Is digital always better? Comparing two English print dictionaries with their digital counterparts

Abstract

In this paper we discuss advantages and disadvantages of e-dictionaries over print dictionaries in order to answer one increasingly relevant question: is digital always better? We compare the e-content from Oxford University Press and Merriam-Webster flagship dictionaries against their most recent print counterparts. The resulting data shows that the move from print to digital, against popular perception, results in a loss of lexicographical detail and scope. After assessing the user-friendliness of the e-dictionaries’ sites in both desktop and mobile app formats, we conclude that Merriam-Webster currently utilizes the digital medium somewhat better, while Oxford University Press is the current market leader in collaborations with tech giants such as Google. Most crucially, however, both companies have yet to devise and implement optimal ways to balance advertising noise and lexicographical content. Finally, we compare the virtual popularity of e-dictionaries according to their social media efforts and product partnerships. The greatest problem e-dictionaries currently face is that content does routinely change in unspecified and even undocumented ways. Despite these significant disadvantages, the convenience of mobile online accessibility appears to outweigh the concern with the reliability and quality of content.