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."

12 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Of course they do... by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Of course they do... by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The OED is the perfect example of DEAD MEAT. Hopelessly fusty, out of date, and living in the past. They survive purely on snobbery.

      It's a dictionary. How exactly would a dictionary "live in the future"? By making up its own definitions of words?

      The OED is not like other dictionaries. If you're reading a book and you notice a word whose meaning you don't know, you probably don't go running off to the public library to consult the OED. Merriam-Webster will suffice. But if you want to know why a word means what it does, and since when, and who was the one to start using it in that way, and in what context, and how its meaning might have evolved over the years, then the OED is the source for you -- and probably the only source.

      OED editors meticulously track down references for every definition included in the book, and they cite them: Shakespeare used this word in this way with this slightly-different spelling in this edition of this play in this year. That's what makes it the definitive reference to English words.

      You can call that "snobbery" if you want. Some call it scholarship. If you think the two are the same, you're probably on the wrong site.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  2. Resist the urge! by blankinthefill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Resist the urge! by kevinmenzel · · Score: 4, Funny

      I fully agree (only I'm a poor history major... so I may have to wait until the 4ed before I can afford a copy...)

  3. Re:A tidy sum in sales of the printed version... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  4. Kindle version? by Ichijo · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Kindle version? by RapmasterT · · Score: 3, Insightful

      sure, who wouldn't want to spend hundreds of dollars on a DRM restricted copy of something in a format that isn't guaranteed to even be supported in 5 years. I'd MUCH rather have it in a self-contained CD format, or even better some kind of format that didn't need a special program, or reader, or even device to read. If only someone could come up with some way of having text information archived in a format that was completely device independent, and or even usable without electricity...THAT would be revolutionary. I'd sign up for that. If only it existed.

  5. Re:Only 2 million hits/month? by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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
  6. Check your public library by wordsnyc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  7. Re:A tidy sum in sales of the printed version... by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Informative

    Exactly, and its all for the same work. This next edition when it comes out in 2020 or whenever can still pretty much use 99.999% of definitions from 1989, the definitions of words don't change too much in academia, after all the OED isn't going to track the movement of slang that is in use for a year or two then fades out of the vernacular.

    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."

  8. Re:That's too bad. by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm going to miss the deluxe boxed editions that are over 12 pounds of dead tree plus a little drawer complete with magnifying glass. I'm not kidding, I once saw one a book shop that had a little compartment that held a magnifier.

    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.

  9. Re:A tidy sum in sales of the printed version... by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.