| विषय में पृष्ठों की संख्या: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | Confession of a KudoZ limits supporter विषय पोस्ट करनेवाला व्यक्ति: Nikki Graham
|
|---|
Steffen Walter 
जर्मनी
Local time: 08:38
सदस्य (2002)
अंग्रेजी से जर्मन
+ ...
| Agree entirely, Ian | Aug 1, 2006 |
Ian Winick wrote:
I for one never use the glossary, but always look up the KudoZ discussion in question. Even if the glossary was generally perceived as being reliable - which it clearly isn't - I'd never want to take it at face value.
IMHO it is always much better to look "behind the scenes", i.e. to open and study the question connected with the glossary entry that you deem relevant to your own context/job etc.
Having said that, and I may be splitting hairs here, you DO use the glossary all the time (even if only as a starting point). How would you otherwise be able to look up the question you are interested in?
Steffen
| | | | Vito Smolej
जर्मनी
Local time: 08:38
सदस्य (2004)
अंग्रेजी से स्लोवेनी
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | THE BIG GLOSSARY CLEAN-UP - what about wikiWords | Aug 1, 2006 |
Steffen Walter wrote:... So why not define "THE BIG GLOSSARY CLEAN-UP" as one of the medium-term ProZ.com objectives, and dedicate the necessary resources to it?
Hi Steffen: straying some more...my hope was that Wikiwords would take care of that. Unfortunately we're still wellcome with the following delightful message:
Our focus now is on the mechanisms,
and we are not concerning ourselves
with content--or quality--yet.
Huh?!! Going for a perfect product, that's useless?
PS: glossary or no glossary: when looking up a tough source words on Google, it warms my heart to get ProZ hits also - other language pairs but, hey, suits me to a t. The record was a word having just 20 hits, 3 of them on Proz.
[Edited at 2006-08-01 11:52]
| | | | Nikki Graham
यूनाइटेड किंगडम
Local time: 07:38
स्पेनी से अंग्रेजी
विषय आरंभकर्ता | glossary entries and clean-up | Aug 1, 2006 |
Steffen Walter wrote:
IMHO it is always much better to look "behind the scenes", i.e. to open and study the question connected with the glossary entry that you deem relevant to your own context/job etc.
Just to clarify, when I talk about the quality of the glossary and glossary entries, I am actually referring not only to the answer chosen and entered into the KOG, but to all the answers provided. It is, unfortunately, not unusual for all answers to be (IHMO) "off the mark", especially in the tech and engineering section.
As regards the glossary clean-up idea, perhaps you and/or Andy would like to post a separate topic so it has more chances of getting noticed.
| | | | Vito Smolej
जर्मनी
Local time: 08:38
सदस्य (2004)
अंग्रेजी से स्लोवेनी
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | instead of glossary police | Aug 1, 2006 |
... what about "Top of the poops", or "Scarlett Letters"? The German "Genial daneben" is I think the closest to what I mean.
Some answers would really deserve to be shown to a more general public. So instead of "disagree" to a KudoZ answer, one could suggest a "penalty box" for a stupid or useless answer. Eventually they are all hilariously funny. A splendid way for us all to relax...
[Edited at 2006-08-01 12:22]
| | |
|
|
|
| Out of the frying pan into the fire? | Aug 1, 2006 |
Vito Smolej wrote:
Steffen Walter wrote:... So why not define "THE BIG GLOSSARY CLEAN-UP" as one of the medium-term ProZ.com objectives, and dedicate the necessary resources to it?
Hi Steffen: straying some more...my hope was that Wikiwords would take care of that. Unfortunately we're still wellcome with the following delightful message:
My impression is that Wikiwords has more quality problems than KudoZ. This is not only because of the multilingual approach.
I think the main problem is that it is focused on concepts instead of context. It asks contributors to add definitions and example sentences, but this is often ignored. And even where they are included, they often create more questions than they answer e.g. where the entry is inaccurately defined or actually consists of two concepts (and the entry page does not contain enough information for anyone to remedy this).
For example the present concept of the day "malpractice", which sometimes means deliberate abuse of power (e.g. by a public official) or sometimes a mistake which was not deliberate (e.g. by a doctor).
KudoZ at least has the benefit that it is relatively easy to track what discussion has gone on so far, and this helps me to choose a different solution from the original asker.
[Edited at 2006-08-01 12:13]
| | | | OlafK
यूनाइटेड किंगडम
Local time: 07:38
अंग्रेजी से जर्मन
+ ...
| it's not just about glossaries | Aug 1, 2006 |
I'm one of those people who used to enjoy Kudoz and the forum posts. On very rare occasions I still ask questions or consult the glossaries. But I almost never answer questions anymore because most people who post them seem to ask a lot more than they answer, sometimes very easy questions.
