Staff: Revised version of KudoZ rules has been posted Thread poster: Henry Dotterer
|
|---|
| | | I am in doubt about point 1.5 | Jan 27, 2004 |
1.5 - In general, askers should refrain from posting a large number of questions in a short period of time.
I don't know how other people work, but I usually leave difficult terms at the end, in the idea that during research for other terms I might be able to clarify other terms (which has happened to me more than once). Furthermore, after you translate the whole text, you have a different perspective on the terms. So I am usually posting difficult terms at once, and this might mea... See more 1.5 - In general, askers should refrain from posting a large number of questions in a short period of time.
I don't know how other people work, but I usually leave difficult terms at the end, in the idea that during research for other terms I might be able to clarify other terms (which has happened to me more than once). Furthermore, after you translate the whole text, you have a different perspective on the terms. So I am usually posting difficult terms at once, and this might mean even 20 terms, if the text is very large (before others jump at me, I don't think that asking 20 words out of a 15.000 words project is too much, but maybe I'm wrong).
So I am not sure that point 1.5 is justified in all cases.
I am curious what others have to say about this. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | No problem with the way you do it | Jan 27, 2004 |
Elvira Stoianov wrote:
1.5 - In general, askers should refrain from posting a large number of questions in a short period of time.
I don't know how other people work, but I usually leave difficult terms at the end, in the idea that during research for other terms I might be able to clarify other terms (which has happened to me more than once). Furthermore, after you translate the whole text, you have a different perspective on the terms. So I am usually posting difficult terms at once, and this might mean even 20 terms, if the text is very large (before others jump at me, I don't think that asking 20 words out of a 15.000 words project is too much, but maybe I'm wrong).
So I am not sure that point 1.5 is justified in all cases.
I am curious what others have to say about this.
Hi Elvira,
There is no problem with your way of doing things. When you ask good questions with complete context, even 20, this rule will not be applied.
| | | | | Feedback on 1.6 | Jan 27, 2004 |
1.6 - If a question is taken from a translation test, this must be made clear.
I would like to know if there is a reason for this.
I agree with Elvira- mainly because I often work on the same way.
And I would emphazise the "always assume good faith" principle, and remember it also applies to askers.
Thanks everyone for your work on these rules!
| | |
|
|
|
| I understand the thinking behind this but... | Jan 27, 2004 |
"1.1 Use KudoZ to ask for a translation only after you have consulted dictionaries, the Internet and the ProZ.com glossaries (KudoZ >Search Glossaries in the menu). If you have found translations elsewhere but still want to ask, include an explanation of what you have found--and why you are asking anyway--with your question."
Would this not be better as a recommendation, rather than a hard and fast rule?
I don't quite understand the harm in skipping this, if time is at a prem... See more "1.1 Use KudoZ to ask for a translation only after you have consulted dictionaries, the Internet and the ProZ.com glossaries (KudoZ >Search Glossaries in the menu). If you have found translations elsewhere but still want to ask, include an explanation of what you have found--and why you are asking anyway--with your question."
Would this not be better as a recommendation, rather than a hard and fast rule?
I don't quite understand the harm in skipping this, if time is at a premium. As questioner it is a long time since I have posted a question without thoroughly looking
elsewhere first, but as an answerer I have don't see the harm. Moreover the ProZ glossary can benefit by terms available on the internet and in specialist dictionaries. ▲ Collapse
| | | | swisstell
Italy
Local time: 13:02
German to English
+ ...
| item 3.2 "be prepared for colleagues to comment both positively and negatively to your terminology" | Jan 27, 2004 |
I feel that an addition is required to this point, such as:
"Negative or neutral comments need to be substantiated, and originators thereof ought to refrain from nasty, condescending, demeaning, patronizing or other non-professional remarks"
(which obviously will be taken personally by those who provide an input with an honest effort and the intent to assist, and in return harvest derisive remarks from a few but persistent culprits).
| | | | Emily Justice
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:02
Russian to English
| Rude feedback | Jan 28, 2004 |
[I agree. I have only started using Proz recently and have found that the majority of users for my language pair are extremely helpful and conscientious. However, I received feedback to an answer that I had suggested that was so rude I was really taken aback. It included 'not idiomatic or in fact anything '..matic' enough. No offence, OK? We just do not use this term'. The whole tone was extremely condescending, and somewhat depressing for someone like me who has just joined the profession (suit... See more [I agree. I have only started using Proz recently and have found that the majority of users for my language pair are extremely helpful and conscientious. However, I received feedback to an answer that I had suggested that was so rude I was really taken aback. It included 'not idiomatic or in fact anything '..matic' enough. No offence, OK? We just do not use this term'. The whole tone was extremely condescending, and somewhat depressing for someone like me who has just joined the profession (suitably qualified).There was no explantion as to why my suggestion was 'never used in English' (it was 'when conducting research into') Given that I am a native English speaker I would expect an explanation as to why I had gone so wrong in my own language! ]e-rich wrote:
I feel that an addition is required to this point, such as:
"Negative or neutral comments need to be substantiated, and originators thereof ought to refrain from nasty, condescending, demeaning, patronizing or other non-professional remarks"
(which obviously will be taken personally by those who provide an input with an honest effort and the intent to assist, and in return harvest derisive remarks from a few but persistent culprits). [/quote] ▲ Collapse
| | | | DGK T-I 
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:02
Georgian to English
+ ...
| rules on peer commenting | Jan 29, 2004 |
4.1 - Agrees and disagrees should be based solely on linguistic evaluation of answers provided.
4.2 - Backing up peer comments with references is encouraged.
4.3 - To disagree, one must enter linguistic justification. Personal comments are strictly prohibited.
(Also, while it doesn't say so explicitly, I believe a similar spirit would be expected to be displayed in 'neutral' comments, as has been expected in the past.)
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Staff: Revised version of KudoZ rules has been posted | 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 » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
