Reviews of Encyclopedia by Farlex

By: Farlex, Inc. App

List of user reviews and ratings for Encyclopedia by Farlex

Total ratings

4.50 (Rating count: 401)

Receive review notifications

Get notified when new reviews are posted so you can respond quickly.

See reviews on Apple App Store

View and respond to reviews directly on the store page.

Visit

Review summary

Overall, Encyclopedia by Farlex is praised for its broad range of topics, usefulness for learning and school, and its simple, fast access to information. Users appreciate its breadth and the wealth of knowledge. However, several recurring issues reduce its reliability: intermittent 'no internet' errors, weak search results that miss terms or return mixed sources, outdated or inconsistent content, and a lack of category-based browsing that hinders discovery. Some users also note that certain articles can be dense for non-experts. Despite these drawbacks, it remains a strong educational tool for many.

Pros

Wide range of topics / extensive knowledge base
Useful for learning and school; great source of knowledge
Simple, fast, easy to use
Accessible to all ages
Rich information for research

Cons

No internet connection / offline error occurs despite strong connectivity
Search results are incomplete or unreliable; many terms not found
Content can be outdated or not up-to-date; trust concerns
Lack of categories/browsing by topics; difficult to discover related subjects
Some articles are dense/ hard to understand for non-experts

Upgrade to see all 51 reviews

User Reviews

Recent rating average: 3.90

All time rating average: 4.50

Upgrade to see all 51 reviews

6% (3)

