| Pages in topic: [1 2 3 4] > |
not checking glossary Thread poster: RHELLER
|
|---|
RHELLER
United States
Local time: 04:00
French to English
+ ...
Everyday, a number of questions are asked that are already in the glossary.
and second issue: Why are askers/answerers not making glossary entries?
Either the KOG is considered an important tool or it is not - adding unclassified responses just confuses the situation and makes it harder to find a definition when one really needs it.
| | | |
| Asker behavior | Jan 31, 2006 |
Rita Heller wrote:
Everyday, a number of questions are asked that are already in the glossary.
and second issue: Why are askers/answerers not making glossary entries?
Hi Rita, good points. I think the only feasible solution to these problems is to add more mandatory fields so questions can't be submitted unless certain criteria are satisfied. We already have lots of required fields: it's impossible to enter a "disagree" or "neutral" for example, unless it is accompanied by a comment.
Using the forums to call askers' attention to KudoZ issues is one good way to improve things, but many of the troublesome askers don't read the forums. They're in and out. They just want a term.
I think it should be impossible to submit a question, if the asker hasn't been directed to the glossaries first.
On your second point, maybe it's a good thing askers aren't required to make glossary entries. A good many of them choose the wrong answer anyway. But we could do something about non-logged in askers, non-registered askers.
[Edited at 2006-01-31 18:18]
| | | |
Jo Macdonald 
Spain
Local time: 12:00
Italian to English
+ ...
| Asking a question again | Jan 31, 2006 |
Hi Rita,
Today I asked a question that is already in the glossary because I didn’t agree with the answers.
I might be wrong of course, but the research I did resulted in a similar but different answer.
I posted the question to get the opinion of other people, and if it’s right to give others the chance to see it in the future. Maybe there’s another way to go about that, I don’t know.
About adding glossary entries I try to remember to do that on my own qu... See more Hi Rita,
Today I asked a question that is already in the glossary because I didn’t agree with the answers.
I might be wrong of course, but the research I did resulted in a similar but different answer.
I posted the question to get the opinion of other people, and if it’s right to give others the chance to see it in the future. Maybe there’s another way to go about that, I don’t know.
About adding glossary entries I try to remember to do that on my own questions, and go through answered terms every once in a while to check what needs adding. I think some questions don’t need adding to the glossary because they only have a relevance in that question perhaps, and not as a general term or explanation. This could be the case for typos for example.
I agree some people seem not to see the existing answers that are displayed when you preview a question before submitting, perhaps we should make the fonts bigger.
Right I’m off to add a few gloss terms. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
RHELLER
United States
Local time: 04:00
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | how about a glossary panel? | Jan 31, 2006 |
Thanks, Kim
I appreciate your point of view.
I have been thinking about a way to handle the "wrong answer picked" problem. I realize that it may sound egotistical to think that I know better, but some of us are just sure that wrong answers have found their way into the glossary.
My idea is to create a panel of moderators or hand-picked glossary advisors who would be highly specialized by field and by language (and possibly even by regional difference for English/... See more Thanks, Kim
I appreciate your point of view.
I have been thinking about a way to handle the "wrong answer picked" problem. I realize that it may sound egotistical to think that I know better, but some of us are just sure that wrong answers have found their way into the glossary.
My idea is to create a panel of moderators or hand-picked glossary advisors who would be highly specialized by field and by language (and possibly even by regional difference for English/Spanish, Portuguese,etc.).
This panel would review each and every answer picked - I am not suggesting that points would be removed or re-awarded, just that the correct answer is recorded for the purposes of future reference.
When I have a deadline, I do consult the KOG - so it does matter to me.
Let us hear from other kudoz "players". ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
RHELLER
United States
Local time: 04:00
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | very specific labeling might help | Jan 31, 2006 |
[quote]Jo Macdonald wrote:
I think some questions don’t need adding to the glossary because they only have a relevance in that question perhaps, and not as a general term or explanation. This could be the case for typos for example.
Hi Jo!
I think that as these questions are not being deleted, they should be properly labeled as "narrow or rare meaning", or have a highly-specified field label. Currently the labels are way off: I have seen clothing in technology and common expressions in "other".
IMO, other should be removed.
Moreover, you may feel that specific question is irrelevant until the day you get a translation that has something similar!
| | | |
| Checking glossaries | Jan 31, 2006 |
Jo Macdonald wrote: I agree some people seem not to see the existing answers that are displayed when you preview a question before submitting, perhaps we should make the fonts bigger.