One such case I saw today: the question was an extremely easy one and this person had asked over 1300 questions and only answered about 40. When I checked their profile I saw that they live in Germany a... See more I'm one of those people who used to enjoy Kudoz and the forum posts. On very rare occasions I still ask questions or consult the glossaries. But I almost never answer questions anymore because most people who post them seem to ask a lot more than they answer, sometimes very easy questions.
One such case I saw today: the question was an extremely easy one and this person had asked over 1300 questions and only answered about 40. When I checked their profile I saw that they live in Germany and their word price is a third of mine. I doubt that the person in question is a proper translator (you can't make a living on those rates) and helping them would be another nail in the coffin of our profession. I also looked up the profiles of those who did answer the question and their rates were equally low. Just one case but it's symptomatic of the whole website.
Proz never had a particularly good reputation but some years ago there was still hope for improvement. I agree with Irene that it's a commerical enterprise and quality isn't a major concern, I'm afraid. There are alternatives though, like translators' networks etc. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Mats Wiman
स्वीडन
Local time: 08:38
सदस्य (2000)
जर्मन से स्वीडी
+ ...
की याद में | Thank you Nikki! | Aug 1, 2006 |
Nikki Graham wrote:
And the answer is really very simple and can be summed up in just one word: quality.
To believe that restricting the number of questions would bring quality is just as futile as asking half of the market stands to be eliminated from a market square in the belief that this would improve the average quality of the vendor products.
See your own comment below (***)
KudoZ is a great idea. The glossary resulting from KudoZ is a great idea too. Easy to use, easy to understand. But full of ****.
Very many glossaries are full of **** and are mostly impossible to evaluate. The great, great difference is that the KOG is the only one in the world, which is traceable (who asked, who answered, who agreed, who disagreed AND what was the context).
This is very valuable and also very helpful when judging the quality of the answers.
It has been suggested by those who do not support limits that more questions will improve the glossary, the more the merrier approach.
This is not true without qualification. Good answers AND bad answers will of course BOTH increase.
KudoZ points would become meaningless; the total would reflect the time spent researching for others rather than actually working.
This insinuation is very popular and therefore real. I for one was asked "Do you have time to translate?". I did. I did KudoZ
during pauses, early mornings, late nights and during weekends.
On the contrary, more questions would invite more answerers and they would, just as many of us, have the same mixture of good and bad.
I think that the harm this does is that it damages the reputation of Proz.com as a professional site for translators and it renders vast chunks of the glossary worthless.
Disagree. Just as with the fact that many a member isn't a professional, the percentage of so-called professionals is not the deciding factor.
ProZ.com is so great because at ProZ.com very good professionals can be found, not because everyone is good.
We KudoZ limits supporters actually want things to improve for everyone’s sake. We make our suggestions not to be horrible to newbies and beginners, but in an attempt to ensure that Proz.com remains a site for professionals, a place we can not only be proud of, but which we will also want to continue to support with our time, effort and money.
Good intention. Your own comment below contradicts the instrumentality of limiting questions. Other measures must be used in order to improve quality.
I could suggest 'exclusion votes' of some kind. If, let's say 3 translators with a minimum of say 100 KudoZ in the language pair at hand would tick "Exclude this question and all its answers", then the question and its answers would be transferred to a waste bin (retrievable).
(***)
Frankly, from what I have seen recently, limiting questions is not the solution. It is Proz.com’s philosophy that needs addressing.....
What needs to be addressed IMHO is attitudes and the atmosphere.
If some members continually tell others that they are 'more equal than others', THAT makes people get fed up with an activity that can be so interesting, rewarding and profitable if you apply the principle 'live and let live'. Many of us have experienced it and still do ( http://www.proz.com/translation-articles/articles/509/1/Confessions-of-a-'KudoZ-point-grabber' ).
Prerequisite is though, that: You refrain from judging the asker, the answerers, the peers and their respective motives, qualifications, ownership of dictionaries, being navite speaker etc. and concentrate on the original fantastic idea with KudoZ:
A retrievable assistance system for words and phrases - sometimes containing interesting LINGUISTIC discussions
and not a battling ground where some are better than others.
[Edited at 2006-08-01 12:48]
| | | | IanW (X)
Local time: 08:38
जर्मन से अंग्रेजी
+ ...
Mats Wiman wrote:
(Nikki's quote): It has been suggested by those who do not support limits that more questions will improve the glossary, the more the merrier approach.
This is not true without qualification. Good answers AND bad answers will of course BOTH increase.
I really don't think so. I've lost count of the valuable colleagues who simply felt they were wasting their time and left. If the number of questions doubles, that means that there is - deep breath, Mats - twice as much crap to wade through. Not a positive development as far as I am concerned.
Prerequisite is though, that you refrain from judging the asker, the answerers, the peers and their respective motives, qualifications, ownership of dictionaries, being navite speaker etc. and concentrate on the original fantastic idea with KudoZ:
A retrievable assistance system for words and phrases - sometimes containing interesting LINGUISTIC discussions
and not a battling ground where some are better than others.
