| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | HowZ your K/Q? Thread poster: mediamatrix (X)
|
|---|
NancyLynn
Canada
Local time: 07:58
Member (2002)
French to English
+ ...
MODERATOR
Nikki Graham wrote:
Yes, I know, the glossary is full of cr*p. But perhaps we could have a system whereby we can “flag” questions where we think the answer chosen is blatantly incorrect/misleading and after the question has been flagged by three users it can come up for some sort of review process. It could, for example, be posted on the questions asked page for more answers or a separate review page, so people can post new answers or disagree with the wrong answer and agree with the right one and reassign points. This would be especially good for (the many) erroneous answers chosen within five minutes of posting the question. It would help to clean up the glossary anf make it a much better resource.
May I quote you again, Nicky, to open a new thread on this subject? I'd love a discussion on how to clean up the glossary.
Nancy
| | | | | Once upon a time we could flag a howler but it seems that is no longer possible | Aug 6, 2007 |
Nikki Graham wrote:
....
Yes, I know, the glossary is full of cr*p. But perhaps we could have a system whereby we can “flag” questions where we think the answer chosen is blatantly incorrect/misleading and after the question has been flagged by three users it can come up for some sort of review process. It could, for example, be posted on the questions asked page for more answers or a separate review page, so people can post new answers or disagree with the wrong answer and agree with the right one and reassign points. This would be especially good for (the many) erroneous answers chosen within five minutes of posting the question. It would help to clean up the glossary anf make it a much better resource.
Once upon a time, there was a sort of quality-control in the aftermath of questions. One could signal a really bad glossary entry to a Moderator. After detailed discussion with experts in the field (so not just a one-person decision), if the gloss entry was found to be really bad, it was changed to prevent others from following the same garden path (off the cliff).
Now that has been changed. "Mods are not language experts" is the claim, so the 'expertise' is left up to those who had to ask in the first place. It's fine when Asker is a pro working in a language pair and/or field s/he is skilled in, but not when, as so often now, it's people who are out of their depth from the word go. Add the points chasers mentioned by others, and it's a recipe for disaster. Which is what the glossary is becoming by the day. Worst of all, Kudoz question are (far too?) visible on the www (in 95 different languages) so they are virtually a "calling card" for the site. The question is what impression do they make?
I'd love to hear from Moderators-are you or are you not allowed to change really poor glossary entries?
[Edited at 2007-08-06 15:16]
| | | | Kirill Semenov 
Ukraine
Local time: 14:58
Member (2004)
English to Russian
+ ...
| Read the forum first | Aug 6, 2007 |
mediamatrix wrote:
What say others on this idea?
I've spent so much time trying to lobby it that now I just don't feel like to bother. You may search and read the previous forum postings about the "reliability ratio". In any case, even if you do. any your attempt are futile. Nothing will change.
| | | | | my ratio is just under 2 | Aug 6, 2007 |
Nikki Graham wrote: CMJ_Trans wrote:
I have long advocated that the points system be scrapped. I also think it unfair that freelancers be listed according to points (if you start today from scratch, no way you can ever catch up the oldtimers). I can see that a ratio might obviate some of the resulting problems but not as long as the general dumbing down process continues.
This is so true and the point is worth emphasising. Some people have been amassing points since 2000. How can anyone joining now ever hope to compete and, therefore, improve their position in the freelancer list?
As someone who joined in 2005 I disagree. I have long since stopped actively participating in KudoZ because the Rus-Eng Kudoz pair has become a complete farce (non-natives asking questions, non-natives answering and non-natives making peer comments/grading on the basis of their "understanding" of the English language), however, I am still first in most of my speciality fields and in the top 3 in all my fields in the *new* directory, and it only took me a year or so to get there.
The new directory makes it very easy for newcomers to catch up - all you have to do is concentrate on your fields. Take my example: I have 1,606 points overall. That seems like a lot of ground to make up, yet in Finance Rus-Eng I only have 95 points and I'm top of the directory (with English as native). Finance questions are asked at a rate of 2-3 a day so it couldn't possibly take more than 3 months to get more points than my 95, provided you give answers that are chosen by askers from time to time.
