| વિષયના પાનાઓ: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16] > | KudoZ: should "rubbish" help be appreciated? દોર પોસ્ટ કરનાર: IanW (X)
|
|---|
| Not at all, Charlie | Jul 27, 2006 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
And then I coulda put it after sinister 
That'll teach me to try to use a short, light-hearted way to draw people's attention to the fact that while the good folks on this thread are trying to think of ways to raise the quality of kudoz answers, which will almost necessarily involve a fall in the quantity of those answers, some other equally good (if perhaps misguided?) folk on another thread are proposing a change which can only logically lead, since money is involved, albeit indirectly, to an increase in the quantity of answers and, it is more than reasonable to assume, a concomitent drop in the overall quality of those answers as answers strive to earn a nickel or two. Or, in a nutshell, more "rubbish".
And how, after all, could a reasonable suggestion from an (as far as I know) individual with no more (or less) influence on the the site than me possibly be viewed as genuinely "sinister"? You don't seriously think that I was seriously suggesting a plot, do you? 
Nope. But experience suggests that there are some who might take it seriously. Just making sure our position is not misunderstood. Thanks for posting!
| | | | Klaus Herrmann 
જર્મની
Local time: 23:32
સભ્ય (2002)
અંગ્રેજી થી જર્મન
+ ...
| Yes, bring back the old rules | Jul 27, 2006 |
Bringing back the old rules (and enforcing them) would go a long way. Actually, they merely state what common sense would tell one, in the first place. (OTOH, if I had known these rules have been discarded, I could have contributed so many Urdu translations...)
Charlie Bavington wrote:
a) if you think an answer is rubbish, then hit "disagree".
b) if you think a question is rubbish, vote it "non-pro".
At least the EN->DE SC doesn't seem to appreciate that. If people would spent the time that goes into retaliation for a disagree on reading the question and research prior to answering, there would be a decent increase in quality.
| | | | | Quality through peer comments | Jul 27, 2006 |
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.
Would ... See more 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.
Would there be any support among the community for this approach?
Regards,
Enrique ▲ Collapse
| | | | Kim Metzger
મેક્સિકો
Local time: 15:32
જર્મન થી અંગ્રેજી
| Now we're getting somewhere | Jul 27, 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.
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.
Great concept, Enrique! In strong, healthy communities this would work. That is, in communities where the tone is friendly, welcoming and professional, where a community has formed in which the tone is set by members who are decent professionals earnestly seeking to find the best translation for the asker and the glossary.
Do you have any specific ideas on how peer comments would be given "more bite"?
| | |
|
|
|
| What do you mean by "bite"? | Jul 27, 2006 |
Enrique wrote:
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.
Do you mean that if a an answerer consistently receives linguistically justifiable disagrees from the language pair peer group, then the Mod (who may, of course, have no expertise in some fields) will take the peer group's view as valid and take action against the answerer?
I posted a couple of disagrees today, and got the predictable "the dictionary says it's OK" response. Ah well...
| | | |
Kim Metzger wrote:
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.
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.
Great concept, Enrique! In strong, healthy communities this would work. That is, in communities where the tone is friendly, welcoming and professional, where a community has formed in which the tone is set by members who are decent professionals earnestly seeking to find the best translation for the asker and the glossary.
Do you have any specific ideas on how peer comments would be given "more bite"?
Thanks Kim, I believe our community would be up to the task.
Details could be worked out. I would first like to know whether or not KudoZ users would be in support of this type of approach.
Kind regards,
Enrique
| | | | Klaus Herrmann
જર્મની
Local time: 23:32
સભ્ય (2002)
અંગ્રેજી થી જર્મન
+ ...
| Shades of grey? | Jul 27, 2006 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
...any specific ideas on how peer comments would be given "more bite"?
What if each disagree would turn an answer into a lighter grey? (Not to an extent that the answer becomes invisible, but it certainly has an impact).
| | | | df49f (X)
ફ્રાંસ
Local time: 23:32
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.
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.
Details could be worked out. I would first like to know whether or not KudoZ users would be in support of this type of approach.
Kind regards,
Enrique
Enrique,
in response to your question, I for one would support an approach of this type, in principle.
