# Dictionary change reaction and comments



## Kelly B

Hi, Mike,

I tried the word _montre _today, and got the results I expected on the WR tab. However, on the Collins tab, Collins results, I got the verb montrer (to show), but not the noun (watch). The noun entry does appear under the Oxford heading (below the Collins one) but I assume that will be going away. I won't pull Collins Reverso off my toolbar _quite _yet.....


----------



## mkellogg

Thanks Kelly, I got that fixed.


----------



## ErizoAzul

Even though I can see the transition it's not finished yet, I would like to suggest additional help in Collins would be highlighted in blue like in Oxford versions. For example (I have underlined them):

*advice* [*ədˈvaɪs*]*A*_N_*1*(_gen_) consejos _mpl_
*he ignored my advice* ignoró mis consejos
*it was good advice or a good piece of advice* fue un buen consejo



aconsejes te lo pediré, cuando quiera tu consejo te lo pediré
*2*(=_professional help, information_) asesoramiento _m
_

I think this will be better to find the right definition quickly.


Another point is that it will be better if Collins' option by default load directly, not in Javascript because sometimes you have to wait much more time to see it.


And, by the way, I haven't seen some information (or at least is not very visible) like countable|uncountable noun (I'm talking about Spanish-English dictionary), but I suppose that id depends from the dictionary.

/es/translation.asp?tranword=advice


Thank you for all your work.


----------



## Kelly B

Hello again,

When I searched for the adjective _correcte _(feminine form), the Collins tab and corresponding translations didn't appear at all, just the WR entries with the Oxford ones below them. I notice this is true on the Collins Reverso site as well: instead of the entry for _correct -e,_ the entry for the adverb _correctement _appears, as well as the collaborative definitions for expressions like _tenue correcte exigée_ in which the feminine form naturally appears.

Edited to add: same result for _soucieuse_, the feminine form of _soucieux_. The feminine forms seem to be recognized by the search tools for WR and Oxford, but not Collins (although their own Reverso site did recognize this one.)


----------



## Parla

Mike, why British dictionaries when the spelling checker is clearly based on US spelling?


----------



## mkellogg

Erizo, I plan to do a lot more in January, but I made a quick change that does much of what you are looking for.  Thanks!
Kelly, this problem should go away on Thursday with the Oxford dictionaries.
Parla, this should get standardized on something or other this week sometime.

Thanks for your reports. If you have any more, please write me through the Contact Us form below.


----------



## Tonio_spain

I miss the American phonetic representacion of Oxford dictionary.


----------



## mkellogg

Tonio_spain said:


> I miss the American phonetic representacion of Oxford dictionary.


Somebody else had mentioned that to me.  I will try to get it back.


----------



## osheari1

Hi Mike,
I'm curious how far along the Russian dictionary is in the transition process. the definitions of many words right now are quite incomplete, and frankly not useable in some circumstances. for example, способ gives a one word definition "way" which is unfortunately unusable as on its own. Also, many irregular verbs (and even normal verbs), don't have their conjugations displayed. 
I'm wondering, will this be a permanent change due to the collins dictionary?


----------



## mkellogg

osheari, please write me through the Contact Us form at the bottom of the page with an example or two and I will investigate.

I am completely unhappy with the formatting of the Russian dictionary for now, but this Collins Russian dictionary should be comparable to the one from Oxford.


----------



## mjelen

denle tiempo a a la gente de wordreference. acuérdense cuando arrancó wikipedia: cómo nos reíamos y seguíamos consultando la británica en papel. ¡já! todos los usuarios podemos dar una mano. WR se lo merece. no jodan, WR me salvó la vida y terminó siendo mejor que cualquier diccionario en papel. en un año nadie se va a acordar que acá estuvo el collins. y si no entienden lo que escribí, busquen acá mismito, y si les da pereza, chicos y chicas, vamos a gritarlo en esperanto: WR RULES!


----------



## LisaJD

That's awful!  The Oxford dictionary was the best part of WordReference! No offence, but the WordReference dictionary (and the Collins neither) just does not compare...  Why has this been done??


----------



## njfworld

LisaJD said:


> That's awful!  The Oxford dictionary was the best part of WordReference! No offence, but the WordReference dictionary (and the Collins neither) just does not compare...  Why has this been done??




I would have to agree with you, Lisa! I see you joined the forums just to express your dismay, that's how strongly you feel about this.

Wordreference, can you give us a reason? Was it them, was it you? Can this be reversed in the future? No offense, but Oxford is where it's at for me and many other language professionals. The effort, professionalism and man-hours they put into their work made for a truly authoritative source. I do hope this decision can be rethought...


