Anyone can add to dict.cc
LEO only enters new terminology which is documented.

From the "New Entry" info: Please enter your suggestion and make sure to include definitions/context examples quoting the relevant source references; if necessary flag the entry with the relevant information regarding grammar, region, etc.. In this version of the forum software, you can only choose one value from each area. Please indicate additional labels in the source or comment field.

You are welcome to enter new translations for "sinnreich", but be sure to provide evidence of the meaning in both languages.

To start with, here's dwds's entry for "sinnreich":

sinnreich
Adj.
1. ♦ klug, scharfsinnig, einfallsreich gehoben ⇓
Entschuldigungen zu finden, darin war Richard ja höchst sinnreich und beweglich — Brod Zauberreich 30
2. ♦ reich an ideellem Gehalt, gedanklichem Inhalt ⇓
ein s. Gleichnis
wenn ich wiederkomme, muß ich auf diesem Blatte [des Stammbuchs] etwas Sinnreiches vorfinden — G. Hauptm. 2,62
3. ♦ gut durchdacht und deshalb sehr zweckmäßig, sehr nützlich ⇓
eine s. Vor-, Einrichtung, Konstruktion
sie strickte Pulswärmer und andere s. Kleidungsstücke spöttisch
http://www.dwds.de/?qu=sinnreich&view=1

Agree with #1:

You're perfectly free to make a suggestion for a new dictionary entry - in proper form as required by the rules of this forum - if you feel there's something missing ...

My comment was just an observation. Of course I could TRY and suggest ein neuer Eintrag for any of the words I come across where there's no good definition in LEO. However, I don't want to spend the time on a project which may or may not be successful. It's simply easier/faster to go to another source.

But you did understand the problem, right? The answers in dict.cc might be good or they might be completely wrong, nobody checks it. So LEO can't just 'include' them, they need to be verified. If you can't be bothered to do that, fair enough. But your suggestion simply isn't helpful as LEO doesn't work like that.

@ Penguin: (klug = clever)- gut belegt und recherchiert - unterstützt. Morgen werde ich bestimmt diese Übersetzung für "sinnreich" in LEO sehen!

There are several issues.

-- PhilSu is right in sensing/thinking that other online reference sources have more to offer. One could go there.

-- Leo does lack in many areas, but Leo has the right to do what it wishes, so it doesn't serve anyone technically to complain.

-- Leo's dictionary could broaden its horizons which is, from my experience, not really in the scope of it. Not sure.

-- Leo would likely get more online traffic if there were more relevant entries, but again, Leo has the right to do what it wishes.

Long story short, I feel that many people feel as PhilSu does, and it's just an observation. It should be considered as feedback, i.e., constructive criticism, in the best interest of everyone.

Morgen werde ich bestimmt diese Übersetzung für "sinnreich" in LEO sehen

PhilSu, there is only one person who adds to the dictionary, that's why it often takes very long for entries to appear. So you are unlikely to find "sinnreich = ingenious" or "sinnreich = clever" here any time soon - even if you were to do the work yourself and find references.

Ehrlich gesagt gibt es das Wort "sinnreich" in meinem Wortschatz nicht. Für mich ist das ein Modewort. Möglicherweise täusche ich mich da, aber ich jedenfalls würde "sinnreich" nie verwenden.

Das Wort ist schon recht alt;
nach Grimm:

dô gîng der sinrîche man
und besprach sîne vrauwin.
Eilhart v. Oberge (um 1170)

sinnreich, ingeniosus 
Stieler 1583

@manni3: kann sein, wahrscheinlich ist es so alt und aus der Mode gekommen, dass es nicht mehr zu meinem aktiven Wortschatz gehört. Vielleicht versucht man das Wort gerade wiederzubeleben?

Sinnreich, sinnvoll, sinnlos, sinnentleert. Unsinn, Schwachsinn, ich werde schwindelsinnig - hoffentlich nicht schwachsinnig :)

Ich habe nichts dagegen, dass Du es nicht verwendest. Ich habe es vermutlich auch noch nie verwendet. Ich wollte einfach nur wissen, von wo es kommt. Ganz ohne Wertung :-)

hey, so habe ich es auch verstanden. Sollte keine Kritik mitschwingen.

Der Eintrag "Daedalean also: Daedalian adj. - sinnreich", um den es offenbar geht, ist ein klassisches Beispiel für einen Eintrag der eigentlich nur in einer Richtung (hier E=>D) wirklich sinnvoll ist. LEO ist aber nun einmal ein bidrektionales Wörterbuch, und dieses Problem wird auch immer wieder diskutiert, aber eine einfache und zufriedenstellende Lösung ist m.E. nicht in Sicht. Die beste Lösung wäre sicherlich, noch weitere englische Entsprechungen für "sinnreich" vorzuschlagen - das steht jedem User frei und wäre in der Tat zu begrüßen.

