Telegraph: The OED Will Not Be Printed Again

[Ben Thornton]

Interesting article in the Torygraph about sales of the OED on paper. It's kind of a special case because it is so expensive, but I think it shows a clear trend.

I certainly tend to use the electronic more than the paper form for dictionaries (both OED, but more often, the excellent Chambers application on the iPod). Paper dictionaries are still nice for browsing, but most people are more sane than to spend much time doing that, I guess

[SensualPoet]

I have the 2 volume "Compact" edition from Book of the Month Club (complete with magnifying glass) that reduced four pages onto one. I was a teenager when I bought it; I could read it then. Now, it's a book-end and something that gets moved from house to house for vaguely sentimental reasons.

Oddly, when I use a dictionary now it's the New Oxford American edition that is built into my Kindle. It is so handy to look up words I don't know, complete with a bit of background. But I do miss using the complete edition because the examples of usage are so entertaining.

It would be terrific if Oxford would "freeze" their editions annually for historic purposes. Researchers in future would find that record fascinating no doubt.

[jgaiser]

Shame.. I've always loved dictionaries. I purchased the 4th edition of the two volume Shorter Oxford English Dictionary a number of years ago. Not as concise as it's big brother but still very useful for it's time. But, like SensualPoet, the dictionary I use the most these days is the New Oxford American in my Kindle.

[Viseguy]

Same story on Yahoo! News (via Associated Press), here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100829/...onary_s_demise

[...] Publisher Oxford University Press said Sunday that burgeoning demand for the dictionary's online version has far outpaced demand for the printed versions. By the time the lexicographers behind the dictionary finished revising and updating the latest edition — a gargantuan task that will take many more years — publishers are doubtful there will still be a market for the printed form.

The online Oxford English Dictionary now gets 2 million hits a month from subscribers. The current printed edition — a hefty 20-volume, 750 pound ($1,165) set published in 1989 — has sold about 30,000 sets in total.

"At present we are experiencing increasing demand for the online product," a statement from the publisher said. "However a print version will certainly be considered if there is sufficient demand at the time of publication." [...]

I love dictionaries, too, but I must say that my use of p-references has shriveled in the last several years. The search function and the ability to cut and paste from definitions into documents and e-mails trump the quaint charms of paper every time. Also, the sheer convenience of being able to right-click on a word to look it up.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Shame.. I've always loved dictionaries. I purchased the 4th edition of the two volume Shorter Oxford English Dictionary a number of years ago. Not as concise as it's big brother but still very useful for it's time.

Surely the Shorter Oxford is more concise than its big brother. Concise means "cut short", "brief", etc - as the dictionary will tell you .

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by SensualPoet

I have the 2 volume "Compact" edition from Book of the Month Club (complete with magnifying glass) that reduced four pages onto one. I was a teenager when I bought it; I could read it then. Now, it's a book-end and something that gets moved from house to house for vaguely sentimental reasons.

Oddly, when I use a dictionary now it's the New Oxford American edition that is built into my Kindle. It is so handy to look up words I don't know, complete with a bit of background. But I do miss using the complete edition because the examples of usage are so entertaining.

It would be terrific if Oxford would "freeze" their editions annually for historic purposes. Researchers in future would find that record fascinating no doubt.

It's all done on computers now, and they do record when updates were made. I use the CD-ROM version, and it tells you what edition various updates were from. Of course, that means that I can't see changes post 2004(?), but I'm not paying the full whack for on-line access. I wish they'd do a cheaper form of access for normal users - it's $300 per annum, or ~£250, which seems a bit steep to me.

[neilmarr]

You may have to consult several online sources for the full monty on what you need ... but that does the job well.

I find I rarely need reach for treebook dictionaries, encyclopedias and my other paper reference books these days -- even when a subject's pretty specialised, it's well covered and often much more up-to-date in such a swiftly changing world. Even on the rare occasion when free-source information might be suspect, its accuracy or otherwise can usually be established online.

Cheers. Neil

[nikkie]

Side note -I wonder if Neal Stephenson is psychic.

I haven't used a paper dictionary in years. But I wouldn't pay a service for one either. I'm usually content with the online dictionaries that are available for free.

I'd be more interested to see what ebooks could do for the field of lexicography. You could get an awful lot of excellent statistical data from all the ebooks available, and provide actual references for usage examples linking to an ebook. My guess is that lexicographers actually love the digital movement as it makes their job easier and their output much richer.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nikkie

I haven't used a paper dictionary in years. But I wouldn't pay a service for one either. I'm usually content with the online dictionaries that are available for free.

The OED, though, is a research tool, not merely a dictionary. The £250 a year access charge for the online version is firmly targetted at academic institutions rather than individuals.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The OED, though, is a research tool, not merely a dictionary. The £250 a year access charge for the online version is firmly targetted at academic institutions rather than individuals.

Sorry to be a pedant (but I can't help it) - the £250 is their individual rate - they have a separate deal for institutions. It may be that the individuals in question tend to be academics whose institution won't buy the multi-user service, of course. At that price, you'd have to be pretty keen (you could get the CD at that price, so would need to want the very latest updates).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Sorry to be a pedant (but I can't help it) - the £250 is their individual rate - they have a separate deal for institutions. It may be that the individuals in question tend to be academics whose institution won't buy the multi-user service, of course. At that price, you'd have to be pretty keen (you could get the CD at that price, so would need to want the very latest updates).

Thank you for the correction - you're not being a pedant at all. Heavens, that is expensive!

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thank you for the correction - you're not being a pedant at all. Heavens, that is expensive!

It is - and I can't help thinking that there's a missed opportunity for them here. Given the popularity of Balderdash and Piffle was enough to get it a second series, I think that there are enough people who are interested in words that there is a wider market they could tap into.

Actually, the CD-ROM has come down in price - it's £195. I don't think that's bad value - especially compared with the on-line sub!

[HarryT]

No, I agree. For a resource like the OED, £195 is actually not bad. It's less than I paid for my "Oxford Latin Dictionary", for example.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Surely the Shorter Oxford is more concise than its big brother. Concise means "cut short", "brief", etc - as the dictionary will tell you .

Ah, yes... So it is...

[ardeegee]

I seem to remember the OED2 CDs costing $1000 when they first came out.