Existing answers displayed when you preview a question?
Hi Jo, that's news to me. I just entered a question to see what happens when you get the very nice preview window:
"Please confirm
Before submitting your KudoZ question, please preview your submission below to confirm that it is correct."
I didn't see any existing answers.
| | | |
| Glossary entries | Jan 31, 2006 |
Jo Macdonald wrote:
I think some questions don�t need adding to the glossary because they only have a relevance in that question perhaps, and not as a general term or explanation.
I agree. Many people make entries that only clutter up the glossary, eg. "problem with sentence > yes, here it means this and this", "prepositions > see below" (not to mention some minor issues, like not bothering to check if the verbs in the source and target expressions are in the same grammatical form).
However, I also agree with Rita that there are many answers that are not entered into the glossary although they could really help other translators in the future. But I don't know what we could do about it
| | | |
Jo Macdonald
Spain
Local time: 12:00
Italian to English
+ ...
| Existing KudoZ question(s) were found | Jan 31, 2006 |
Hi Kim,
Yep, if I enter a term that has already been asked (I think it has to be exactly the same, same punctuation etc.) when I click Preview question I get all the questions with the same term that have already been asked above my question fields and the Edit and Submit buttons.
Above the list of terms that have already been asked/answered it says:
Existing Italian to English KudoZ question(s) were found that are similar to your term. Please review these question... See more Hi Kim,
Yep, if I enter a term that has already been asked (I think it has to be exactly the same, same punctuation etc.) when I click Preview question I get all the questions with the same term that have already been asked above my question fields and the Edit and Submit buttons.
Above the list of terms that have already been asked/answered it says:
Existing Italian to English KudoZ question(s) were found that are similar to your term. Please review these questions to see if they provide a suitable answer. To continue asking your own KudoZ question, preview and submit your question below.
If I try entering a term without the same punctuation the system doesnt seem to recognise it as similar or the same as the existing ones so you wont get that result.
Rita I fully agree with your idea of sorting out wrong answers that find their way into the glossary because chosen by someone who is maybe just starting or whatever. This is one of the obvious shortcomings of a great system, but as long as the right answer is there people can see it in the future if they want to. A panel of mother tongue moderators to sort things like that would be a good idea though imo. It would probably take a lot of time and effort and get you into a few fights though.
About not entering some terms into the glossary I just got back from a gloss adding session and for me there are definitely a couple I didnt add, because you cant really pick a term for some (like in monolingual explanations). A comment/explanation can be found in a term search anyway cant it?
Mind you I also noticed that some good askers have a habit of not entering the answers they choose when grading (which is the fastest and most efficient way to keep the glossary updated imo) so maybe if we notice this we could just politely ask them to add to the gloss when grading. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Gina W
United States
Local time: 06:00
Member (2003)
French to English
| Some questions/answers do not fit well into the KudoZ glossary | Jan 31, 2006 |
Rita Heller wrote:
Everyday, a number of questions are asked that are already in the glossary.
and second issue: Why are askers/answerers not making glossary entries?
Either the KOG is considered an important tool or it is not - adding unclassified responses just confuses the situation and makes it harder to find a definition when one really needs it.
Rita, regarding not making glossary entries, some answers do not fit neatly into the KudoZ glossary. That is when I do not make a glossary entry. Either that, or it may not be appropriate as a glossary entry yet IS the "most helpful" answer. I figure that the question itself will come up on a ProZ.com Term search.
Regarding the first question, I almost did that recently and an old question came up at the top of that page as I was about to submit the question. Had I not noticed this, I would have inadvertently posted a duplicate question, even though I had specifically done a ProZ.com Term Search which came up with nothing. So the "double check" was a good idea, since it covered the apparent glich that had occurred with the ProZ.com Term Search. However, I also would say that it is easy to miss.
But of course, I can't speak for everyone else, I can only speak for myself.
| | | |
| Misleading labels, and misleading glossary entries | Jan 31, 2006 |
1) Previously asked questions.
I like the idea of automatic redirection to the glossaries before asking a question - as long as the system lets you ask it a 2nd (or even a 3rd, 4th...) time if you feel you need it (and can give a reason for doing it again). I'd like to see it implemented.
