Slashdot Mirror
Oxford Dictionary Considers Going Online Only
Kilrah_il writes "Oxford University Press has confirmed that they are considering offering their next version of the Oxford English Dictionary as an online version only, with no option for a hardcopy. The 20-volume set, whose last edition (2nd) was published in 1989, weighs 145 pounds (65kg) and costs about $1,165. It is considered the 'accepted authority on the meaning and history of words.' In 2000, the dictionary was offered online for $295 a year and has been getting 2 million hits a month from subscribers. The printed version, on the other hand, has sales of only 30,000. Work is now progressing on the 3rd edition, but it's still a decade or more away from completion. Oxford University Press is considering going online-only with the next edition of their flagship product, but not for other products such as their best-selling Advanced Learner's Dictionary. At least for now."
Of course they want to go online only, think about it, a 10 year subscription is over $2,000 for them to pocket compared to only $1,165 for the printed copy that lasts a decade. Plus, they can raise that fee in the future and don't have materials cost (which is significant in a book that large)
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I've been lusting after a full copy of the OED since I was introduced to it in my Freshman year of High School. However, as a poor college student majoring in Math, I just can't justify the costs right now... However, once I'm able to, I know I will be purchasing the full set, and would almost certainly purchase the 3rd edition when it is finally ready. While I know that I'm part of a very small minority, I think my existence (as an average person, not a writer, with an education in the sciences and not language) as a soon to be customer shows that there IS a market for these in print, and that much of this market would be absolutely devastated if the OED did go online only.
Too bad production costs for a print run that small are huge. They're probably making unit profit on the hard copy somewhat close to what they're charging for the soft copy license. But there are a lot of fixed costs with the OED... editors, researchers, typesetting, etc. That thing's got a lot of pages!
Besides, you buy the hard copy, you keep it on your shelf for 20-25 years or so until the next edition comes out.
Instead, they get you @ $295/yr for 20 years assuming price doesn't change). Yes, you get easy access to updated content... but instead of spending $1165, you're spending around $6000 over that twenty-year period.
So instead of $35 million over 20 years, you're talking $165 million. Now THAT's getting close to a worthwhile sum of cash.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
On one hand I can see the advantage of something online, for one thing its a whole lot easier to type in to a definition box a word than search through a dictionary filled with tiny print. But on the other hand I can't see there being much of a market for it. If I want a definition of a word, why wouldn't I just Google it? If I needed more examples I'd go to Wikipedia. Unless I'm an English major there is really no need for the average person to even touch the OED and even for English majors unless your specialty is finding old, out of use words and meanings, even you won't use it. For the 2 times a college student somehow needs to use the OED, its just as easy to buy a print copy that will last a long time than a search-able database that is used a few times during the year.
Other than academia, the OED has no real niche, I'm not going to subscribe to it when I can use Google/Wikipedia/Dictionary.com/etc and get it all for free with the relevant definitions and if I really, really, really need to look something up, why wouldn't I just go to a library with it? Its not like its going to be used/checked out...
Hardcover, physical books would save the university money in the long run, and other than total bibliophiles, no one is going to get the OED when there are free, good references available.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
In my personal, completely subjective opinion, there were few things more satisfying to do at a library than open the biggest damn dictionary you could find to a random page. (This was after I finished playing Ghostbusters in the stacks)
Thankfully most academic institutions already provide proxy access to OED online for the students/faculty. I'll have to stay in academia just so I can get free access to OED and the precious definitions within...
GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
The CD-ROM version is available for $215. They really ought to make it available for e-book readers.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
That's one PDF I wouldn't want to download.
ePub FTW!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
"Napkin" has other meanings, and it might just be worth saving your American self from embarrassment if you ever actually visit a hugely populated country where alternative meanings are regularly used. I can only imagine the looks might get when asking for a napkin.
It's rarely good to be ignorant.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
To be the 'accepted authority on the meaning and history of words.' it better track that.
Or at least the 2 year meaning of words that are still used. It's 150 lbs. of books, it has a lot of detail.
One needs the slang definition of out of use words more than common use definitions. The point is to look up a word that one doesn't know, find out where it comes from, and when it was used.
That way if someone for example wants to know what the "fresh prince" meant, they can see it meant cool, and not talk backy, or opposite of stale.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
So instead of paying $1,165 for something you can touch and have access to whenever you want (and possibly resell) Oxford thinks consumers would rather pay $8,850 ($295/year * 30 years (rough average time between releases)) and get something that they cannot access whenever they want (servers go down, power outages, etc.) instead? Someone help me out here...I can't see the rational here.