I also support Charlie's suggestion that no one should feel reluctant to post disagrees on rubbish answers or vote a question non-pro whenever appropriate - too many 100% incorrect answers get chosen and entered into the glossary, simply because they weren't flagged by the red disagrees they deserved (I'm not afraid of either and make ample use of them whenever deserved, to the point that it has earned me a reputation of "nasty b...tch" in my language pairs... since I don't really care if I'm popular or not, liked or disliked, it hasn't deterred me from doing so, but I can understand why many would be reluctant to use these existing quality-control tools).
And I also support the re-integration of the now-deleted "how-to instructions/recommendations" to askers and answerers.
dominique
[Edited at 2006-07-27 15:18]
| | |
|
|
|
Enrique wrote:
Thanks Kim, I believe our community would be up to the task.
Details could be worked out. I would first like to know whether or not KudoZ users would be in support of this type of approach.
Kind regards,
Enrique
Yes, I would definitely support this type of approach. It would also be good (IMHO) to re-instate the rules that were mentioned earlier in this thread.
| | | | | Thank you, Ian, for opening this interesting thread! | Jul 27, 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.
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.
Yes, I would definitively second such an idea.
Lately, I have been unnerved by some "rubbish" answerers, but I didn't see any way to get rid of them. Getting disagrees doesn't seem to bother them.:-( And I have the feeling that many people don't even mind anymore to disagree...
That would be great, indeed!
[Bearbeitet am 2006-07-27 19:37]
| | | | | yes, Enrique | Jul 27, 2006 |
Definitely in support, but solutions should target both main KudoZ problems (questions and answers), and be clearly explained on the appropriate site places and by email to all before implementing them. Automatic operation by a bot.
First suggestions for a balanced system:
1) Objections to questions or answers could be independent from current agree-neutral-disagree options (to be kept as they are), and entered by selecting a reason from a dropdown menu.
2)... See more Definitely in support, but solutions should target both main KudoZ problems (questions and answers), and be clearly explained on the appropriate site places and by email to all before implementing them. Automatic operation by a bot.
First suggestions for a balanced system:
1) Objections to questions or answers could be independent from current agree-neutral-disagree options (to be kept as they are), and entered by selecting a reason from a dropdown menu.
2) Two-phase effect of objections:
a) Invalidate (no points possible = no carrot), if X (members? and/or empowered?) peers object to a question or an answer. At this stage, "perpetrator" is notified so s/he can cancel/hide the question or answer in question.
b) Penalize (minus points = stick hitting) if X grows to become Y.
3) As from a set date, such objections could also be posted to closed questions, and have retroactive effects. (BTW, no closing possible before 24 hours)
A comprehensive discussion of features and details should take place, with polls (preferably by email, to involve as many colleagues as possible) when designing the new beast.
Best regards,
Pablo ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Maybe.......... | Jul 28, 2006 |
Just started wondering what would happen if, instead of (just?) limiting the number of questions you can ask, ProZ were to limit the number of questions you could answer...?
What would happen?
If they knew they couldn't answer everything that moves............
Would answerers think twice about firing off answers haphazardly?
Would they stick more to their fields/languages?
Would it slow down, considerably, the 'Kudoz race'? (Hi, Ki... See more Just started wondering what would happen if, instead of (just?) limiting the number of questions you can ask, ProZ were to limit the number of questions you could answer...?
What would happen?
If they knew they couldn't answer everything that moves............
Would answerers think twice about firing off answers haphazardly?
Would they stick more to their fields/languages?
Would it slow down, considerably, the 'Kudoz race'? (Hi, Kim)
Would the quality of answers improve?
i.e. Wouldn't 'rubbish' tend to disappear?
Just wondering.......
Andy
BTW, make it impossible to close questions before 36 hours are up.
BTW. I promise to stop reading this de Bono rubbish.....
Updated to remove a typical 5 yr old's spelling mistake.
[Edited at 2006-07-28 14:44] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Reliability Ratio | Jul 28, 2006 |
Kirill Semenov wrote:
The idea was discussed before, still I believe making the reliability ratio public and visible throughout the site, up to adding another `Leaders' board sorted according to the ratio of `Won / All' answers may help to solve the problem.
Absolutely, Kirill! I still think (and always have) that making the Reliability Ratios public would be a great help in choosing the best answer, and would probably have an impact on the amount of "rubbish" answers, as well as on the quality of the KOG.
