In the definitions, aside from such

In the definitions, aside from such literary qualities as economy, precision, completeness and style, there is the question of arrangement which remains variable in dictionary practice. When a word has many senses, what should be the order of presenting them? The Oxford established a historical order since the explication of the history of words was its chief concern. Even the Oxford admits to violating historical order sometimes "for convenience." One may ask whose convenience? I think they mean theirs. The one difficulty is that the general dictionary user finds it confusing to wade through obsolete, archaic, or rare meanings first.
More recently some dictionaries have chosen to represent the order of their definitions as based on frequency. First, there is not enough evidence for this practice and second, if there were, it would often throw unrelated senses together.

結果 (中文) 1:

定义，除了作为经济、 精度、 完整性和风格，这种文学素质在安排仍然是变量词典实践中的问题。当一个词有很多的感官时，他们提出的顺序应该是什么?牛津大学建立历史的顺序，由于字历史的解读是其主要的关注。甚至在牛津承认违反历史命令有时"方便"。有人可能问其方便?他们是他们。困难之一是，一般词典用户发现令人困惑涉水通过过时、 陈旧，或罕见的含义第一。更最近一些字典已选择表示它们的定义的顺序，如基于频率。第一，尚无足够的证据对这种做法和第二，如果有，它会经常引发无关的感官在一起。

結果 (中文) 3:

在定义中，除了经济性、精确性、完整性和文体等文学性外，还有一个在词典实践中仍存在变数的问题。当一个词有很多的感觉，应该是什么样的顺序？牛津建立了一个历史阶自词史的解释是其主要的关注点。甚至牛津也承认违反历史顺序有时是“为了方便”，你可以问谁的方便？我想他们是指他们的。一个困难是，一般的字典用户发现，通过过时，陈旧，或罕见的含义，第一次是混乱的。
最近，一些字典已经选择了它们的定义的顺序，根据频率。首先，没有足够的证据证明这一做法，其次，如果有，它往往会把无关的感官一起。