Yes, I know that has been said before -- repeatedly -- but it still does not make sense. And as far as I recall, no one has yet actually addressed the logical point I keep trying to make (obviously in vain, but hope springs eternal). I'm not it has even been understood; at least, I can't see any other reason for just repeatedly issuing a curt refusal with no other comment, which I have to say I find disappointing, even hurtful. It gives the impression of valuing irrational rules over both logic and personal relations.
Even if the LEO team doesn't want to acknowledge the difference in the kinds of new suggestions, or doesn't see it, it exists. When an existing entry is relatively uncommon
and the dictionary is missing a much more common
translation, the existing entry is, by definition, misleading,
which is as good as wrong.
(Oh dear, I'm resorting to italics, but at least it's not boldface.) If they prefer to address this through New Entry, that's their right, but so far we have seen very little evidence that anyone there is actually acting more quickly than usual on entries like this that should get a higher priority. It may be partly a question of minimal feedback rather than actual neglect; I certainly don't think it can be indifference, but this kind of discussion does make me wonder.
At least from our perspective, the bottom line seems to be that no visible change has been made so far. One example that comes to mind is this suggestion, Siehe auch: to parallel park - rückwärts einparken
for which the only existing entry,
to back into a parking space - rückwärts einparken
is surely much less common than the suggested additions. But it hasn't been added.
I realize that the holidays have intervened. I'm behind on a lot of things I had hoped to get done too. (Including looking in more detail at the revised LEO trainer stuff, though the last time I looked, there didn't seem to be much there yet.) But this problem is chronic, not seasonal, so maybe a new year is a good time to take a fresh look. Whenever an existing entry is actively misleading as the only option,
it would at least be helpful to have someone show that they are aware of that. How hard would it be just to say explicitly: Yes, you're right, it is obvious at a glance that this deserves a higher priority than much of the other stuff in New Entry, so we will add it soon.
Of course none of us can force anyone to do that. All we can do is keep asking. But I just have the feeling that such a change in policy would help encourage really qualified translators to actually start a thread when they come across something that's glaringly missing, rather than just sighing and moving on. As things stand, my impression is that quite a few of the most competent forum users have largely just given up on New Entry. If even a fairly crucial gap is only going to be overlooked anyway, it's just not worth the trouble.
And if that's the case, I'm afraid that this kind of response won't do much to change their minds.