You insensitive clod! It's supposed to give Oxford a better deal, not the consumer!!! Now immediately apologize by signing up for a few decades.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
In Ohio, most public libraries let you access the OED online from home if you have a library card.
Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
As you mention, this means around $6000 for a twenty years period, instead of $1165 for a printed version.
The times they are a'changing. Why should anyone want to pay $295/yr for something they used to get in printed form at $58/yr, assuming one bought a new edition of the OED once every twenty years?
Do the OED publishers really think it's worth paying five times the price, besides not getting a set of printed books, just to get the few slang words that appeared since 1989? Haven't they ever heard of Google? That's the way I learn about the new slang!
Yes, they do, and they are probably right, since they're online subscriptions already vastly outnumber the full-size, full-content hardcopy sales.
Of course, you forget the benefits that online access has over the takes-a-whole-bookshelf edition: you can access it anywhere you have internet access, rather than anywhere you have the whole bookshelf with you, and you get the updates between hardcopy releases as the drafts are ready, rather than having to wait through the multi-decade cycle of hardcopy releases.
Considering that the whole reason to spend the large amount of money to get either the bookshelf version or the online version of the OED is that a complete lexicon of the English language is important to the user, the online version makes a lot of sense to the people that are in the market for the OED in the first place.
Also, considering that a lot of the online use is institutional, not individual, which has different pricing and often includes permission to download the entire database to local servers rather than accessing it from Oxford's servers (and, also, that most of the bookshelf-versions hardcopy sales are to institutional purchasers) and retiring the bookshelf-sized hardcopy version in favor of online access makes a lot of sense.
Assuming it does disappear. The Oxford Press hasn't made a final decision and won't until much closer to the time of publication. It might well be that they're deliberately stoking the fires so that they can start putting out requests for "advance orders". If they sold just as many copies but got the cash 10-20 years earlier than they otherwise would have, they've 10-20 years worth of interest they can collect for extra profit. That would be a big difference.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
As a reality check on this, the first installment that was revised -- which deliberately started with a portion of the dictionary expected to need less revision than some other portions -- has 1,045 main entries, 286 of which were added in the revision (63 of those were included in previous supplements, so "only" 223, or 21.3% were completely new), and ~400,000 words of text (compared to ~200,000 words of text in the corresponding sections of the existing edition.)
So, no, the 3rd Edition is not going to be, from the facts in evidence at this point, just as minor update to the second edition.
Further, as to your comment about whether or not the OED will endeavour to track transitory slang, to quote from the preface to the Second Edition: "The aim of this Dictionary is to present in alphabetical series the words that have formed the English vocabulary from the time of the earliest records down to the present day, with all the relevant facts concerning their form, sense-history, pronunciation, and etymology. It embraces not only the standard language of literature and conversation, whether current at the moment, or obsolete, or archaic, but also the main technical vocabulary, and a large measure of dialectal usage and slang."
The Compact Edition (the two-volume version of the First edition or single-volume version of the Second edition which used even-smaller print) that come with a magnifier is not a deluxe edition. It is an inexpensive (compared to the regular, multivolume normal-print set), portable (again, compared to the regular, multivolume, normal-print set) reproduction of the regular set.
I went to the OED site, wondering whether it was possible to still buy the paper version. It is, and it's not $1165 like the submission here claims; it's only $995.
That's only $50 per leather-bound volume, or less than your average O'Reilly animal series paperback.
The problem with DVD versions is that they rely on specific software that won't be available a decade from now. I can't use my Encyclopædia Britannica DVD from a few years ago, because it's incompatible with modern operating systems. Had I bought the paper version instead, it would have had access, and so would my kids. And it would have seen a whole lot more use.
Similar with OED -- this made my mind up that I need to buy the paper version of OED while it's still possible.
Actually it's a 20-volume set weighing a COMBINED total of 150 lbs. That's only 7.5 lbs a book. You're right though, you still don't check them out. They are typically in the "reference" section and you MUST keep it in the library (you can't check it out).
Err, that's exactly what they do.
Funny. When I do corpus linguistics, a dictionary is often exactly where I start from. What kind of relevant research do you do, exactly?
Maybe the secondary meaning wasn't obscure when the text was written. Or it isn't obscure in the writer's native dialect. Or maybe the writer really was being an ass, but you still need to figure out what they were saying. What kind of bullshit argument is this?