On this thread, many people have bitched about new-comers and non-professional translators who ask a question and then chose the answer with the most agrees, even when the correct answer was right there. If those new-comers and non-professional askers had access to the reliability ratio, then I am hopeful that they'd be more likely to chose the answer that had the highest reliability ratio, rather than the one that had the largest number of agrees.
This would also go a long way to defeating the "gangs" that seem to roam some language pairs, where groups of people seem to have pacts to always agree with each other, even when the answers are flat wrong. This dishonest tactic would be patently obvious to the asker if the reliability ratio for each answerer were on prominent display.
Of course, your suggestion will probably meet with the same fate that it usually does, every time you suggest it, since it seems there are a very few vociferous and powerful members who are extremely concerned about having their reliability ratios exposed to public view, but I did want to express my support for your idea (yet again!), since I see that it would be a large part of the solution to many of the problems that have been highlighted on this thread.
| | | | | The mess in the KOG, ... and the RR solution. | Jul 28, 2006 |
Kirill Semenov wrote:
Still, the mess in the KOG makes me feel frustrated (I assume many others here feel the same), and I'm all for a campaign to clear the Augean stables - and, first of all, to prevent not-registered and non-experienced users from adding anything to the glossaries. The sooner they're prohibited to do so the better. Only moderators can edit glossary entries now, but I think that moderators of each language pair can find many volunteers who might help them to tidy up the old glossary entries and to monitor the new entries made every day.
Another great idea, Kirill! I don't know if I'd go as far as to prevent non-registered users from adding entries to the glossary, but at the very least I'd limit that privilege to people who have a certain level of (yes, you guessed it!) RELIABILITY RATIO!!
As many here have pointed out, just because someone is a member does not mean that they are skillful as a translator! Also, many of us who are NOT members have very good reasons for that.
And as others have also pointed out, neither does a degree or diploma in translation necessarily make someone a good translator, just as a degree in engineering does not necessarily make you a good engineer.
So, my point is that the right to clear out the rubbish in the KOG should not depend if you had a few dollars to pay for membership, or if you have a nicely framed degree hanging on the wall, but rather on whether you have demonstrated a good level of translation skills and knowledge in your fields. And as you and I both know, Kirill, the very best way to determine that here on Proz.com, is through the reliability ratio. In fact, it is the ONLY way.
And not just the right to clear out the rubbish that is already there, but also the right to add new entries.
After all, even though this thread (before it was hijacked) is about rubbish questions and rubbish answers, the REAL point of Proz.com is neither the questions nor the answers: It is the KOG! So I think that ONLY those who have demonstrated their skills should be allowed to add entries to the KOG. That would go a long way towards preventing any "rubbish answers" that might still occur from getting into the KOG database.
| | | | | Peer comments can backfire, if you don't have friends in high places! | Jul 28, 2006 |
Enrique wrote:
It is not part of the role of KudoZ moderators to act as linguistic authorities, and in this case there is nothing the moderator could do as such.
If you feel an answer is wrong you can use the peer-comments feature to formulate your opinion, including your linguistic reasons.
Don't count in it, Enrique!
I tried doing exactly what you say, and for my troubles I was temporarily banned from agreeing or disagreeing, believe it or not!
I had noticed someone playing the "guessing game" on the ES-EL and EL-ES pair, and I started posting disagrees with technical reasons why the answers were not only wrong but just plain nuts, plus a request to "please stop guessing" in each case. After about 20 or 30 of those, I suddenly found that I had been banned from agreeing, and not by the moderator from the ES-EL pair, as you might except, but by a moderator from some Arabic pair! I guess that the Arabic mod was a friend of the guy I was trying to stop, or some such, and got a bee in his bonnet about my hassling his pal.
Fortunately, the mod on the ES-EL pair reinstated my ability to agree/disagree, and told the "guesser" to get in line and stop guessing.
So, just a word to the wise: To keep rubbish answers out of Proz and out of the KOG, it is not always enough to disagree with linguistic and technical cause, if the polluter happens to be buddies with a moderator.
| | | | | વિષયના પાનાઓ: < [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? | 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 » |
| | Pastey |
|---|
Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
