken.

In fact, he is seeing increasing successes with phrases that he has never spoken before. This is counter-evidence to your theory that caching was the reason for the successes.

Thus, he does not believe your theory is correct. "Nope" may be a brusque way of saying that, but his counterexample does, actually, weigh heavily against your suggestion so a negative response is warranted.

(*) You said "It must be..." which would tend to imply that your suggestion was the only reason behind why things would be improving. His counterexample minimally indicates that it cannot be the "only" reason for improved successes, but if you want to relax your statement to "One reason might be that it caches" then his counterexample doesn't strictly rule out your suggestion, but it means that there have to be other factors coming into play as well which are helping it understand him better on new phrases.