I'm assuming you're confused because each user should be able to make a maximum of 1 definition per word/phrase?

A couple of days ago while reading French or Spanish I was writing up a LingQ definition and noticed that after I changed it, my old definition stayed on the list of popular meanings and my new one was the saved meaning but different from the other one. I don't remember which one it was but it stood out to me immediately because I'm pretty sure I've never had one saved definition and another one that's also mine but different, in popular meanings.

@Gigusek - That was happening but should be fixed now. But, still wouldn't explain the issue above.

I have no way of knowing how to gauge frequency. I expect, depending on the number of recent lingqs, to find one problem per session on average that needs to be reedited. There is no date stamp as to when a lingq was created. I can say that it does seem that older lingqs, before an upgrade, contain more definitions with problems.

I can say that with verbs, the hints are never adequate. Occasionally I accept hints for nouns or adjectives, but I also amend them after referring to a dictionary. I typically use Mozilla Firefox to interact with the lingq website, although I use Chrome to browse for content and to import

Here is an example from this evening's session that I have come across several times similarly that I would never have created. I often see parentheses inserted into definitions in ways that serve no purpose.

In this example, the definition is simply: onto the same dog. The -ra suffix is an enclitic which functions as a postposition. I might add an additional preposition, at times, for clarity but not in front of the main one. There is also no need to put onto inside parentheses since it is evident in the phrase. I, nevertheless, see this format come up in my review sessions often enough to suggest that it is some sort of default setting, but one inserted by somebody without a basic understanding of Hungarian. In other definitions parentheses are also needlessly added around his/her/its when defining a possessed noun.

@Mark - Just want to mention I am also still seeing these definitions not created by me. In case a fix has been implemented, would it have impacted older incorrect definitions?

just to give one example, yesterday I saw the word 過程 in japanese. Normally the reading I would select would be Hiragana reading + definition. I rarely do it in a different way. 過程 is a common word and has a lot of definitions to choose from. Typically I would choose a definition like "かてい　process; course; mechanism"

Out of all the good and comprehensive definitions to choose from, the definition I had selected was apparently just "process" .

Now on a one off it could be possible I'm mistaken and was just lazy in this case (and somehow clicked the first definition that popped up regardless of meaning), but I still encounter an example like this every 2000 words or so. I mean the definitions are there. Why would I select the worst definition out of the list..

edit: I sometimes get the feeling it's choosing a google translate option over my own definition.

edit 2: adding another (鍛えて）I just encountered

adding also douri . these two were just in the next 1500 words I was reading. Don't know if that helps..

@Potomacker - Is it possible that you would have clicked on this definition with parentheses initially and then edited it the way you liked it from there?

@azarya - I have to say, I immediately remove all Hiragana readings and any other markings when I choose a definition. Maybe those are my edits! :p I have also had the readings appear in my meanings on occasion and always seem surprised to see them. May be the same issue. Thanks for the feedback. I think there is something strange happening as Potomacker is also seeing strange things. Unfortunately, it only seems to happen occasionally. We will keep trying to figure this out. What browser or platform do you usually use when creating LingQs?

@mark I alternate using lingq on my computer (chrome browser) and the Lingq application on Ipad. For french far more on Ipad. For Japanese, probably 50/50 split.

How occasional it is I am not sure. I read 2k words yesterday and I think I had 3 or 4 instances where I encountered this.

@Mark, Hi.

In my case, I checked and it works. The fact that you can choose one of the common translations of the words and then add other meanings of your own, what you added will remain saved. What bothers me, however, is that in the common translations it still appears for some words, translations from another language than the one I wanted.

I think they are translations from Slavic languages

@Lawrencen - Those translations in other languages have been made by users who have the wrong dictionary language selected. It is not that easy for us to identify and remove these. If you see them, please click the Report button on web and you can just change the language right there. On iOS you can simply swipe left on a meaning to change its language flag.

One thing we can all do is to go into our Vocabulary section and sort your LingQs by Creation Date. Then, scroll through and try and find hints with issues. If all the words with issues are older, that suggests the issue is hopefully in the past. If it is still happening for recently created LingQs, we need to continue to try and figure out what is going on. I don't see this happening in my recent LingQs.