| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] | It is now possible to "flag" KudoZ answerers Thread poster: Enrique Cavalitto
|
|---|
| Free choice anyone? | Mar 27, 2009 |
by the same coin,
why one has to eat bananas if (s)he can't stand them?
The fact that they are on the table does not imply one is forced to eat them. Without opting IN or OUT you force people to eat bananas. With the opting option, either IN or OUT, the bananas stay on the table for those, who can't live without them
| | | | | As a KudoZ moderator | Mar 27, 2009 |
I'd go first for Katalin's idea: scrap it from public use.
If this is not Staff's decision, then I'd ask for an opt-in feature, as Nikki suggests.
KudoZ moderators in very active sub-communities (not the case of mine) have to deal with all kinds of feelings between participants. I have good reasons to think that not everybody is well intended and willing to track (or flag) only interesting answerers.
Claudia
| | | | | From other thread - still no answer ! | Mar 27, 2009 |
Özden Arıkan wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
It is not a question of respect, or lack of it. It is firstly a question of attempting to understand what those concerns actually are. Which is why I said twice in my post that I may have missed something. It was an open invitation to tell me what I may have missed.
You can find your answers in this thread: http://www.proz.com/forum/kudoz/130070-it_is_now_possible_to_flag_kudoz_answerers.html I too would like to ask we respect the format Attila has suggested -and we seem to have accepted- and post our preferences in this thread, while posting discussions in the other one. (With cross-linking, if you like.)
OK, well assuming you are referring to your own points, which are well expressed and I think summarised with Now, call me paranoid if you like because I do not want people whose identity cannot be known be given the capability of tracking my activities. But I have every right not to want this. Don't you agree ?
Then yes, I do agree, but in that case, don't post publicly available activities on a website with unrestricted access.
My short response to your position is people can already track your activities.
All Proz is doing is providing a way to make it easier.
In terms of the concept of data privacy nothing has changed. The same data is private. The same data is public. The way to access some data has been made easier. That is all.
You were a mod so you know how strangely some people can behave, but I recall a handful of people in the Fr-Eng pair a few years ago who must have spent ages "manually" stalking in each other, purely to disagree and argue in kudoz.
This feature will be a godsend to people like that.
But that is not a privacy issue, and neither is it a reason not to have it. You don't ban tools (in a widest possible sense) because some people use them in improper ways. You regulate the how the tool is used.
Now, that would probably require more mods at a time when they are shipping out in droves, so the timing is probably rubbish.
But really, I wanted someone to tell me how this is a privacy issue, and I'm still not getting it
| | | | Paul Cohen 
Greenland
Local time: 13:40
German to English
+ ...
| Eyeballs glued to virtually every click | Mar 27, 2009 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: In terms of the concept of data privacy nothing has changed. The same data is private. The same data is public. The way to access some data has been made easier. That is all. (...) I wanted someone to tell me how this is a privacy issue, and I'm still not getting it
You're right, Charlie. This doesn't fundamentally change the information that is publicly available. It merely makes it possible to track an answerer's every move from the comfort of your e-mail inbox.
One could argue that a logical extension of this proposal would be to make it possible to track people's KudoZ 'agrees', 'disagrees' and neutral comments. We could also make it possible to generate statistics on how often members have agreed or disagreed with certain answerers -- or asked for more context, or made snide remarks about Google.
The next thing you know, we'll be able to receive an email when certain members make forum entries, too. And perhaps notifications could be sent out when members edit their forum entries, just to make sure that we have the most up-to-date info.
Other tracking tools could be introduced. While we're at it, why not make it possible to receive an e-mail when certain people update their profiles?
It's also possible on the profiles to see when members have logged on or logged off, so we could create a function that sends out e-mails to allow us to track when our friends (and enemies) have logged on and off.
All this information is in the public domain.
But it would normally be a full-time job to keep track of it all!
One thing to keep in mind is that just because something is technologically possible doesn't necessarily mean that it should be done. You have to draw the line somewhere.
I think it's perfectly understandable that many members have reservations about being tracked.
Getting back to the specific KudoZ answerer tracking function. In some cases, answerers may be very flattered that certain people are tracking their movements. Or they may be incredibly intimidated -- or even outraged.
I would say that if this KudoZ feature is going to be retained, there are good arguments for making answerer tracking a question of mutual consent. What adults do behind closed doors is their own business. However, if someone is going to have their eyeballs glued to virtually every click that I make, I want to know about it and have the option of rejecting it.
| | |
|
|
|
Özden Arıkan
Germany
Local time: 16:40
Member
English to Turkish
+ ...
| Wrong assumption :-) | Mar 28, 2009 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
OK, well assuming you are referring to your own points, which are well expressed and I think summarised with...
Why do you assume, Charlie? When in doubt, please just ask, don't make assumptions. Assumptions mean murder in the results-oriented express. And, see? Yours was wrong. I was trying to cajole you to read the whole thread, where, I still believe, you'll find all the answers you need. If I were referring to my points, I would have linked you to my posting, not to the main page of this thread.
Yes, it is indeed true that you can track anyone's activities with the existing features if you have enough time and are... ehmm... disturbed enough. And...? Your argument that this new feature is necessary and useful is....?
[Edited to correct the quote.]
[Edited at 2009-03-28 13:54 GMT]
| | | | | Wasted effort | Mar 28, 2009 |
Özden Arıkan wrote:
And, see? Yours was wrong. I was trying to cajole you to read the whole thread, where, I still believe, you'll find all the answers you need.
And if you had read the whole thread, I daresay you would have noticed I had already posted at the end of page 4, that being a fairly heavy hint that I was at some vague level aware of the existence of the thread and the information contained therein up to that point.
Hence my foolish assumption that you must surely have been referring solely to the points you made specifically, perhaps thinking I had not devoted enough of my attention to them - they did, after all, as I said before, provide a neat summary of what had gone before.
Yes, it is indeed true that you can track anyone's activities with the existing features if you have enough time and are... ehmm... disturbed enough. And...? Your argument that this new feature is necessary and useful is....?
I was unaware that I needed one. The way it looks to me is this feature is going to remain unless the opponents drum up enough support and decent arguments to cause that situation to change.
My point in this thread (well, the other one, really) has been simply to question whether squealing the word "privacy" is a valid argument against the feature, given that the amount of information in the public domain remains as it was before. That is all. Unfortunately, despite Paul's valiant effort, I remain unconvinced that a hue and cry in the name of "privacy" is a valid counter-argument. I am still open to persuasion.
That does not mean that I unequivocally support the feature. I would say let's try it and see what happens. Like almost anything else, this is a device that could be used for "good" or "bad"
It may be that it is like the car, mainly used for "good", although a few "bad" users are prohibited from using it
It may be that is is like the gun, which is too often used for "bad" and really has to be kept out of general circulation for the greater good (in many countries, anyway).
Let's see which it is with this feature - unlike with the gun, nobody is likely to suffer anything worse that a bruised ego and some flaming, if the worst comes to the worst, and Proz might lose a member or two.
(Interesting to note that p.1 here is all "hurrah for the new feature" and then it all heads dramtically south from p.2 )
| | | | | Interesting, indeed. | Mar 28, 2009 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: (Interesting to note that p.1 here is all "hurrah for the new feature" and then it all heads dramatically south from p.2 )
I was on the verge, back then on p. 1, to post again and comment on that very fact. I was going to write something like, "How nice that we can finally get a helpful new feature that everyone seems to like."
Pp. 2-5 then occurred.
| | | | | 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 » It is now possible to "flag" KudoZ answerers | 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 » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