----------



## NingyoHimeDoll

I agree with LisaJD and njfworld. I joined the forums just to say this.  I usually only looked at the Oxford dictionary, and if I needed a confirm I also looked at the rest; I have to say I don't like this change much. I just wanted to say this.


----------



## njfworld

NingyoHimeDoll said:


> I agree with LisaJD and njfworld. I joined the forums just to say this.  I usually only looked at the Oxford dictionary, and if I needed a confirm I also looked at the rest; I have to say I don't like this change much. I just wanted to say this.



I hear you NingyoHimeDoll!

Just to update you, I'm sure he'll come here to give more details in person, but in the meantime this is the email I just got from Mike:_
Hi, _​_Oxford has taken the dictionaries away and there is not much I can do about it.  Sorry._​_Mike_​
I definitely want to contact Oxford to find out why they pulled this away from Wordreference. They need to hear from us in loud protest. It's really upsetting.


----------



## mkellogg

I really don't want to go into the details.  The basics are all you really need to know: We were unable to come to an agreement with Oxford to continue to offer their dictionaries here.

I'm going to move these posts to a new thread and close the original thread since it is linked to from the dictionaries, just to keep the original thread clean.


----------



## wonlon

NingyoHimeDoll said:


> I agree with LisaJD and njfworld. I joined the forums just to say this.  I usually only looked at the Oxford dictionary, and if I needed a confirm I also looked at the rest; I have to say I don't like this change much. I just wanted to say this.



I also feel that it's a great loss in my way of learning Russian, since I check Oxford more often than any other dictionaries.

The problem, I think, is mainly about money. We simply cannot take what is an intellectual property for free for so long. I guess Oxford thinks it is no longer mutually beneficial enough to offer their dictionaries here.

I have thought of subscribing the Oxford online dictionary after WR is without it, but the fee per year for individual subscribers is simply too expensive.


----------



## wonlon

osheari1 said:


> Hi Mike,
> I'm curious how far along the Russian dictionary is in the transition process. the definitions of many words right now are quite incomplete, and frankly not useable in some circumstances. for example, способ gives a one word definition "way" which is unfortunately unusable as on its own. Also, many irregular verbs (and even normal verbs), don't have their conjugations displayed.
> I'm wondering, will this be a permanent change due to the collins dictionary?



I've found two important irregular words in the Collins without conjugation, which are quite important:

хо|те́ть to want
conjugation missing
хоч*у*, х*о*чешь, х*о*чет, хот*и*м, хот*и*те, хот*я*т 

дать: to give
conjugation missing
дам, дашь, даст; дад*и*м, дад*и*те, дад*у*т; дал, дал*а*, д*а*ло и дал*о*, д*а*ли

A 2nd conjugation word (plus many others) fails to display important stress shift in conjugation:
куп|и́ть, -лю́,-ишь
conjugation should be
купл*ю*, к*у*пишь


----------



## mkellogg

Hi wonlon.

I'm investigating the Russian dictionary situation.  Please write me through the Contact Us form so we can discuss what should be done.  Concerning the conjugations, the solution there might be building a full Russian conjugator, like we have for Spanish, French and Italian.  Then we can integrate all that information into the dictionary.


----------



## njfworld

mkellogg said:


> I really don't want to go into the details. The basics are all you really need to know: We were unable to come to an agreement with Oxford to continue to offer their dictionaries here.



Thanks for the update, Mike.

For those who are interested, much of the content from the Oxford dictionaries can be found online here: http://oxforddictionaries.com/. Of course, there is premium content that requires a paid subscription, but at least a lot is available.


----------



## merquiades

Collins has always been one of my favorite dictionaries for the large amount of nice examples it gives and the easy manner to browse through it to find what one is looking for. I'm delighted to have it here alongside the WR dictionary.  I think they complement one another quite well! The system you set up with alternate back-to-back tabs is also great for switching from one to another.  Thanks a lot


----------



## elban91

I agree that it's a real shame to see the Oxford dictionaries go... The Oxford-Hachette is superior for English-French-English, especially when it comes to details like the prepositions that verbs take. But I'm willing to give Collins a try while I save up for the Oxford Language Dictionaries Online subscription fee!


----------



## Oddworld

I also feel that the Oxford's dictionary is a great loss to WR. It was one of the main reasons for me to use this site but that doesn't mean I won't give the Collin's one a try, even if it doesn't feel as good as the old one. WordReference is still a good site, so keep up the good work! I only wish there was a way to bring the old one back though.


----------