A few points on this:
(1) Assistance is the key word - "rubbish answers" are no assistance at all
(2) Some ARE better than others - and only a fool would think otherwise - knowing your limits is a part of being a professional. Which, for example, is why I steer clear of technical questions, because I can barely change a plug.
(3) I suspect that if the points system were abolished, many of the altruistic helpers would follow suit immediately
[Edited at 2006-08-01 13:43]
| | |
|
|
|
CMJ_Trans (X)
Local time: 08:38
फ्रांसीसी से अंग्रेजी
+ ...
| Doubtless this will be squashed but here goes.... | Aug 1, 2006 |
This, and all the other exchanges about the Proz experience that have been going on for the past few days all follow the same pattern.
Well-intentioned people are genuinely trying to help with useful and interesting suggestions.
In return, site staff and moderators toe the party line and find every excuse in the world for maintaining the status quo.
The status quo is killing Proz, which was originally a great idea.
Wake up you guys and do something (not simply messing ar... See more This, and all the other exchanges about the Proz experience that have been going on for the past few days all follow the same pattern.
Well-intentioned people are genuinely trying to help with useful and interesting suggestions.
In return, site staff and moderators toe the party line and find every excuse in the world for maintaining the status quo.
The status quo is killing Proz, which was originally a great idea.
Wake up you guys and do something (not simply messing around with the limits on the number of questions - talk about cataplasms on wooden legs!) .
Organise a powwow or a working party of people with ideas and a true awareness of the problem before it is too late.
But on your own heads be it if you do nothing - and no, this is not a threat, it is a word to the wise! ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Number source? | Aug 1, 2006 |
Nikki Graham wrote:
In recent threads, people like myself (apparently 22% of the community) have been called
Nikki, was there a survey? Where does this figure come from? I'd be interested in looking at the numbers. Thanks.
| | | | | That would be brilliant! | Aug 1, 2006 |
Vito Smolej wrote:
... what about "Top of the poops", or "Scarlett Letters"? The German "Genial daneben" is I think the closest to what I mean.
Some answers would really deserve to be shown to a more general public. So instead of "disagree" to a KudoZ answer, one could suggest a "penalty box" for a stupid or useless answer. Eventually they are all hilariously funny. A splendid way for us all to relax...
[Edited at 2006-08-01 12:22]
Today we had somebody asking how to translate eyelashes into Italian! What a waste of time!
| | | | Nikki Graham
यूनाइटेड किंगडम
Local time: 07:38
स्पेनी से अंग्रेजी
विषय आरंभकर्ता | Explaining the apparent contradiction | Aug 1, 2006 |
Mats Wiman wrote:
Your own comment below contradicts the instrumentality of limiting questions. Other measures must be used in order to improve quality.
Frankly, from what I have seen recently, limiting questions is not the solution. It is Proz.com’s philosophy that needs addressing.....
What needs to be addressed IMHO is attitudes and the atmosphere.
If some members continually tell others that they are 'more equal than others', THAT makes people get fed up with an activity that can be so interesting, rewarding and profitable if you apply the principle 'live and let live'. Many of us have experienced it and still do.
The point I am trying to make is this:
Limiting the number of questions people can ask is one way of trying to improve the overall quality of questions and answers, but if Proz.com were truly a site for professional translators, then we would not see the questions or answers some of us are complaining about except on very rare occasions.
Does that make my apparent contradictory statement any clearer?
I know you do not agree with me, Mats, but I have a right to voice my opinion as much as you do, I believe.
| | |
|
|
|
Nikki Graham
यूनाइटेड किंगडम
Local time: 07:38
स्पेनी से अंग्रेजी
विषय आरंभकर्ता |
Vito Smolej wrote:
instead of glossary police ... what about "Top of the poops", or "Scarlett Letters"? The German "Genial daneben" is I think the closest to what I mean.
Some answers would really deserve to be shown to a more general public. So instead of "disagree" to a KudoZ answer, one could suggest a "penalty box" for a stupid or useless answer. Eventually they are all hilariously funny. A splendid way for us all to relax...
This is a community based on respect and goodwill. Some users may feel they are too good to share a common space with other users, but mocking people or laughing at them is not in line with ProZ.com's philosophy.
Please have a look at rule http://www.proz.com/siterules/kudoz_answ/3.7#3.7
Regards,
Enrique Cavalitto
| | | | TonyTK
जर्मन से अंग्रेजी
+ ...
Vito Smolej wrote:
... The German "Genial daneben" is I think the closest to what I mean.
... there's no need to lower the standard of debate by bringing German television into it.
| | | | | विषय में पृष्ठों की संख्या: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Confession of a KudoZ limits supporter | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