I'd also say that points should not be awarded, and question should be closed without grading, when an asker is simply referred to a previous question (unless the answer adds something valuable to ... See more 1) Previously asked questions.
I like the idea of automatic redirection to the glossaries before asking a question - as long as the system lets you ask it a 2nd (or even a 3rd, 4th...) time if you feel you need it (and can give a reason for doing it again). I'd like to see it implemented.
I'd also say that points should not be awarded, and question should be closed without grading, when an asker is simply referred to a previous question (unless the answer adds something valuable to the asker, of course) - but this is simply a point of etiquette, probably.
2) Labeling and mislabeling
I'd also welcome a way to deal with mislabeled questions - there are so many. IMHO, the very detailed labeling system in place, while possibly useful for ousourcer and for furthering the cause of specialization (a cause on which, however, I'm rather in two minds, but that's another story...), is rather cumbersome to use: seveal peers seem to lose patience and pick up unappropriate (if not random) labels.
Also, someone seem to think something like "This is a text about engineering, ergo if I have to ask about the odd name of a chemical or management term used in this text I must label my question as 'engineering'". Sometimes, (when I notice it) I try to point the mislabeling to the asker, but sometimes, I must confess, I simply don't bother: everybody say how nice education is, but few like to be educated. And, more importantly, there is no way (that I know of) to correct mislabeling.
Thus, it may be useful to have an option to make a "change label" proposal - more or less on the line of the change PRO / non-PRO status. It might be restricted to experienced users, and I'd say that at least 2 peers should agree before a label is actually changed.
3) Making glossary entries
I think that people are making too many, and not too few, glossary entries - or at least, thay do not put enough thinking into making them.
Too often, at least in the pairs I check (ITEN and ITFR) I find entirely misleading glossary entries. Wrong choice of answers, here, plays only a minor role, IMHO; much more often, the asker choses an answer that fits his or her bill, but is not general enough to warrant a glossary entry. Check for a recent instance http://www.proz.com/kudoz/1243412: "you are referred to" may well have been the "most helpful" answer here, but it isn't, by a long shot, a general equivalent for "rinviare" - not even in a legal context.
In fact there are at least 3 sources of unsatisfactory entries: 1) wrong answers; 2) difference between "most helpful" and "most exact" answer; 3) context-specific answers (too specific to allow for a meaningful glossary entry)
In spite of this, I have often used the glossaries, with good results, because with Proz.com search, you can have access to all the relevant questions that have been asked, and can review all the answers that have been given, even if no glossary entry was entered. For this reason, I tend to see glossary entries as rather unimportant: since the questions are available in Proz.com search, all the answers (and asker's feedback) will be available too; this is much better than having only a glossary entry (even if it is exact).
In short: better not to make a glossary entry when it may be misleading; and who needs glossary entries, anyway, when we can browse the questions themselves?
BTW, I still feel a newcomer to the site (I've been around for about 7 months), and so I may well be wrong on this, but I seem to gather that the "Proz.com search" utility is a relatively recent improvement - possibly not all the veterans have had occasion to use it?
3) Editing glossary entries
A different, if related, matter is the problem of revising the glossaries to improve their reliability (obviously, since we have glossaries, we'd like to make them as good as we can). I think that panels are difficult to set up, and may be controversial; and, in most pairs, given the sheer size and rate of growth of the glossaries, a systematic review seems to be beyond the scope of voluntary work. Moreover, appointing panels may not be in keeping with the open nature of the Kudoz system (that makes it somewhat ramshakle and even unprofessional,in somebody'eyes; and is its main asset, in mine).
A possible, if minimal, way to begin addressing the problem might be having a specific sub-section of Kudoz dedicated to emending glossaries: a peer could submit a proposal for emending a specific entry, wait XX days for opinions (perhaps with a discussion area with a modified agree / neutral / disagree system added), and then earn the right to edit the entry - taking into account all contribution. Perhaps, a threshold could be set (only proposal with at least x net agrees can be carried out); moderators could be appointed; browniz (or even, say, 1 Kudoz point for each accepted proposal, for instance) could be awarded; and emendators should be asked to be fair to the whole of the discussion (rather than sticking to their original proposals) - but then the emendation itself could still be further emended, if someone really feels it necessary (and worth the hassle). ▲ Collapse
| | | |
| First issue... | Feb 1, 2006 |
Rita Heller wrote:
Everyday, a number of questions are asked that are already in the glossary.
and second issue: ...