In my view, the main problem with KudoZ, at least in the areas that I can assess, is that the overall quality of answers/comments has plummeted rapidly in the time I've been a member. This is unlikely to be reflected in any K/Q ratio but as far as I know the level of participation in Kudoz is seeing alarming trends of which site staff are well aware. I have no doubt that abolishing the points system would completely kill Kudoz in its current form. The only thing I am unsure of is whether that would be a bad thing or not...perhaps it's time to put down a dying beast and think of something new, perhaps it can still be revived.
| | |
|
|
|
Nikki Graham
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:58
Spanish to English
| Let's get some facts straight | Aug 6, 2007 |
Konstantin Kisin wrote:
As someone who joined in 2005 I disagree.
According to the Russian-English Kudoz list, you joined in August 2004.
I have long since stopped actively participating in KudoZ because the Rus-Eng Kudoz pair has become a complete farce
You answered your last Russian to English question 5 days ago.
however, I am still first in most of my speciality fields and in the top 3 in all my fields in the *new* directory, and it only took me a year or so to get there.
a) Given that you started answering questions in September 04, it has actually taken you 3 years to get where you are today.
b) CMJ and I were quite obviously talking about the general/overall list, not specialised field lists.
c) I have looked at your ranking in the *Kudoz points totals* (leader board, or whatever it's called) and out of 10 specialised fields, you are only first in one (although 2nd in three and 3rd in one). Neither are you in the top three in all these fields. The name that appears at the top in most of these fields is the person with the most points overall in the Russian to English pair, who has been answering questions since June 2000. So I think your apparent leadership in the new directory depends on which buttons others click, and it certainly isn't showing your reliability ratio, which was actually the subject of this thread.
| | | | Nikki Graham
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:58
Spanish to English
NancyLynn wrote: Nikki Graham wrote:
Yes, I know, the glossary is full of cr*p. But perhaps we could have a system whereby we can “flag” questions where we think the answer chosen is blatantly incorrect/misleading and after the question has been flagged by three users it can come up for some sort of review process. It could, for example, be posted on the questions asked page for more answers or a separate review page, so people can post new answers or disagree with the wrong answer and agree with the right one and reassign points. This would be especially good for (the many) erroneous answers chosen within five minutes of posting the question. It would help to clean up the glossary anf make it a much better resource.
May I quote you again, Nicky, to open a new thread on this subject? I'd love a discussion on how to clean up the glossary. Nancy
| | | | | Detail Police, everybody on the floor! | Aug 6, 2007 |
Nikki Graham wrote: Konstantin Kisin wrote:
As someone who joined in 2005 I disagree. According to the Russian-English Kudoz list, you joined in August 2004.
Ah yes, I initially joined as a partial member, hence the confusion. In any case, the point I was making was that I didn't join in 2000 and thus I am certainly not an "oldtimer" as above.
Nikki Graham wrote:
You answered your last Russian to English question 5 days ago.
Erm, no...doubt. I don't consider 1 answer a week to be "active participation". I was comparing it to my first year and a half or so of Kudoz participation when I would answer up to 40 questions a week.
Nikki Graham wrote:
a) Given that you started answering questions in September 04, it has actually taken you 3 years to get where you are today.
Perhaps, I ought to explain (again) that I stopped actively participating in Kudoz quite a long time ago and the position I currently have was achieved during the first stage of my Proz membership. On top of that, you may remember that in 2004 (before the new directory was introduced) there was far less emphasis on speciality fields...most people just answered where they felt they could help, which means that what I said above about "concentrating on your fields" certainly applied less to my Kudoz behaviour at the time.
Nikki Graham wrote:
b) CMJ and I were quite obviously talking about the general/overall list, not specialised field lists.
Ah, I missed this, although the argument still applies. Getting in the top 3 for Rus-Eng for some general fields (Bus/Fin) only requires 250 points, which is not a huge target for a field with 6-8 questions a day.
c) I have looked at your ranking in the *Kudoz points totals* (leader board, or whatever it's called) and out of 10 specialised fields, you are only first in one (although 2nd in three and 3rd in one). Neither are you in the top three in all these fields. The name that appears at the top in most of these fields is the person with the most points overall in the Russian to English pair, who has been answering questions since June 2000. So I think your apparent leadership in the new directory depends on which buttons others click, and it certainly isn't showing your reliability ratio, which was actually the subject of this thread.
