Proposal for an easy way to add terms to KOG Thread poster: Roland Nienerza
|
|---|
I hope I did not miss anything and am not shipping coals to Newcastle. -
This is the situation.
A couple of hours ago I checked in Term Search for "pieux énergétiques" from French to any language and for any field - with zero findings across the board. - http://www.proz.com/?sp=ksearch
So I had to check it out over Google, as my dicitionaries ignore the term too. ... See more I hope I did not miss anything and am not shipping coals to Newcastle. -
This is the situation.
A couple of hours ago I checked in Term Search for "pieux énergétiques" from French to any language and for any field - with zero findings across the board. - http://www.proz.com/?sp=ksearch
So I had to check it out over Google, as my dicitionaries ignore the term too. - As this is a relevant item for renewable energy management, I would have liked to add at least the German equivalent, Energiepfähle, to the KudoZ glossary - in a *fast and easy way*.
Would it not be practical to have, in case of zero returns, a button being available saying "Add term to KOG"? - A bit the way Wikipedia offers anyone who did not find an entry to prepare and submit one himself.
As said, the accent is here on "fast and easy". I can imagine that one might enter the term into ones own glossaries - but that would be a few clicks more and not exactly what I mean with "fast and easy". ▲ Collapse
| | | |
| I entirely agree! | Mar 31, 2009 |
I am no big friend of glossaries in the form of source+target terms with no added information, but since KOG is more or less that, your idea makes total sense.
| | | |
Rebekka Groß (X) 
Local time: 04:36
English to German
| I like the idea... | Mar 31, 2009 |
...provided that the provision of an explanation/context and, just as importantly, proper references, preferably in both languages, are an absolute MUST. Just entering a space character in either of the fields has to be avoided if the gloss entry is to be meaningful.
Why shouldn't other people benefit from the research we do?
| | | |
| A very good question! | Mar 31, 2009 |
Rebekka Gross wrote:
Why shouldn't other people benefit from the research we do?
This is a very good question I have been dealing with in my mind and heart for quite some time, and I still don't have a reply. I find it hard to accept that I am so selfish as to keep my hard-worked termbase for the use of my team. I feel both happy about the result of my research work and selfish at the same time! It's awful. I hope I am paying for my sins by means of helping others in Kudoz!
(Edited for grammar.)
[Edited at 2009-03-31 16:50 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| some reference might be necessary - | Mar 31, 2009 |
Rebekka Gross wrote:
...provided that the provision of an explanation/context and, just as importantly, proper references, preferably in both languages, are an absolute MUST. Just entering a space character in either of the fields has to be avoided if the gloss entry is to be meaningful.
Why shouldn't other people benefit from the research we do?
It certainly would not be useful that anybody enters fancy terms without reference. -
But the essential motive for this proposal is that being in a job one often just has to keep the eyes tightly on the job for time reasons - and yet would not like to leave a blank in the glossary when one has a solution. - These solutions will nowadays in most cases be web results - and thus it would be rather easy to ad the relevant URL to the target entry. - It might be considered case by case whether to give a little of context for the source too. But that could already be too much for this venue.
And in addition, maybe for this too a simple agree/disagree system could be attached.
But again - this is not about reinventing glossary building. -
It is about a means to allow really fast input - maybe into an intermediary space - for terms found out in job situations with little time too lose.
[Edited at 2009-03-31 20:18 GMT]
| | | |
| You get all the discussion there is from searching the KOG... | Mar 31, 2009 |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
I am no big friend of glossaries in the form of source+target terms with no added information, but since KOG is more or less that, your idea makes total sense.
In fact if you click on any of the term(s) you find in the KOG, you are taken to the original question, and you can see whether there was any discussion, and you can also see any answers that were not chosen by the original asker, with whatever explanations were given.
In the pairs I see, there are often very useful discussions and explanations. Not always, of course, but it is still possible to add more, even after the question has been closed, for the benefit of others using the glossary.
But so far, the only way to add new terms is to post them as questions!
| | | |
Christine Andersen wrote: But so far, the only way to add new terms is to post them as questions!
That is my impression too. -
But it does not make sense to ask a question if one has a good solution for a term that is so far not yet to be found in KudoZ Term Search. -
If there are solutions or term proposals, the situation is different. -
It there are none, a button should be available leading to a form for entering something, with little time input of time and effort.
| | | |
| Added to list of suggestions for KudoZ improvement | Mar 31, 2009 |
Hello all!
Roland Nienerza wrote:
Would it not be practical to have, in case of zero returns, a button being available saying "Add term to KOG"?
Thanks for the suggestion, Roland, and for the good idea indeed. I have added this to our backlog of ideas and suggestions for KudoZ improvement, to be evaluated for possible future implementation.
Thank you all for your feedback!
Bests,
Lucia
| | |
|
|
|
| Isn't this a completely different concept than what KudoZ is for? | Mar 31, 2009 |
I think anyone can build their own glossaries, which are searchable, so I think that should be sufficient for the purpose Roland described. (Although, I strongly agree that a more user-friendly method could be implemented for managing and sharing those private glossaries.)
As to entering terms to the common, public KOG, I think that may not be in line with the concept of the KudoZ system.
As far as I know, the KudoZ system is a term help network, and its primary purpose... See more I think anyone can build their own glossaries, which are searchable, so I think that should be sufficient for the purpose Roland described. (Although, I strongly agree that a more user-friendly method could be implemented for managing and sharing those private glossaries.)
As to entering terms to the common, public KOG, I think that may not be in line with the concept of the KudoZ system.