PhilSu, I wonder if this discussion might help explain why dict.cc, though sometimes useful as one of several sources, isn't sufficient as a sole source:

related discussion: Keine Neueinträge mit dict.cc belegen

I hope you will still consider suggesting additional translations for 'sinnreich' in the New Entry section of LEO. Yes, it's a little more work than just accepting something from a single website at face value, but as you say, it could indeed be helpful to others in the future.

Leo would likely get more online traffic if there were more relevant entries, but again, Leo has the right to do what it wishes.

Ganz im Gegenteil: wenn ich etwas ganz genau wissen will, bevorzuge ich Leo. Nur wenn ich ganz wenig Zeit habe und nur eine ungefähre Annäherung an ein Wort brauche, gehe ich zu dict.cc, weil ich die Präsentation der Ergebnisse dort übersichtlicher finde/weil es dort weniger Ergebnisse gibt.

Well, PhilSu may not come back by very soon anyway, but while we're at it, I also wanted to say that his original question wasn't actually so rhetorical.

There is a straightforward answer: You're right, it's a gap in LEO. LEO was put together from scratch, from various word lists and dictionaries, and many of the original gaps have now been filled, but occasionally some still show up.

But you can't expect the one or two people who oversee the English forum and all seven hundred thousand-plus English entries to know by ESP where the gaps are. They don't spend their spare time reading through the dictionary; in fact, they usually don't even read all the forum threads.

So if you see that something's missing, it is indeed a courtesy to point it out and to suggest a New Entry to cover it. And gathering several sources may not be as time-consuming as it first seems; several people have already helped you out right here, and that often happens in New Entry too if you just do enough to get a thread started.

@ HM--US: Thought I would check the thread again to see if anything had been added and because I ran across another word with no LEO entries - "urplötzlich ". I think I have become more sensitized to this topic because of the large number of words that I haven't been able to locate in LEO while (currently) reading the book, "Von der Erde zum Mond". This book is written (translated) in somewhat somiliar jargon as the English translation - outdated vocabulary or words that are uncommon in everyday writing. I found appropirate translations for this particular word in dict.cc; Germ. - Engl. Collins Dict. and Duden (Germ. def. only).

I appreciate your concise and well thought-out explaination. I learned that there are a very limited number of people who oversee new word entrees and that explains a lot. I understand it would be a courtesy but I don't have, or want to take the time (at this point in my life) to put together the (extensive) list of sources that is needed for each new entry. Someday....

Hi, PhilSu, and thank you for your response. Glad you're still around.

I think your three sources, dict.cc, Collins, and Duden, would indeed be enough to start a New Entry thread if you wanted to, and it wouldn't take but a couple of minutes, so if anyone fussed that it wasn't enough evidence, you wouldn't have lost much. But 'urplötzlich' may not be that high a priority anyway, since ur- is a prefix that can be added to any number of words for emphasis -- hopefully you've now figured that out.

You're certainly not alone in not wanting to expend needless effort. Many people don't have the time or interest to look up a lot of sources from scratch for New Entry. I've thought in the past that it would be much easier if learners could suggest only one side and let people who are fully bilingual, like the LEO team, choose the best translation option. I think they could do that fairly easily in some cases, but it's hard to know how to define which ones, and it's understandable that they can't commit to looking up sources themselves for more obscure words, such as all the specialist terms that these days seem to make up a larger proportion of suggestions.

One reasonable compromise is just to do a thread in Übersetzung korrekt with the new word, the sentence where you found it, and the translation(s) you've found for it elsewhere. (Or in Englisch gesucht if you can't find a translation.) If a translation from another site is fishy or less than ideal (as we've found to be the case sometimes in the past with dict.cc), someone will speak out, or you might get additional suggestions that add to your understanding of the word. And right or wrong, at least the word will be archived here in the forum, where it will also come up in a dictionary search in future, and where anyone who wants to add supporting citations could use it as the basis for a New Entry.

I don't know, you may not think that's worth it either, but it's just a thought.

Ich fühle mit PhilSu. Der erwartete Aufwand, um einen neuen Eintrag für LEO vorzuschlagen, hat mich auch schon des öfteren davon abgehalten, einen Begriff anzulegen. Die Sucherei nach "akzeptablen" Quellen dauert bei einem umgangssprachlichen Ausdruck oder einem Fachwort, wie ich es gerade brauche, keineswegs nur Minuten, sondern kann ziemlich zeitintensiv werden. Und dies geht schließlich von meiner Arbeitszeit ab. Also lasse ich es im Zweifelsfall lieber bleiben und überlasse diese Terminologie den dubioseren Quellen.

I agree with Restitutus.