Are Dictionary Companies Helping Education Enough?

Where are dictionary companies supporting and recommending the more adequate use of dictionaries? Many students and teachers are broadly ignoring this fundamental requirement, much damaging education.  As is proved elsewhere on this Website, dictionaries broadly are not being used enough. 

I find it curious that in so many dictionaries, there might be 30 or 40 pages of background information about a dictionary – how to use it, how it was compiled, notes on proper grammar, punctuation, etc.  But how often in a dictionary do you find a single page or even a single sentence on why and how its adequate use will help comprehension and education? 

Clearly, everyone does not know why dictionaries are of value and should be used.  For instance, people with poor vocabularies do not know this.

Where do dictionary companies state the value of their own product?  Wouldn’t it be helpful and appropriate if right in a dictionary there were some statement of why it is important to use a dictionary? 

Many people ignore those 30 or 40 pages on those other subjects. It seems to me that the highest priority article to have in a dictionary is one that states a dictionary's value, so that it will be used more adequately.  Concern for adequate dictionary use would be more evident, if providing at least one page on that subject.  Here is one respectful recommendation how to improve a dictionary.

A dictionary company can support more adequate dictionary use by providing this improved dictionary that people will more adequately use.

Dictionary Index, U.S. Patent Number 4,813,710, is much more convenient to use and is the only practical dictionary index.  (This is proven in the article titled “Proof – This is the Only Practical Easier-to-Use Dictionary.)  Being able to reach in one page turn directly to where the first letter of a word is found – and then in the next page turn directly to where the second letter of a word is found – would save time and annoyance of otherwise leafing back and forth through the pages.

People would use this improved dictionary more willingly, more often, and more adequately – significantly helping education.

Most marketing departments  KNOW  that people like convenience.

It is widely known that if two products are exactly alike, except one product is much more convenient to use, that people will largely buy the more convenient product.

It can be obvious that the public would prefer an easier-to-use dictionary. There need not have been about thirteen (13) years of delay so far in bringing this improved dictionary to you.  What doubt or debate can there be here?

I have proofs that the public would prefer this.  I showed quite a few dictionary companies my survey where 87.5% of the surveyed people answered they would prefer this improved dictionary if for convenience alone. 

I pointed out that many people use computer dictionaries for their convenience over regular book dictionaries.  More people phone to “Information” than use a telephone book, often when a telephone book is right there, even for a 25¢ or more charge – – because they prefer that convenience, and because they dislike that much looking up alphabetical entries the regular way.  It should be obvious that people would like a more convenient book dictionary.

I respectfully request that dictionary companies reconsider this matter.  And it would help their reconsidering this – if you in the public sent a letter or an E-mail to dictionary companies requesting that they publish this improved dictionary.

Some dictionary companies responded to me that they would not provide this because “no one was demanding this.”  But how can the public demand something that they do not yet know exists, that they do not know is possible?  For instance, people are not sitting around demanding and complaining that there are no good quality new cars that can be bought for $500.00, because no one thinks such a thing is possible.

Are dictionary companies making an unusual requirement before they will be willing to publish this improved dictionary?

Are dictionary companies waiting for the public on its own to discover this improved dictionary exists and demand this of dictionary companies?  Is this the usual way that a breakthrough product with more convenience is brought to the public?  Or is the usual way for a company’s marketing department to pay for a large enough Survey, and if the people surveyed overwhelmingly want the new product, for a company to go ahead and produce and market it?

So what are dictionary companies waiting for?  Isn’t my preliminary Survey – plus common sense that people like convenience – enough for a dictionary company to pay for its own larger Survey?

Not many breakthrough new products would be brought to the public if the operating basis was: “Don’t tell anyone about it, and wait for the public on its own to discover and demand it.” 

However unusual the operation of dictionary companies is in this case, this Website is to help break the “secret” of this improved dictionary, so that the public can request/demand this.  If the only way to get this improved dictionary published is to do an unusual route of the public demanding this, let us do this unusual route.  Please write to dictionary companies requesting and demanding this improved dictionary. 

From the title “Contacting Dictionary Companies” at the end of the home page you will find regular mail, FAX, and E-mail addresses of some dictionary companies.  If you contact them to request/demand this, please be civil with them.  Don’t call them names, but you can be honest with them and ask them any direct and fair questions. You could merely inform them that you discovered that this improved dictionary exists, and that you would like them to publish this.

It would be totally fine with me if any magazine or newspaper wants to write an article about this, if that article does not refer at all to any possible imperfections of any dictionary company.  It would be fine with me if any article merely stated in effect “Here is a nice improvement to dictionaries that would help education and dictionary company income.  So dear public, would you like dictionary companies to provide this?”

Do we have a right to expect each dictionary company to be perfectly enlightened?

Should a dictionary company automatically be presumed to be totally enlightened and concerned about society and education?  Is it possible for a dictionary company to be just another company, no special perfection presumed for them?

I do not wish to single anyone out unfairly, because basically every imperfect human being claims the highest of motivations, whatever the actual case may be.  Why should we expect perfection especially from a dictionary company?  Caring for education can not be achieved merely by taking a dictionary company job.  Achieving enlightenment may be a little harder than taking such a job.  “Politeness” does not require everyone to presume every dictionary company is perfectly enlightened.

You will notice that I am not stating any direct conclusions about dictionary companies here.  I do not want to be sued for making any suggestion that anyone is not totally perfect.  I am just stating facts and questions, leaving it to you the reader to decide.  Still, I think I am being respectful enough here, so that they should not be too annoyed at me.

For instance, I have not stated that any dictionary company does not care about education.  On the other hand, the public is not required to presume that all dictionary companies are totally perfect and enlightened and solely dedicated to helping education.   

I have heard it said that dictionary companies are traditional and conservative, maybe resistant to trying anything new.  But there are reasons to provide this new Index.  For one thing, after a hundred years of inventors all over the planet trying, this is the first and only practical dictionary index.  This is proved in the Website article “Proof: This is the Only Practical Easier-to-Use Dictionary.” 

There are two larger reasons to provide this new Index:  (1) This will help education, and (2) This will make large income.

Do dictionary companies have any responsibility to their stockholders to increase income?  Do dictionary companies have any responsibility to the public to help education?  It is fine if they are traditional and conservative, and reluctant to make changes.  But are decision makers there paying attention?  Should it require the public and the media to help get them to notice this by writing letters and articles?

You in the public or in the media might be able to get a more detailed response than I could get.

Dictionary companies just wrote back to me, declining to publish this and not giving much of a reason for declining this.  Perhaps you in the public or in the media can present these two issues, education and income, and see what their answer is.

What possible answer could they give that this supposedly would not help education and income?  Could they say  (1) that it does not matter if students use dictionaries more adequately, or that no one needs a dictionary?  Or (2) that people do not care about convenience?  How could they answer those questions without saying something like this?

In another article on this Website titled “Emergency – This Must be Published SOON”, it is shown that if a dictionary company does not public this soon, in one or two years, it becomes much less likely that this will ever be published.  There is a real risk that this improved dictionary will be forever lost to the world, and that we will be stuck with the large harm that inadequate dictionary use does to education.

Some polite pressure from the public would probably help dictionary companies, or at least one of them as a start, to provide this improved dictionary.  The sooner that polite pressure is applied, the better. 

Will you help, by writing a letter or an E-mail?