As far as I know, the KudoZ system is a term help network, and its primary purpose is to help the asker when he/she has trouble with translating it. As a "side effect", there is a glossary created, which is in my opinion a very important "byproduct", but as site staff repeatedly emphasized, not the primary objective of the KudoZ system.
All that said, whatever goes into the KOG, is presumably a result of at least some group effort, research, cross-examination, discussion and validation. Allowing individuals to put terms into the same database, without this group effort, would create a double standard.
I am not saying at all, that the quality of these individual entries would be worse than those resulting from the regular KudoZ process (in many cases, it may be better), what I am saying is that the concept is different.
Last year the GBK (Glossary Building KudoZ) project started, with the primary objective of building a multilingual glossary. The interface, the participation conditions, the validation mechanism is different from the regular KudoZ, precisely to ensure the quality of the resulting glossary. This is the main point, where the GBK differs from the regular KudoZ: the goal of the GBK system is the glossary, while the goal with the regular KudoZ system is to help the asker.
So far, the GBK questions were generated by site staff - perhaps a mechanism to post GBK questions, or at least to make suggestions for terms to be asked on GBK would be a good idea to implement. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
| the point is ***fast and easy*** - | Apr 1, 2009 |
Katalin Horvath McClure wrote:
I think anyone can build their own glossaries, which are searchable, so I think that should be sufficient for the purpose Roland described. (Although, I strongly agree that a more user-friendly method could be implemented for managing and sharing those private glossaries.)
I hoped I had made it sufficiently clear that I was well aware that there are several ways of getting terms into the KudoZ area - and that I did not mean to amend, let alone to reinvent those. -
Before writing this I had indeed thought of using a personal glossary for collecting such input. - And perhaps it could be practicable too to collect these "en passant finds", as one comes by them, in OneNote or the kind of it - and enter them into a personal glossary at a time with more leisure - which will be rather rare for most freelancers.
I had described a practical situation. - Coming in a FR text about energy management across the term "pieux énergétiques" which was not to be assessed in dictionaries or the comprehensive online term banks, I thought, that KudoZ might have something. - But there was nothing. - It did not take very much time to clear this term very precisely over Google as DE "Energiepfähle" and EN "energy piles". http://www.hakagerodur.ch/front_content.php?client=1&idcat=45&idart=31&changelang=2
As I said, it was not very long to find it, but, with the previous unsuccessful checking, KudoZ included, I might have invested at least ten minutes for it, in a tight deadline job. - Even saving this in OneNote, not to speak of entering it into my rather tiny personal glossaries etc. would now have been too much extra time loss. -
But if, in the case of such a completely blank return in Term Search, a button would have been available for a simple form to enter source, target and possibly the URL as above, I might have done that.
As to entering terms to the common, public KOG, I think that may not be in line with the concept of the KudoZ system.
I admit that I do not understand much more of the KudoZ system than that it is mainly for asking and answering term questions, possibly enter the best answer into KOG and personal glossaries, and having a search function for those.
As far as I know, the KudoZ system is a term help network, and its primary purpose is to help the asker when he/she has trouble with translating it. As a "side effect", there is a glossary created, which is in my opinion a very important "byproduct", but as site staff repeatedly emphasized, not the primary objective of the KudoZ system.
Well then, if the primary purpose of the KudoZ system is "to help the asker when he/she has trouble with translating" - then I think that this purpose is much better served by finding a term in 20 seconds than in putting in a question and have - perhaps - the result of "some group effort" in at best a minute - and at worst a few or more hours, when possibly the job had already to be delivered.
All that said, whatever goes into the KOG, is presumably a result of at least some group effort, research, cross-examination, discussion and validation. Allowing individuals to put terms into the same database, without this group effort, would create a double standard.
It is in most cases individual input anyhow - and particularly in the choice of the "best" answer. - And very often it is less "research, cross-examination, discussion and validation" but simply collective guess work - which, sure, might be still - albeit slightly - better than nothing.
I am not saying at all, that the quality of these individual entries would be worse than those resulting from the regular KudoZ process (in many cases, it may be better)
Voilà. That's a word!
what I am saying is that the concept is different.
I do not insist that this "fast and easy term entry facility" has to be considered as part or even a détour of the KudoZ process. - I have posted this in the KudoZ forum because I do not think that there is a Glossary forum yet.
Last year the GBK (Glossary Building KudoZ) project started, with the primary objective of building a multilingual glossary. The interface, the participation conditions, the validation mechanism is different from the regular KudoZ, precisely to ensure the quality of the resulting glossary. This is the main point, where the GBK differs from the regular KudoZ: the goal of the GBK system is the glossary, while the goal with the regular KudoZ system is to help the asker.
I would like to say "oops" here, but I do not really because "oops" is not liked by certain people.
So far, the GBK questions were generated by site staff - perhaps a mechanism to post GBK questions, or at least to make suggestions for terms to be asked on GBK would be a good idea to implement.
I had once tried to contribute to GBK - and found the system so unwieldy, even incomprehensible, and in addition linguistically and lexicologically so precarious - that I very soon gave up on it.
To resume. - As long as it is linguistically sound or at least acceptable, the best terminology help system is the one that is "fast and easy" to handle and to manage for both, suppliers and users.
| | | |
Zea_Mays
Italy
Local time: 05:36
Member (2009)
English to German
+ ...
| Isn't it there? | Apr 2, 2009 |
Here: http://www.proz.com/?sp=my_g&entity_id=806270 (replace ID number with yours)
Or am I wrong?
The path is: my proz.com ---> Glossary -------> link above (where you'll see the option "Enter terms")
[Bearbeitet am 2009-04-02 19:54 GMT]
| | | |
Login to reply/comment 
