pleasure of \'disagree\'

To help the asker, even if I have no answer, I may disagree to orientate his choice and avoid him to choose a wrong translation.Even without explanation (but I try hard to give one!).

I thank all the translators who disagree when I have myself to choose an answer. The rest is a matter of politeness.





I could not agree more with you, Marie. A neutral or a disagree is not directed at the \"answerer\", it is aimed at guiding/advising the asker on why this or that answer may not be the best one nor the most appropriate, \"making allowance\" for the lack of time and context available to the person giving the grade. Of course, there maybe some subjectivity involved (whatever the reason maybe - the healthier the better regarding the style or choice of words.



It is very important for the \"answer provider\" to be ready - was going to say to \"face rejection\", but I will say to accept the \"harsh reality\" that his/her answer may not be the best or is not even right or just plain wrong... (and swallow his/her pride and put aside his/her cumbersome ego). Nobody is perfect . We all learn from our mistakes, and I would add everybody learns from someone else\'s mistake. That is why for the sake of guiding and informing the asker it is important for everybody to leave his/her answers that have received \"disagree or neutral\" grades but that were valid answers so that they can be used as reference points that will help the asker to make his way through the difficult process of choosing what works best in the context in question. Removing an answer when it has received a couple of neutral or diagree with explanations is not fair to the asker. It is not fair either to the peer commenting and to the other members for it eliminates some evidence that may strengthen the case for the following answers.



The more people disagree or give neutral grades with a decent explanation the better to help the asker make up his mind or see something he had not understood or learn something new that he may or may not use later on. I also think that if one can disagree not only should he have a good explanation/reason for why but also it would be only fair if he/she provided a \"better\" answer than the one he/she just commented on.



But I would also say that people should also think twice before giving an \"agree\". It is not always possible to justify or explain why we agree nor do we always have the time, but it is as important to think twice before agreeing and is it before diagreeing.



The first answer is not always the best. And if one has agreed to a first answer, there is nothing wrong in checking the question later on to check and grade other answers - some maybe better.



It feels good to give a good answer and it is even nicer to see that other people like it or better that it is selected by the asker. But the best part of the game should be the \"exercise\", the process involved in looking for words/explanations/solutions that fit best the questions and help a peer. It is not to be the fastest at using an electronic dictionary or quoting \"Google the Bible\".







The \"but du jeu\" is not to make fun of others, point fingers at some or hide behind a computer to vent daily frustrations or exteriorize ill-adjusted repressed personalities (as one person brilliantly put it above - the \"bad people\" do it to themselves since it is \"so\" public and that the majority of us who still work for the \"good\".... can see it).



Jean-Luc



PS: As for the disagree-able comment -[ not to point fingers at anyone ]that prompted Gilles (and I can only agree since I was the target a few times) to make the initial comment on this forum, I do not know what the problem is with this \"disagreer\". Some people always seem to enjoy making negative comments that do not even help the asker. I do not know what is the best solution to deal with such nasty-mindedness. I would tend to react immediately with some harsh words to direct the attention on the \"evil one\", hoping that the bright light of a public forum would push him away in a dark recess. That seemed to have worked for a few days , and just as you may expect some improvement from a mental patient after shock therapy, there have been some signs of improved sociability that unfortunately always ended up ruined by some surprisingly unpleasant relapses.



Not sure it is best to ignore the bad apple in the basket. Altough I agree with one peer who said that the Proz community is not blind...and that people making nasty comments hurt themselves in the end. Still that give them ample time/opportunity to do some damage and intimidate others from \"risking\" an answer even if good.



I have been too long. Sorry. when I think I had told myself I should not comment on this topic .



▲ Collapse