It's what made me love Urbandict at the getting-go. The whole site will be abuzz with new sounds, and some cool, funny and interesting pictures soon if we accept this feature again after it was taken out.
Hytham Hammer

99% of sexual violence defs are made up. The terms that are real seem fictious to 99% of all editors. (Is that physically possible much less enjoyable?) Sexual violence makes browsing or editing UD repulsive. It's easy to identify these defs. Under past guidelines these defs have become so pervasive in UD. Is there any reason to keep them?

Look how many retarted definitions are published. Many of them end up on the very top of the lists when people look up the words, even though they have more hands down than hands up. I'm saying we should come up with a way to make the worthy definitons be visible first to the general public.

I know this is gonna be hard to do but is it really fare that people can't say sexist and racist things (even though they do) but yet some people can type it?? If some one is just defining a word that relates to sexist and racist things but clearly states that this is not htere view then i would say thats ok. Also one way of going about this would be to show the definition to the public first before it is published.

There are so many features on Urban Dictionary. You can be an editor, an author, customer feedback, urban word of the day. Right now I get 4 different kinds of emails from Urban Dictionary. 4 different email address confirmation emails. Wouldn't it be easier if I only got 1 confirmation email? 1 account for all features??

Look at the definitions with "Jew" in them and you'll see there are hundreds which do not match your guidelines. Sure, there are racist slurs which "ought to be reported" as common usages, but the majority of the ones on the site are ADVOCATES of the racist ideology implied by the words.

you could quickly put crappy definitions in their place with a simple method:

* first - def's with only UP votes
* middle - def's ordered by DOWN/UP (e.g 20DOWN/100UP = 0.2 which comes before 21DOWN/3UP = 7, the higher the ratio, the crappier the def)
* last - def's with only DOWN votes

I know it may be hard, but it would make things a whole lot easier.

The 2nd rule of adding a definition says "If you need to use names, use first names only." This could suggest to some people that you are allowed to submit something like "Ryans are stupid"

Especially in really obvious cases when it comes to definitions of full names or definitions of common words like 'jerk" where the definition is something unhelpful like "Tom is a big fat jerk!"

Deleting garbage definitions may be a complicated feature that's difficult to design, but identifying definitions that are totally identical could be relatively simple. Even a bot could make a first pass at identifying dupes. The long approval queue has led to a glut of duplicate entries by authors resubmitting definitions. Some editors would willingly take on this task because it would lead to a visible, relatively immediate improvement of UD overall.

Editors can say why they want to reject something, how it can be improved, or other constructive criticism. If they submitter is getting an email anyway, let's just give them a little more reason to why.

Urban Dictionary used to have an API for us programmers... what happened to it?

Allow editors to see how many words are waiting to be approved.

People are stupid. They click thumbs up on stupid and terrible definitions that benefit no one. While most definitions that are "too popular" probably shouldn't be removed, there are A LOT that should be removed. Let the editors decide.

I am tired of all the filthy mouths on Urban Dictionary. I think the amount of dirty sexual words is out of control (not that all are bad). I have also been seeing a lot of racist definitions being passed through.

Two thirds of the definitions I edit are either the first or full name of some defenseless kid being viciously slandered or cyberbullied. I have yet to see a proper noun on this site that has a legitimate definition. Besides, people and places better fit in an Urban Encyclopedia, wouldn't they?

Every now and then an author who feels as if his/her word is the personification of "perfection", and when their word is denied, that person constantly resubmits the word and continues to do so until the editors grow tired and finally publish the undeserved word to stop the ignorant author from continuing the resubmitions. Many editors find this to be an annoying waste of time coming across the the same definition over and over, so there needs to be a limit to resubmitions.

Especially where there are defs with many pics, some of which are helpful and some not.