[asialex] Re: [euralex] Re: End of print dictionaries at Macmillan
- From: "David Joffe" <david.joffe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: euralex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, gillesmaurice.deschryver@xxxxxxxx, Michael Rundell <michael.rundell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jaguirreuk@xxxxxxxxx, afrilex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, asialex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 16:44:36 +0200
If I may, I'd at least like to give a bit more of a response to some
of the points made by JosÃ. (Background and 'disclaimer': I'm the
main programmer of various online dictionaries, some free, some
commercial one's for publishers etc.)
Josà Aguirre wrote:
> ... news for publishers indeed. As for the end user, well, we've all been
> there before, they will enjoy the functionality of their digital
> resources: "your session has expired, your search history was not
> saved, please log on again, type in your subscription number, user
> name and password" and so on and so forth.
I must say, I don't think this is really a fair and accurate
portrayal of the average user experience of online dictionaries (if
it were, nobody would use them). Not sure who programmed the ones
you are referring to, but we have specifically implemented
cookie-based systems that prevent 'session expiry' problems - this
is possible with all modern web browsers since at least 5 or 10
years ago.
Saving search history: Well, paper dictionaries also don't save your
search history.
Enter user name and password: Sure, I don't see what's wrong with
that though.
Many online dictionaries (including ours) have been developed for
high reliability and availability.
On 7 Nov 2012 at 5:57, Josà Aguirre wrote:
> Secondly, digital dictionaries can be divided between "online
> dictionaries" (that require Internet access) and "electronic
> dictionaries" (that require just an electronic device that can run that
> dictionary).
A minor point, but this distinction is blurring with the rapid
growth of always-online smartphones ... many are now 'hybrids'.
> Commercial ads in an electronic dictionary would quickly be
> labelled adware and would be frowned upon by anyone from here to
> Antarctica. Commercial ads in an online dictionary... well, what do you
> expect? surely someone has to pay for that!
But someone does indeed 'have to pay for that'. What is your
proposal, that lexicographers work for free?
In any case, if you don't like seeing the ads, I suggest you install
a browser plugin like AdBlock. I have seen very few online ads in
years.
Also, to be fair, there are various different models an online
publisher can pursue ... e.g. subscription-based.
> Both types of digital dictionaries have some advantages over paper
> dictionaries, but only some. And by saying this I don't advocate going
> back to living in caves. Your online dictionary will be of no use when
> -for any number of reasons- you are not online. Your electronic
> dictionary will usually get you the information you want faster than
> your paper dictionary. Usually, but not always. If you have to switch
> on your computer, by the time your operating system finishes loading I
> will have found in a paper dictionary the entry we were looking for.
Sure, and if your paper dictionary is deep in your luggage, or
you've misplaced it, or left it at home while at work, or you're
travelling and left it at home - then it's also going to be
problematic to access it. Creating a hypothetical negative scenario
isn't a meaningful counterpoint to what is the *typical* user
experience ... e.g. the average dictionary user simply doesn't boot
their computer every time they look up a word. (Many are already at
their computers when they need to look up a word - e.g. if composing
or reading an email in a second language, or doing translation work,
or doing an assignment.)
What I think some commenters may also perhaps be losing sight on
here, is that ultimately, this (in effect) isn't a decision made by
publishers ... it's a decision being made by dictionary users (the
folks that matter in all this, the 'raison d'etre' for most
lexicography) ... dictionary users can ultimately tell which
experience they overall prefer, and the bottom line is, if more and
more actual dictionary end users are choosing to use online
dictionaries rather than to buy paper dictionaries, then it is
because they find it an overall preferable experience, not an
overall worse experience. Why would dictionary users deliberately
choose what they felt was the worse experience? And if dictionary
users were choosing paper, then publishers would still be focusing
on paper. The matter has in effect been put to vote by dictionary
users, 'like it or not'.
