| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16] > | KudoZ: should "rubbish" help be appreciated? Thread poster: IanW (X)
|
|---|
Klaus Herrmann 
Germany
Local time: 02:31
Member (2002)
English to German
+ ...
| Disagree categories? OK. | Jul 28, 2006 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
P.S. such comments would be IN ADDITION TO the peer's linguistic reasoning in the particular situation.
Thank you for that addition, Kim. As a category tool (including the aforementioned options;)), it could help to focus the discussion.
| | | | | Voting machines | Jul 28, 2006 |
Klaus Herrmann wrote:
What happened to the freedom of choice which has been endorsed earlier in this thread? KudoZ had it's best times (in my SC) when peer comments (agrees AND disgrees) lead to a true discussion and real results. Taking that away will make us voting machines.
Yes - Klaus. The good old days. I miss the guy with the serious frown on his face, for example. Do you know who I'm talking about? He and others brought life into the process. The tone was friendly but nonsense was not appreciated - or let's say, folks did their best to steer colleagues in the right direction.
OK - the voting machine idea sucks - but the way things are now, it's sometimes difficult to avoid breaking a rule here and there. Maybe we could formulate responses that are purely linguistic and that won't be regarded as personal as guidelines for peer comments.
| | | | | Rules can be changed | Jul 28, 2006 |
Enrique wrote: According to rule http://www.proz.com/siterules/kudoz_answ/3.5#3.5 peer comments must be purely linguistic and include no personal comments. Therefore there should be no comments in addition to the peer's linguistic reasoning in the particular situation.
Hi Enrique,
Just because there are rules in place doesn't mean we can't discuss the possibility of changing them if that would help improve the forum.
Cilian
| | | | | On the role of moderators | Jul 28, 2006 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
OK - the voting machine idea sucks - but the way things are now, it's sometimes difficult to avoid breaking a rule here and there.
This is one of the reasons why the site has moderators.
Moderators are knowledgeable concerning site rules and are committed to enforcing them.
Enrique
| | |
|
|
|
| Personal comments | Jul 28, 2006 |
Enrique wrote:
There is a perceived quality problem in KudoZ, and some people feel moderators should be allowed to take administrative action against “low quality” players. On the other hand the site philosophy states that moderators do not act as linguistic authorities in a site of peers.
A way out of this conflict could be found by giving more bite to the peer comments *as a means of quality control*, and rely on the group, rather than any particular linguistic authority.
Enrique wrote:
This is one of the reasons why the site have moderators.
Moderators are knowledgeable concerning site rules and are committed to enforcing them.
Hi Enrique - I now understand your comment about "giving more bite to the peer comments." You mean add more weight somehow to the comments that are currently allowed.
I think we all know that KudoZ moderators are there to enforce the rules as they now stand.
What I am saying is I think we need to take another look at what is currently considered "personal".
As Cilian said, "Just because there are rules in place doesn't mean we can't discuss the possibility of changing them if that would help
improve the forum."
| | | | | Enforcement of rules | Jul 28, 2006 |
Enrique wrote:
This is one of the reasons why the site have moderators.
Moderators are knowledgeable concerning site rules and are committed to enforcing them.
Enrique
2.1 KudoZ should be used for requesting terms help only after other resources have been exhausted. Resources available include the KudoZ archives (KudoZ > ProZ.com Term Search from the main menu), dictionaries, search engines, etc. If translations are found elsewhere and the decision to post a KudoZ question is made nevertheless, information found elsewhere should be included, along with an explanation of what further information is sought.
Dear Enrique,
This is the first of the rules for asking. I don't know if the word "should" makes the difference here (and this rule is just a warning) but I have never seen a moderator delete a question violating rule 2.1 - and there are too many questions of this type in my language pairs (EnEl).
However, if I remind the "rubbish" asker or answerer of this rule, my comment shall be considered non-linguistic and I shall get a notice or ban by a moderator. Why?
[Edited at 2006-07-28 15:25]
| | | | | Commentary on askers | Jul 28, 2006 |
Vicky Papaprodromou wrote: Enrique wrote:
This is one of the reasons why the site have moderators.
Moderators are knowledgeable concerning site rules and are committed to enforcing them.
Enrique 2.1 KudoZ should be used for requesting terms help only after other resources have been exhausted. Resources available include the KudoZ archives (KudoZ > ProZ.com Term Search from the main menu), dictionaries, search engines, etc. If translations are found elsewhere and the decision to post a KudoZ question is made nevertheless, information found elsewhere should be included, along with an explanation of what further information is sought. Dear Enrique, This is the first of the rules for asking. I don't know if the word "should" makes the difference here (and this rule is just a warning) but I have never seen a moderator delete a question violating rule 2.1 - and there are too many questions of this type in my language pairs (EnEl). However, if I remind the "rubbish" asker or answerer of this rule, my comment shall be considered non-linguistic and I shall get a notice or ban by a moderator. Why?
Hi Vicky,
Yes, the word "should" makes a difference here, as this is more a guideline than a rule. In fact making commentaries on the asker would be in conflict with rule http://www.proz.com/siterules/kudoz_answ/3.7#3.7
3.7 Commentary on askers or answerers, and their postings or decisions to post, is not allowed. Comments or insinuations concerning an answerer's or asker's experience or profile, his/her decision to post a certain question or answer, grade or close a question in a certain way, make a certain glossary entry, etc., are strictly prohibited (whether posted publicly, made directly to the person in question, or made to another site user).
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | | Peer comments | Jul 28, 2006 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
Hi Enrique - I now understand your comment about "giving more bite to the peer comments." You mean add more weight somehow to the comments that are currently allowed.
I think we all know that KudoZ moderators are there to enforce the rules as they now stand.
What I am saying is I think we need to take another look at what is currently considered "personal".
As Cilian said, "Just because there are rules in place doesn't mean we can't discuss the possibility of changing them if that would help
improve the forum."
Hi Kim,
Yes, I was thinking of creative new uses to the peer comments we have today.
The criterion for peer comments is rather simple: only linguistic considerations are allowed. I don't image this rule changing.
Regards,
Enrique
| | |
|
|
|
| Then 15 questions a day are too many | Jul 28, 2006 |
Dear Enrique,
Thanks for explaining this rule to me.
I know the rules but I can't stand seeing them be violated all the time. Even guidelines should be followed more strictly by all the users of this site.
There are people posting 15 questions a day x 10 days = 150 questions on the same text, which I believe is too heavy a burden even for an elephant.
On the other side, to tel... See more Dear Enrique,
Thanks for explaining this rule to me.
I know the rules but I can't stand seeing them be violated all the time. Even guidelines should be followed more strictly by all the users of this site.
There are people posting 15 questions a day x 10 days = 150 questions on the same text, which I believe is too heavy a burden even for an elephant.
On the other side, to tell the truth, I avoid asking questions because I always obey the rules for the asker and post a question properly, but most of the times I get "strange" answers. "Rubbish" can have many forms, e.g. if I ask a difficult question and state in my comments that I know what it means in English but I just need the Greek translation, and then 3 answers come referring me to English monolingual dictionaries (i.e. zero suggestion), these answers are rubbish, too - and, even worse, the email notifications of suggested answers are just distracting me and I regret having ever asked the question.
Or answerers give an answer offering the word "east" as a translation and then make 10 additional modifications-comments on their original answer and finally come to suggest the word "west" - which is "rubbish" once more.
Thus, a "stay-on-topic" warning should apply for answerers to block them from just giving an answer and a prohibition on too many additions to their original answer.
Best regards,
Vicky ▲ Collapse
| | | | Klaus Herrmann
Germany
Local time: 02:31
Member (2002)
English to German
+ ...
Kim Metzger wrote:
I miss the guy with the serious frown on his face, for example. Do you know who I'm talking about? He and others brought life into the process.
Some good (and fast) people are hardly seen here anymore, or not at all. Sometimes I wonder where they went...
Kim Metzger wrote:
Maybe we could formulate responses that are purely linguistic and that won't be regarded as personal as guidelines for peer comments.
Here's some:
• Not used by target audience: The suggested translation may be understood but is not used by target audience.
• Out of context: The suggested translation may be found in a dico, but is not applicable in the given context.
• Technically wrong: The suggested translation may be found in a dico but is technically wrong
• Innonative - The suggested translation exists but no native speaker has used the suggested translation in this way before.
• Does not exist: The suggested translation does not exist in the target language.
• Unrelated to question: There is no connection between Q&A (think twice before checking this one!)
Modifiers:
+ Sorry.
+ Google doesn't proove a thing
+ is not a compelling reason
+ German uses umlauts and hyphens.
The options above are some of the typical objections one could have. The modifiers are a joke (sort of).
| | | | Nikki Graham
United Kingdom
Local time: 01:31
Spanish to English
| Point-grabbing, freelancer ranking and reliability ratios | Aug 2, 2006 |
Sorry to be so late to add a "serious" contribution to this thread (rather than just my previous joke), but I think it's important to try to understand why some people give thoughtless and in many cases plain wrong answers to KudoZ questions.
As I see it, anyone joining ProZ now is going to find it extremely difficult to "stand out" in the lists unless they dedicate vasts quantities of time and effort to answering any question vaguely within their grasp in the hope that by getting ... See more Sorry to be so late to add a "serious" contribution to this thread (rather than just my previous joke), but I think it's important to try to understand why some people give thoughtless and in many cases plain wrong answers to KudoZ questions.
As I see it, anyone joining ProZ now is going to find it extremely difficult to "stand out" in the lists unless they dedicate vasts quantities of time and effort to answering any question vaguely within their grasp in the hope that by getting there fast and first (albeit inaccurately), their answer will be chosen with points in the bag.
There was a time when I answered loads of questions and I managed to get myself into the top ten in SP-EN. Amazingly, despite the fact that my daughter was born nearly 4 years ago and I have not answered nearly half as many questions since then, I am still there. I deduce from this not that I'm brilliant, but that it is becoming harder and harder for newcomers (whether these be new translators or old hands who have just discovered ProZ) to make their mark. However, some of them do try, and they become the point grabbers we all love to complain about (but who don't seem to have enough time to read the forums and join in the discussions).
I think that the system is clearly unfair. In fact, I think that points should be abolished altogether (aside: Henry, yes I know I always ask "for-points" questions, but in a system where this is the norm, and when I need help, I am not willing to turn anyone away by snubbing them with a "not-for-points question"). I realise that getting rid of the point system is highly unlikely, since the ranking in the (now extremely complicated but much improved) Freelancer search is based on how many KudoZ points you have, and that this can be further refined by speciality. So would it be possible to have some reliability ratio ranking instead? I know this has already been mentioned in this thread and discussed elsewhere before. I know it has its advantages and disadvantages (as everything does), but wouldn't it be fairer? And wouldn't it help to decrease the rubbish answers Ian posted this thread about?
Thanks for getting this far!
[Edited at 2006-08-02 11:35]
[Edited at 2006-08-02 15:46] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Ponder this scenario | Aug 2, 2006 |
I am new (or perhaps not), I answer my first question, my answer is selected, my reliability ratio is 100%, I am top of the board.
Why should I answer any more questions?
I point this out simply to say that any and every system has its flaws.
| | |
|
|
|
Kirill Semenov
Ukraine
Local time: 03:31
Member (2004)
English to Russian
+ ...
| Not that easy ;-) | Aug 2, 2006 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
I am new (or perhaps not), I answer my first question, my answer is selected, my reliability ratio is 100%, I am top of the board.
Why should I answer any more questions?
If you mean the proposed reliability ratio scheme, then of course, it should not be activated for 1 or 5 or 10 answers. It should start from 50-100 or even more answers. The system is about statistics, and statistics does not operate with individual and singular cases, it needs large numbers. For more psychohistory see also Isaac Asimov's `The Foundation'
[Edited at 2006-08-02 15:32]
| | | | IanW (X)
Local time: 02:31
German to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Easily solved | Aug 2, 2006 |
Kirill Semenov wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
I am new (or perhaps not), I answer my first question, my answer is selected, my reliability ratio is 100%, I am top of the board.
Why should I answer any more questions?
If you mean the proposed reliability ratio scheme, then of course, it should not be activated for 1 or 5 or 10 answers. It should start from 50-100 or even more answers. The system is about statistics, and statistics does not operate with individual and singular cases, it needs large numbers. For more psychohistory see also Isaac Asimov's `The Foundation' [Edited at 2006-08-02 15:32]
That's easily solved - just make sure the number of questions answered is always visible next to the reliability ratio.
Nice to see I'm not the only one who types "ration" instead of "ratio" ...
| | | | | Devil's advocate | Aug 2, 2006 |
I am playing devil's advocate to an extent, here.
Cheers Kirill, but I have a notion of statistical significance
OK, let's try this approach.
Note I am, in truth, vaguely in favour of some public use of the reliability ratio (RR) to promote quality, either in a positive sense (just for the leader board, etc.) or a negative sense (somehow highlighting low RR answerers to discourage the scatter-gun ap... See more I am playing devil's advocate to an extent, here.
Cheers Kirill, but I have a notion of statistical significance
OK, let's try this approach.
Note I am, in truth, vaguely in favour of some public use of the reliability ratio (RR) to promote quality, either in a positive sense (just for the leader board, etc.) or a negative sense (somehow highlighting low RR answerers to discourage the scatter-gun approach, as has been mentioned).
My problem with if it becomes the sole measure is that, as it is a proportional measure, and based entirely on my own level of participation, it is relatively static. Once I reach a decent RR (measured against 50 or 100 or whatever questions), I can stop. Once again, why should I answer any more questions?
If the measure involves an absolute points total, then given that points continue to be awarded every day, I have to keep contributing, merely to keep my position in the table.
And yes, with my devil's advocate hat now off, I fully understand that this 2nd point is precisely why the quality of answers is sometimes not all it could be. I'm not saying it's easy, I just don't think the RR is the sole solution.
And in case you're wondering, while the fact that I have 1900-odd points is publicly available information, I've got an RR of over 40% in Fr-Eng in general and between 50 and 72% in my specialty fields, so please don't think I'm pointing these things out because I fear I may suffer somehow if the RR does get used ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » KudoZ: should "rubbish" help be appreciated? | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