Date	Author	Comment
2026-06-05	Bo*****	This encyclopedia is amazing! I use it when I find topics I don’t know about when I read! :)
This encyclopedia is amazing! I use it when I find topics I don’t know about when I read! :)
2025-12-16	ly*****	I For Real Wish I Was Reading Encyclopedia Brittanica!
I For Real Wish I Was Reading Encyclopedia Brittanica!
2025-08-30	My*****	.
.
2025-08-15	Wo*****	This is meant to be an app, not a browser.
This is meant to be an app, not a browser.
2025-03-12	bo*****	This application applies and provides accessible sophisticated knowledge.
This application applies and provides accessible sophisticated knowledge.
2023-04-04	Ne*****	kind for you
kind for you
2020-10-16	Li*****	The foundation of success is knowing what your looking for once you find it your own your life that’s strength of your app.
The foundation of success is knowing what your looking for once you find it your own your life that’s strength of your app.
2020-08-25	UN*****	I used to use the (un)mentioned 'encyclopædia' frequently, but over time, I noticed something; In this age of 'contributing', i.e., doing the work, such sites as W'pedia (and sadly, IMDb) have become 'home' to people who don't understand simple English grammar rules. Some don't understand what simple English words are, yet, instead of doing a little research, they plod ahead. They're more interested in doing as much as possible - writing as many reviews, articles, so they can - in a pathetic sense, build a name for themselves. If this sounds like 'nitpicking', it's not. It's much closer to someone saying to someone who's going too run errands for you (and you're depending on) to get several price quotes on a major job, and to pick up your very fussy partner's favourite chocolate. When this person you counted in returns, they've engaged for someone to do the major job - and forgetting how much it'll be, and instead of the chocolate they came home with cashews. If the person doing the work doesn't understand the basics, they're only going to 'contribute' garbage, and some of these 'names' (a very small percent do most of this 'writing', yet, their own CV, their background of why they are a good candidate to do this is nowhere to be found). The result is much of what's their (and not just in W'pedia, IMDb, but any of these sites which are mostly contributed writing) is garbage, and anytime who goes to such a place is at risk of not leaning, but mis-learning. In the case of W'pedia, an 'encyclopedia's nothing more than a basic source of information. It's not - as some of these semi-literates think, a place to write an entire novel on a subject (or steal someone else's published material). It's not - in more esoteric subjects, a place to write in high-level mathematics, nor in computer languages, nor anything else. It's simply a starting point for the reader. The READER's the most important part, NOT the ego of some fool 'writer'. Another - huge - problem is that many of these so-called frequent contributors don't even know basic English grammar. I'm not trying to sound 'snobbish', but there's simple grammar we all follow (when I mentioned this once in a 'talk' page this very idea, and that there should be some sort of 'gate' to let people who - as an example - use 'filler-words, constantly, such as 'however', and 'basically', I was called out... told by some idiot I was 'mean', and worse. This... person, as many other simpletons don't get, if you allow garbage, your not helping - your hurting). The point is that even in such a thing as a contributed resource, you want to pass on good simple grammar. The more esoteric articles are written (more factually, they seem to be copied whole-cloth from copyrighted textbooks and other sources, which the aforementioned 'higher-ups' of this 'commune' choose to ignore). An encyclopædia should be accessible to people of ALL ages, and ALL levels of understanding. For me, as I'm sure many others, it was the FIRST place I began to familiarise myself on many subjects that I'd go on to learn about in resources specific to it. Some of the articles are so dense (no, I don't mean 'stupid'), so impenetrable to anyone without a degree in the subject pertaining to, it's impossible for anyone to even grasp it. An article should leave you wanting more - it shouldn't leave you, midpoint, scratching your head in confusion. If anything, these morons have taken things and either made them understandable by only a few, or - due to their own ego and ignorance, have only 'passed on' THEIR misunderstanding, and the point of 'knowledge', of 'teaching' is to pass on information which is CORRECT. W'pedia's a joke. That's why I'm so happy to find an encyclopædic source which is much closer to what an 'encyclopædia' is - a place where one can quickly find out the basics a well as a place to begin to explore.
I used to use the (un)mentioned 'encyclopædia' frequently, but over time, I noticed something; In this age of 'contributing', i.e., doing the work, such sites as W'pedia (and sadly, IMDb) have become 'home' to people who don't understand simple English grammar rules. Some don't understand what simple English words are, yet, instead of doing a little research, they plod ahead. They're more interested in doing as much as possible - writing as many reviews, articles, so they can - in a pathetic sense, build a name for themselves. If this sounds like 'nitpicking', it's not. It's much closer to someone saying to someone who's going too run errands for you (and you're depending on) to get several price quotes on a major job, and to pick up your very fussy partner's favourite chocolate. When this person you counted in returns, they've engaged for someone to do the major job - and forgetting how much it'll be, and instead of the chocolate they came home with cashews. If the person doing the work doesn't understand the basics, they're only going to 'contribute' garbage, and some of these 'names' (a very small percent do most of this 'writing', yet, their own CV, their background of why they are a good candidate to do this is nowhere to be found). The result is much of what's their (and not just in W'pedia, IMDb, but any of these sites which are mostly contributed writing) is garbage, and anytime who goes to such a place is at risk of not leaning, but mis-learning. In the case of W'pedia, an 'encyclopedia's nothing more than a basic source of information. It's not - as some of these semi-literates think, a place to write an entire novel on a subject (or steal someone else's published material). It's not - in more esoteric subjects, a place to write in high-level mathematics, nor in computer languages, nor anything else. It's simply a starting point for the reader. The READER's the most important part, NOT the ego of some fool 'writer'. Another - huge - problem is that many of these so-called frequent contributors don't even know basic English grammar. I'm not trying to sound 'snobbish', but there's simple grammar we all follow (when I mentioned this once in a 'talk' page this very idea, and that there should be some sort of 'gate' to let people who - as an example - use 'filler-words, constantly, such as 'however', and 'basically', I was called out... told by some idiot I was 'mean', and worse. This... person, as many other simpletons don't get, if you allow garbage, your not helping - your hurting). The point is that even in such a thing as a contributed resource, you want to pass on good simple grammar. The more esoteric articles are written (more factually, they seem to be copied whole-cloth from copyrighted textbooks and other sources, which the aforementioned 'higher-ups' of this 'commune' choose to ignore). An encyclopædia should be accessible to people of ALL ages, and ALL levels of understanding. For me, as I'm sure many others, it was the FIRST place I began to familiarise myself on many subjects that I'd go on to learn about in resources specific to it. Some of the articles are so dense (no, I don't mean 'stupid'), so impenetrable to anyone without a degree in the subject pertaining to, it's impossible for anyone to even grasp it. An article should leave you wanting more - it shouldn't leave you, midpoint, scratching your head in confusion. If anything, these morons have taken things and either made them understandable by only a few, or - due to their own ego and ignorance, have only 'passed on' THEIR misunderstanding, and the point of 'knowledge', of 'teaching' is to pass on information which is CORRECT. W'pedia's a joke. That's why I'm so happy to find an encyclopædic source which is much closer to what an 'encyclopædia' is - a place where one can quickly find out the basics a well as a place to begin to explore.
2020-07-08	Is*****	This app looked like it had a lot of potential When I open the app and look something up, it pulls up a page that says “No internet available. Tap to retry”. I have an strong wifi internet connection and a strong cellular data connection but it is not working. Please fix this.
This app looked like it had a lot of potential When I open the app and look something up, it pulls up a page that says “No internet available. Tap to retry”. I have an strong wifi internet connection and a strong cellular data connection but it is not working. Please fix this.
2020-06-24	my*****	I do research all the time, and this is SO useful and handy. Great quality and easy to use for school. I 100% recommend that you get this sourse
I do research all the time, and this is SO useful and handy. Great quality and easy to use for school. I 100% recommend that you get this sourse