| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| well_design | 0.824 | 25688 |
| a_well-design | 0.748 | 89232 |
| beautifully_design | 0.579 | 88017 |
| high-quality | 0.565 | 8965 |
| user-friendly | 0.549 | 21921 |
| design | 0.547 | 101 |
| cost-efficient | 0.533 | 81922 |
| cost-effective | 0.528 | 12088 |
| efficient | 0.525 | 2805 |
| well_think_out | 0.524 | 74172 |
| innovative | 0.521 | 2313 |
| innovative_design | 0.521 | 53925 |
| easy-to-use | 0.518 | 29712 |
| robust | 0.516 | 5571 |
| affordable | 0.514 | 3667 |
| streamlined | 0.513 | 32429 |
| well-maintain | 0.513 | 89322 |
| inexpensive | 0.513 | 10926 |
| well-write | 0.512 | 69800 |
| user_friendly | 0.508 | 26839 |
| high_quality | 0.507 | 2774 |
| simple_design | 0.505 | 94240 |
| comprehensive | 0.504 | 4137 |
| unobtrusive | 0.504 | 71485 |
| modern_design | 0.498 | 46967 |