# Rule no 1



## Loob

Rule no 1 is "Look for the answer in the dictionary first".

Should this be amended to read "First look for the answer in the dictionary and see if there have been any previous threads?"


----------



## danielfranco

Right! I'm sure many people unfamiliar with the link between the forums and the dictionary are not expecting to find a list of previous threads on the same page as the definition!
Good call, Loob.
D


----------



## Etcetera

Loob said:


> Rule no 1 is "Look for the answer in the dictionary first".
> 
> Should this be amended to read "First look for the answer in the dictionary and see if there have been any previous threads?"


Good suggestion!


----------



## TrentinaNE

Ciao, Loob.  Thanks for the suggestions.  The moderating team is considering a modification to Rule No. 1.  

Elisabetta


----------



## Loob

Thank you to everyone for your answers; and special thanks to Elisabetta for the information that Rule no 1 is under review.

I'll watch this space!


----------



## elroy

Update:

The rule has been amended.

The new version: 





> Look for the answer first.
> Check the WordReference dictionaries if available (and scroll down for a list of related threads)
> or use the forum's search function.


 We figured we would try and let people know _where_ they can find previous threads.


----------



## zebedee

My heartiest congratulations to all those who took part.


----------



## Loob

Interesting, elroy, thank you.  It's an excellent idea to have links to take people to the dictionary and the search function.  I'm intrigued as to why there isn't also a mention of *Dictionary Look-up*; but I'm sure there are good and sound reasons!


----------



## TrentinaNE

Loob, *Dictionary Look-up* is at the top of the page that the first link takes you to. We wanted to keep the amendment to Rule 1 reasonably concise and think that this will do the trick. 

Thanks again for the suggestion. 

Elisabetta


----------



## eno2

Rule nr 1 says  "look for the answer first."

The added  "Check the WordReference dictionaries (if available) and scroll down for a list of related threads; or use the forum's search function.  "
made   a senior forum member tell me  that you have to look only in WR dictionaries and when those are 'not available', you clearly  cannot not look into them and so you don't have any obligation 'to look for the answer first' by making other searches elsewhere.

Is that so? Is he right?

Example: in Dutch subforum. Opening a tread in Dutch.,  about  a Dutch word.  So there's no translation request involved. There's no WR Dutch definition dictionary. There are only a handful of such  WR definition dictionaries.
So in those cases, are you exempt from 'looking for the answer first' in a non-WR  definition dictionary search?

I always thought you always had to" look for the answer first" anyhow, even in other dictionaries, when WR ones are 'not available'. To me that's what 'if available' meant. That's also what I always did before  opening a new thread.


----------



## swift

eno2 said:


> Is that so? Is he right?


I believe the answer is… it depends! 😅 In the French-Spanish forum, rule #1 expands the due diligence to the list of dictionaries that can be found on the sticky notes!

✔✔ REGLAS y GUÍA práctica ✔✔ RÈGLEMENT et GUIDE pratique ✔✔


----------



## eno2

Well, the problem -or the moot point-  doesn't pose itself there. As all WR dictionaries are available in Fr-Sp , translations and definitions.  That's not the case for the 'Dutch' and 'Greek' subforums, which I am familiar with. There are no WR definition dictionaries available there and only 1 language pair. So I  always make a search everywhere else, using a few preferred sources, instead of simply opening a new thread. I 'm considering  that to be normal and  also within rule 1 obligation.


----------



## cherine

To me, search first means search the dictionary (when available) and, more important, search the forum. It's not useful to anyone to have several threads discussing the same word(s). And as a forum user, I hate spending more time reading several threads that say the same thing instead of having the information I'm searching for in one place/thread.


----------



## eno2

And when not available? Search other sources or not?


----------



## cherine

If you want to search other sources, then by all means do it. But I'm against _asking_ people to do it, because having a thread discussing a word or expression that were not discussed before is a benefit to all the forum users, and should be enouraged not discouraged.


----------



## swift

cherine said:


> But I'm against _asking_ people to do it, because having a thread discussing a word or expression that were not discussed before is a benefit to all the forum users, and should be enouraged not discouraged.


----------



## eno2

"Not discussed before"...

Why should they have been discussed before, and why consult at all indeed by opening a new thread for it,  if  the meaning can be found online easily and rapidly by an own definition search  or in  a personally owned  monolingual dictionary?

I only consult with a new thread when I don't find the meaning myself or in cases of doubt, for instance when the definitions do not fit the context.

I thought that was the  meaning of rule 1 "Look for the answer first."

I thought also that 





> Check the WordReference dictionaries (if available) and scroll down for a list of related threads;


 was an added 'advice' and  that 'if available' was not exactly meant as  an exoneration of rule 1.

But then it seems that I was wrong...

Luckily I never reported someone under rule 1


----------