To Rita's first issue:
Would it help if we (= TBD) could squash (or at least "block" answers to) a question or demote it to "non-pro" if it is already in the glossary and the asker has not said that the glossary has been consulted?
(Of course – in the case of certain esteemed members – "TBD" would know that other measures had already been exhausted...)
I'm just fantasising...
| | | |
RHELLER
United States
Local time: 04:00
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | you all bring up such good points | Feb 1, 2006 |
WOW - great response!
Alfredo thinks there are too many glossary entries being made. I understand his point but I feel that is due to the lack of clarity and organization in the present system. Currently, we are just throwing definitions in a barrel and hoping that when we will need one we will just happen to find the right one.
Dictionaries do sometimes have 20 lines per term which include expressions and are categorized by field (legal, engineering, etc.). However, ... See more WOW - great response!
Alfredo thinks there are too many glossary entries being made. I understand his point but I feel that is due to the lack of clarity and organization in the present system. Currently, we are just throwing definitions in a barrel and hoping that when we will need one we will just happen to find the right one.
Dictionaries do sometimes have 20 lines per term which include expressions and are categorized by field (legal, engineering, etc.). However, they are organized or alphabetized. I have never written a dictionary so I don't know. It is not simple. We do have some proz members who do that type of work and perhaps they would be willing to give us a few pointers.
Cilian,
I do agree with Kim that consulting the glossary should be mandatory before asking a question - I think your proposal would be "too little, too late". Please don't take that as a criticism, it's just that we have seen that unless people are forced to do the "right" thing, they usually don't.
It seems to me that the KOG is a team effort and everyone has to want it to be good, otherwise it will be shabby. If it is crap (to use a highly technical term NO ONE will want to consult it!
To GAD- I don't make Eng-Eng glossary entries either because the system is not set up for it. (the questions themselves make no sense). These are technical issues that can be handled once a clear vision has been established.
[Edited at 2006-02-01 01:04]
[Edited at 2006-02-01 06:55] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Gina W
United States
Local time: 06:00
Member (2003)
French to English
Rita Heller wrote:
I don't make Eng-Eng glossary entries either because the system is not set up for it. (the questions themselves make no sense). These are technical issues that can be handled once a clear vision has been established.
Hi Rita, thanks for the reply. Yes, that is a good example of what I was referring to, regarding some questions that don't fit as glossary entries.
Regarding duplicate questions being asked - meaning, questions posted that may seem to exist in the glossaries - I have to say that there are also times when a person knows that the term exists in the glossary already but posts it to inquire what the translation is in a particular context. I know I don't like seeing those little "Ask the Asker" notes that some individuals are so fond of posting, saying things like "This is already in the glossary" or "You're supposed to check the glossary". In some cases that comes across as snippy, particularly because those same people who have elsewhere stressed the importance of context have obviously not read that same context in the new question posted. While this is not always the case, of course, this does happy, and I see it quite often.
Thanks again.:)
[Edited at 2006-02-01 11:31]
| | | |
stelian
Local time: 05:00
Romanian to English
+ ...
| Bring them back! | Feb 1, 2006 |
I suggest to bring glossary entries back - one at at time - as a new question, but with special status. Ask answerers to modify/change/remove/correct them. It will not be perfect, but old entries will get the attention of many; the moderator(s) can decide what to put back in the glossary.
Regarding new questions, but with terms already entered in the glossary, I suggest to accord browniez to any answerer who will bring it up in the answer. It might embarras the asker!
| | | |
| Checking glossaries | Feb 1, 2006 |
gad wrote:
... I have to say that there are also times when a person knows that the term exists in the glossary already but posts it to inquire what the translation is in a particular context.
I know I don't like seeing those little "Ask the Asker" notes that some individuals are so fond of posting, saying things like "This is already in the glossary" or "You're supposed to check the glossary".
Hi gad,
People who don't like seeing those little Ask the Asker reminders, should just tell the people whose help they're seeking that they've already checked the glossaries. It's as easy as that. All it takes is a short note to the community letting them know they understand how KudoZ is supposed to work - because there are so many who don't seem to.
Answerers aren't mind readers, and they deserve well-prepared questions.
Cheers, Kim
| | | |
| Pages in topic: [1 2 3 4] > |
Login to reply/comment 