> As for browsing, well, it might seem we use the same word, but in
> reality we do not mean the same. Browsing a page on a printed
> dictionary can give a certain amount of unquantifiable information,
> about relevance and place of an entry word in a list of lemmas, etc.
> Your idea of browsing in fact means "clicking". And this is the key to
> the whole "revolution". In an online dictionary you can click
> everywhere. In fact, you should click anywhere. A click is a "hit".
This isn't a strictly accurate portrayal, but I don't want to go
into detail here, it's not important.
> If you want to place your ads somewhere on the internet, you want to
> find a website that attracts more "hits" than others, so that more
> people will see your ads.
The only reliable way to get more "hits" is to provide compelling
content (e.g. a useful dictionary). If you don't have compelling
content, you will have no hits. And if you do have compelling
content, then what's the problem?
You might also be interested to know that online advertising doesn't
generate as much revenue as you probably think. Maybe you imagine
all these online dictionary publishers getting filthy rich from ads
on online dictionaries, I don't think this is really accurate,
especially for smaller/minority languages.
> You can even have your website design geared to attracting hits. For
> instance, do not provide a scrollbar with a list of lemmas.
> Scrolling down is not "clicking", when you scroll down you do not hit.
> Make anything clickable and you'll generate more hits, more hits will
> mean higher fees for more ads. That is the "Second Revolution" in
> lexicography.
Actually, for many of our online dictionaries that we've created,we
do specifically have a lemma list showing your lemma 'in context',
so this isn't even really accurate. However, and this is my
impression, the main reason that it's not desirable in an online
dictionary is that it would make it incredibly trivial to simply
steal the entire dictionary contents, and then the publisher would
go bankrupt on day one. Do you think that would be a positive thing?
Publishers aren't always just trying to gouge you and it's not a
conspiracy to make you click on more adverts - there are actual,
thought-out reasons why some things can't be done in certain ways.
If you have solutions to offer, please do.
> Sorry, but the one thing the Internet could do without is one more
> blog on language issues full of trendy words but no real substance.
Surely, if you don't like some particular blog, don't read it. If
it's interesting then people will read it and if it's not then they
won't. I find it strange that someone's blog can be so offensive to
you that you demand it's literal removal from the Internet.
> that wouldn't generate clicks (remember, no clicks, no hits). So,
> please, tell me, what was new in all this, where was the revolution,
> where is "the true power of the digital medium" exploited here?
Well just for one thing, you are trivially able to give immediate
user feedback on entries you feel are lacking in some way (as you've
done right here, and I might even agree on some points), and that
feedback can arrive straight in the lexicographers' inboxes within
minutes, from anywhere in the world.
This was impossible before the Internet .. if you didn't like the
definition for 'dictionary', you would have to compose a snail mail,
and it would take days or weeks to arrive at the publishing company,
and it might then take MONTHS before you would see the resultant
improved entry in paper, and you would literally have to buy an
ENTIRE new paper dictionary to get the updated version (you don't
seem to complain about that).
Our software can actually now provide BOTH the immediate user
feedback, that can be sent straight to editors, as well as allow
immediate online publishing of selective updates - what this means
is that in this new online world, you can now actually whinge about
the definition of "dictionary", literally minutes later the actual
lexicographers could be improving the definition - and literally
minutes after that, the new definition could be online, on your
screen, all with a few clicks - and all this allowing incorporation
of feedback from anyone in the world.
If you don't think that's amazing, then I don't know. And this is
just one small aspect.
> I wish Macmillan all the best in whatever business model they choose,
> but let's be clear about this, despite all media hype and shock headline
> therapy, the Second Revolution in lexicography has not happened.
It is already happening, it has been happening for quite a while.
- David
* To post to the ASIALEX Mailing List, send an e-mail to asialex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
* To unsubscribe from the ASIALEX Mailing List, go to
//www.freelists.org/list/asialex, enter your e-mail address in the "User
Options" box, choose the Unsubscribe option in the "Choose an action" dropdown
list, and press "Go!"
Other related posts:
