| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | (Yet another) suggestion to deal with lack of context Thread poster: Nesrin
|
|---|
Colin Ryan (X) 
Local time: 11:27
Italian to English
+ ...
| Wordreference helps those that help themselves | Sep 29, 2010 |
Thanks, Katalin (the one who doesn't use any other names) - excellent post.
I'd like to add that one of the things I like about the WordReference forums is that people will only help you if you try to translate the term yourself first. This is the "house rule". If you just post a question asking for a term, without context, the first replies you get will remind you to supply the context and also to have a go at translating it yourself. Admittedly, WordReference is aimed more at lang... See more Thanks, Katalin (the one who doesn't use any other names) - excellent post.
I'd like to add that one of the things I like about the WordReference forums is that people will only help you if you try to translate the term yourself first. This is the "house rule". If you just post a question asking for a term, without context, the first replies you get will remind you to supply the context and also to have a go at translating it yourself. Admittedly, WordReference is aimed more at language learners than language professionals, but I have still found it useful for explaining obscure and rare phrases.
Just a thought. Why not "force" the asker to supply his or her own attempted translation, or if they don't know, make them tick a box saying "I have searched for the term on sites like Google and Wikipedia and I have found nothing that looks like a translation"?
Also, earlier I suggested abolishing Kudoz points (those that have them now can convert them to, umm, Browniz or something). I was serious when I suggested this. It would be a very bold move but it would instantly stop ANYONE from gaming the Kudoz system. What do people think? ▲ Collapse
| | | | Rob Grayson
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:27
French to English
| Gets my vote | Sep 29, 2010 |
ryancolm wrote:
Also, earlier I suggested abolishing Kudoz points (those that have them now can convert them to, umm, Browniz or something). I was serious when I suggested this. It would be a very bold move but it would instantly stop ANYONE from gaming the Kudoz system. What do people think?
I think it's a damn good idea. My only misgiving is that outsourcers looking for translators do look at KudoZ points totals as a potential indicator of expertise (however misguided this may be in some cases). But I think you could get around this by continuing to provide statistics on number of questions answered vs. asked, etc.
| | | | | They'll just tick the box anyway, won't they? | Sep 29, 2010 |
ryancolm wrote:
Just a thought. Why not "force" the asker to supply his or her own attempted translation, or if they don't know, make them tick a box saying "I have searched for the term on sites like Google and Wikipedia and I have found nothing that looks like a translation"?
I mean, I see where you're coming from but how will the rest of us know it is true?
I very much like the idea of making people post ideas and rejections, although how it could be automated/enforced eludes me at the moment. It could certainly help pinpoint the context, if only because we might know what it is not.
That said, I know some people (on other sites) who very much prefer not to, in order for answerers to start with a clean slate, uninfluenced and unpolluted by the asker's own ideas. It's a valid argument, I suppose.
| | | |
Rob Grayson wrote: ryancolm wrote:
Also, earlier I suggested abolishing Kudoz points (those that have them now can convert them to, umm, Browniz or something). I was serious when I suggested this. It would be a very bold move but it would instantly stop ANYONE from gaming the Kudoz system. What do people think? I think it's a damn good idea. My only misgiving is that outsourcers looking for translators do look at KudoZ points totals as a potential indicator of expertise (however misguided this may be in some cases). But I think you could get around this by continuing to provide statistics on number of questions answered vs. asked, etc.
Kudoz points now mean nothing and can actually be misleading. Getting rid of them would be a serious step in the right direction.
| | |
|
|
|
| Let's keep the thread focused | Sep 29, 2010 |
Abolishing the point system is a different idea, and can be discussed in a separate thread.
I suggest we keep this particular discussion focused on the issue of "dealing with lack of context".
Katalin
| | | |
Katalin Horvath McClure wrote:
Abolishing the point system is a different idea, and can be discussed in a separate thread.
I suggest we keep this particular discussion focused on the issue of "dealing with lack of context".
Katalin
But when people request context and that request is conveniently ignored by Askers, I feel the urge to get pointZ is what makes people answer anyway. Imo, (wild) guessing is a direct result of the desperate need to win pointZ and if the pointZ were no longer an issue, then the need to answer at any cost may disappear as well. People may actually be tempted to wait to see context before they answer. And Askers who refuse to provide context may find that their their questions remain unanswered.
So no pointZ could be a win-win move.
| | | | | To writeaway | Sep 29, 2010 |
Yes, you could approach it from that angle (getting rid of the points system), too, but:
Let's assume yesterday the Fairy Godmother waived her magic wand and the point system have disappeared, and so did the point-chasing behavior.
Today, the potential answerers participate in KudoZ only because they genuinely just want to help.
The askers still need help, but they can still post questions without context.
So, the situation did not improve since yesterday, there i... See more Yes, you could approach it from that angle (getting rid of the points system), too, but:
Let's assume yesterday the Fairy Godmother waived her magic wand and the point system have disappeared, and so did the point-chasing behavior.
Today, the potential answerers participate in KudoZ only because they genuinely just want to help.
The askers still need help, but they can still post questions without context.
So, the situation did not improve since yesterday, there is still a lot of time wasted until the asker gets proper help (if at all).
I think the ideas tossed around in this thread were aiming to find a solution that would improve the situation independent of whether there are points involved or not.
I personally wouldn't mind getting rid if the point system, but I think it is probably easier to win ProZ administration over a proposal that would introduce a slight modification while being based on the idea of efficiently and effectively helping the asker, rather than one that involves fundamental changes on many aspects of the site (and besides, have been categorically rejected several times already).
That's why I say it is better separating the issues, and try to solve the problems one by one, step by step.
Katalin
[Edited at 2010-09-30 16:10 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Colin Ryan (X)
Local time: 11:27
Italian to English
+ ...
| Right you are! | Sep 30, 2010 |
Katalin Horvath McClure wrote:
Abolishing the point system is a different idea, and can be discussed in a separate thread.
I suggest we keep this particular discussion focused on the issue of "dealing with lack of context".
Katalin
You're absolutely right of course, Katalin. Thanks for the reminder. I'll open a new thread on this topic. Hope to see you there.
| | |
|
|
|
| Turn 'guidelines' 2.4 and 2.1 back into a ruleZ | Sep 30, 2010 |
and enforce them. Why should rules only be enforced against others and not against Askers? Maybe Askers won't be banned or be punished in any way but at least they'd be put on the right track if they received Mod messages warning them.
Imo, it's that simple. Askers have become a group that seems to have instant immunity from any criticism at all and that is truly baffling. Maybe they generate the most income-I have no idea.
By reinstating the now toothless guidelines to the rules th... See more and enforce them. Why should rules only be enforced against others and not against Askers? Maybe Askers won't be banned or be punished in any way but at least they'd be put on the right track if they received Mod messages warning them.
Imo, it's that simple. Askers have become a group that seems to have instant immunity from any criticism at all and that is truly baffling. Maybe they generate the most income-I have no idea.
By reinstating the now toothless guidelines to the rules they once were ...
2.1 (Guideline): "Help" 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.
and
2.4 (Guideline): Sufficient context must be provided with each question. When there is no context, the subject area and type of document should be indicated. It can be helpful to enter sentences or paragraphs where the term in question occurs.
... most of the issues discussed here would be solved instantly. Wouldn't they? ▲ Collapse
| | | | | While we're at it.... | Sep 30, 2010 |
...not that anything will change, but for the sake of discussion:
writeaway wrote:
2.4 (Guideline): When there is no context....
The notion that there can ever be "no context" should be eliminated, as discussed ad nauseum in the past. So utter piffle such as the above should be deleted whether it is a rule or a guideline.
Otherwise yes, I agree. Although as I said in ryanmalcolm's thread, if we were allowed to enter into a free, frank and robust exchange of views with Askers on matters other than purely the question itself, I can't help feeling improvements would be forthcoming.
| | | | | Yeah, there is no "no context", and yes, it would be good to have it as a rule | Sep 30, 2010 |
"When there is no context" - this should be revised.
Turning Guideline 2.4 into a Rule would be a good solution, assuming the Moderators and/or KudoZ editors are able and allowed to enforce it.
In my view, one recurring problem is the issue of "Linguistic Authority". It is related to this discussion and many others on the site.
ProZ avoids assigning such authority to anybody, it supposed to be exercised by the "community". That is how the "Vote for PRO/no... See more "When there is no context" - this should be revised.
Turning Guideline 2.4 into a Rule would be a good solution, assuming the Moderators and/or KudoZ editors are able and allowed to enforce it.
In my view, one recurring problem is the issue of "Linguistic Authority". It is related to this discussion and many others on the site.
ProZ avoids assigning such authority to anybody, it supposed to be exercised by the "community". That is how the "Vote for PRO/non-PRO" system came to be, by the way. (Previously, KudoZ editors and Moderators were able to change the status immediately).
Over the years, some ProZ Rules were changed into Guidelines, because they were not enforceable - for example, enforcing them would conflict with the "Linguistic Authority" policy, or would conflict with other Rules.
I think a community voting-based exercise (similar to the Pro/non-Pro voting) would not work for the context issue, because it may take too long to accumulate 3 votes, and blocking the question for that long is not a good solution. And if the question is not blocked while the votes are collected than there is no point in doing the voting at all.
So, given the system and the players and situations we have, I would ask ProZ (anybody from Staff listening?) to consider the followings:
1. Turn Guideline 2.4 into a Rule, and reword it without the silly "when there is no context" phrase.
2. Add to it this text (or something similar): "Terms posted without context are considered incomplete."
3. Decide what the administrative action would be for breaking this rule (A= squashing the question, B= de-vetting the question until asker edits it for context).
4. A (If the admin action is squashing): Let Moderators and KudoZ editors know that they can use the "Incomplete Question" reason to squash these questions (It is the 9th radio button in the Squash window)
4.B: (If the admin action is de-vetting): Provide the technical means to Mods and KudoZ Editors for de-vetting (similarly to the de-vetting process used on Forums).
5. Re-think the mantra about denying "Linguistic Authority" - it is controversial. The site is for professional linguists, and KudoZ editors and Moderators go through screening and training about the rules and enforcement. Deciding whether there is context provided or not does not require more linguistic authority than deciding whether the:
- Question includes more than one term
- Unprofessional; lacks literary/technical merit
- Incomplete
(these are just three examples of reasons why a question can be squashed currently by editors or Mods).
By the way, I am not clear about what kind of question would fall into the "Incomplete" category currently? Cut and paste text cut off, or in what sense can a question be incomplete, if it is not for the lack of context?
Katalin
[Edited at 2010-09-30 17:04 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Nesrin
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:27
English to Arabic
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Charlie Bavington wrote: ...not that anything will change, but for the sake of discussion: writeaway wrote:
2.4 (Guideline): When there is no context....
The notion that there can ever be "no context" should be eliminated, as discussed ad nauseum in the past. So utter piffle such as the above should be deleted whether it is a rule or a guideline.
That too, has been the subject of a thread I started a while ago
http://www.proz.com/forum/kudoz/171857-rephrasing_the_kudoz_context_rule_24.html
[Edited at 2010-10-01 09:11 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Groundhog Day | Oct 1, 2010 |
That thread is the same as this one, just with the postings in a slightly different order and sometimes made by different people.
I give up. I know we sometimes re-visit old topics, but this is just a futile waste of everyone's time. Nothing will ever change to any worthwhile extent in the kudoz system. And I've just seen someone defending those who ask hundreds of questions and contribute nothing.
(Edited to avoid misunderstanding - altho it has since been quoted so never mind )
[Edited at 2010-10-01 09:34 GMT]
| | | | Nesrin
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:27
English to Arabic
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Charlie Bavington wrote: That thread is the same as this one, just with the postings in a slightly different order and sometimes made by different people. Interesting how the staff/mod comments are so similar. If I wasn't so firmly convinced that each and every one is most definitely more than capable of independent thought and expressing an individual opinion having given fresh thought to the matter, I'd swear it was copied and pasted.
You're so right, this is scary... I only now re-read that thread - and found that philgoddard had briefly suggested the idea of voting a question down, and even suggested the 3 votes condition!!! Although his idea was a bit harsher - that the question be completely removed then, not just frozen. It must have remained somewehere in the back of my head until I decided to regurgitate it now!
| | | | | Incomplete questions and the role of moderators | Oct 4, 2010 |
Katalin Horvath McClure wrote:
5. Re-think the mantra about denying "Linguistic Authority" - it is controversial. The site is for professional linguists, and KudoZ editors and Moderators go through screening and training about the rules and enforcement. Deciding whether there is context provided or not does not require more linguistic authority than deciding whether the:
- Question includes more than one term
- Unprofessional; lacks literary/technical merit
- Incomplete
(these are just three examples of reasons why a question can be squashed currently by editors or Mods).
By the way, I am not clear about what kind of question would fall into the "Incomplete" category currently? Cut and paste text cut off, or in what sense can a question be incomplete, if it is not for the lack of context?
Back in early 2005 Henry wrote an article on KudoZ - deciding when to squash a question.
This article details a number of specific reasons why a KudoZ question can be removed, including an explanation of each. This includes the following:
- Incomplete question
A question should not be removed for lacking context. However, if a question is truly incomplete (ex: "q" with no context), it may be removed.
For questions lacking in context, ask the asker for more context, but do not make the question invisible.
Regarding moderators, they role is defined as::
to foster and protect the positive, results-oriented atmosphere that makes ProZ.com possible, by:
* Greeting and guiding
Moderators welcome new participants to the forums and KudoZ, and help them to properly use and benefit from what is available to them at ProZ.com.
* Enforcing site rules
In conjunction with other moderators and site staff members, moderators help to maintain a constructive environment by carrying out enforcement of the site's rules in a consistent and structured manner.
Moderators (and staff members) do not act as linguistic authorities in the site, and this definition is as old as the moderator program itself. There are no plans to modify this criterion, as it has proved over the years to provide a solid foundation for the community.
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » (Yet another) suggestion to deal with lack of context | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
