I'm looking for a word with less certainty than "validated", as in
Has this testimony been validated?
I'd like something like "sanity checked" which flows better. Any suggestions?
-
How do you expect anyone to be able to give you an answer without knowing the context in which you want to use the word, and what you are trying to convey? What does "power-word-smell" mean? "Validated" is a perfectly normal word with no 'power' associated with it.– TrevorDCommented Aug 6, 2013 at 10:55
-
Thanks, I'm working for a corporation where people often use "validated" to describe data, when in fact they mean "it doesn't look completely insane". Looking for a better way to phrase it.– ShepCommented Aug 6, 2013 at 11:01
-
For the data: checked or quality checked?– skymningenCommented Aug 6, 2013 at 11:08
-
Well, there is a h u g e difference between "validated" and "not insane". Validated implies it has been checked, whereas not insane implies a cursory look with no real checking. I'm still not clear which end of the spectrum you are trying to describe, but, if you're trying to refer to the "not insane" end, then "reviewed", meaning someone has looked at it and at first glance it looks OK.– TrevorDCommented Aug 6, 2013 at 11:15
-
My brother was told by his manager to give his figures a "sanity check" because he told her that taking 10% off a number, then adding 10% onto the result does not get you back to the number you started with. We both loathe "sanity checks".– Phil M JonesCommented Aug 6, 2013 at 13:25
Add a comment
|
4 Answers
There are numerous terms to describe a process of examining material to assess its accuracy or appropriateness. They range from low level of examination to very high. For example
WEAK
- given a cursory review (or look)
- skimmed
- scanned
- looked over
- glanced at
- perused
MEDIUM
- looked over
- reviewed
- checked
- checked out
- examined
- assesses
- inspected
- evaluated
- analysed
- cleared
STRONG
- scrutinized
- confirmed
- verified
- given a critical review
- corroborated
- vetted
The choice both depends on the level of examination and, to some extent, the field in which the data is being used.
-
1
Has this testimony been
- looked over
- given a once-over
- eye-balled
answered Aug 6, 2013 at 11:33
In the world of the bureaucrat, every number in the department's annual report must be the responsibility of a senior officer. The final draft will be circulated and someone must initial the margin (yes, on paper) to acknowledge that her or she accepts the blame if the number turns out to be erroneous or (even worse) embarrassing.
So the Director-General does not care that the data has been validated; merely that each item has been signed-off.
"Nominal" sprang to mind, so I checked around to confirm the definition(s) and while I think it's a good fit for the context you described - referring to data sets as "nominal" when they're within acceptable ranges/bounds - I realize it might come across a bit too esoteric for easy/widespread adoption as shorthand. But if you find folks do generally associate the word with its (apparently informal) definition of "things functioning normally or acceptably", then maybe it could catch on.
-
You say that you’ve checked definitions. Can you cite one or two that support your suggestion that “nominal” makes sense as an answer to this question? Quote the definition(s), and identify the source by name and link. … Please do not respond in comments; edit your answer to make it clearer and more complete. Commented Sep 13, 2018 at 21:36