Kudoz points totals are utterly irrelevant if we're talking about competition for jobs, for a number of reasons, the most obvious being the fact that clients don't normally use the Kudoz leader board to search for translators. Another fairly obvious reason is that most clients are looking for a native speaker of the target language, which disqualifies most of the answerers in the Rus-Eng pair as I explained above. Let's not play the alternative statistics game like politicians. Frankly, I could probably count the number of times I visited the leader board page on the fingers of one hand. Further, it would be odd for my "apparent leadership" to show in my reliability ratio given the fact that the directory doesn't take it into account at all.
In any case, I used myself as an example because I am, as one might expect, reasonably familiar with my own situation and am therefore able to cite it in support of my argument. My "reliability ratio" is neither here nor there and it was not my intention to portray myself as a good or great or even bad translator - I was simply using an example I was comfortable with. My ratio has never been of great concern to me and I used to give "not for grading" answers and answers in support of others' answers fairly regularly.
Since you chose to make this a personal argument, I feel it would be appropriate for me to come back to the points I was trying to make, which were:
1. It's not actually very difficult for relative newcomers to attain good levels of exposure because of the way the new directory is designed. I used the specific example of Rus-Eng, Finance, which requires only 95 points. You conveniently ignored this in favour of personal remarks
2. The main problem with Kudoz is the rapidly declining quality of answers, and I agree that this could be due to the "retirement" of long-standing participants who have "nothing to fight for".
3. Abolishing the current points system would kill Kudoz in its present format (and participation volume). Doing so may or may not be a good idea. Regardless, Kudoz is in trouble and something needs to be done. Whether the (equally flawed) ratio system is the solution is a matter for continued debate but I am sceptical about its potential.
Perhaps you could address these points in your next reply, instead of pursuing a pernickety character assassination agenda just because I disagreed with a point you made
[Edited at 2007-08-06 23:40]
| | | | Nikki Graham
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:58
Spanish to English
| Oh the futility of it all | Aug 7, 2007 |
Konstantin Kisin wrote:
Since you chose to make this a personal argument
I feel that you did not portray the facts correctly, and that bothers me. It makes me not want to take any argument you portray seriously. Sorry if that feels like policing or "pernickety character assassin". But it just goes to show that what they say is true. You can't believe eveything you read...
The point I was trying to make about the leaders board is that you are not top and at any time another native speaker could adjust their speciality fields and oust you from your (not so comfortable) position in the new directory if they so wished because they have been around longer than you and amassed more points. Therefore, given that this is just one language pair, and in Spanish to English, for example, the overall leader has 18,000 odd points, which is far more than the leader in the pair you were talking about, I'm sure you can appreciate that it is NOT so easy for newcomers to come top, even in speciality fields. And, whilst we're on the subject, given that you say it only took you a year, why should a newcomer be forced to answer Kudoz questions solidly for a year just to have enough points to be in the top ten (if indeed, that is all it takes, which I doubt)?
1. It's not actually very difficult for relative newcomers to attain good levels of exposure because of the way the new directory is designed. I used the specific example of Rus-Eng, Finance, which requires only 95 points. You conveniently ignored this in favour of personal remarks
As above, the actual leader in this pair and speciality has far more points than that and only needs to adjust his profile to reflect this field as a speciality for you no longer to be no. 1.
2. The main problem with Kudoz is the rapidly declining quality of answers, and I agree that this could be due to the "retirement" of long-standing participants who have "nothing to fight for".
The main problem with Kudoz is, IMHO, the fact that too many people are translating into a language they are not native in and relying on Kudoz to bail them out. Filtering helps me not to see these people in my lists any more, but it does mean that cr*p goes into the glossary regularly, which I do come across in my searches. And it lowers the credibility of this site in many people's eyes and it is also one of the many reasons why I do not pay for membership any more. People get tired of all this. And please bear in mind that long-standing participants have not just left Kudoz. They have deleted their profiles to boot.
3. Abolishing the current points system would kill Kudoz in its present format (and participation volume). Doing so may or may not be a good idea. Regardless, Kudoz is in trouble and something needs to be done. Whether the (equally flawed) ratio system is the solution is a matter for continued debate but I am sceptical about its potential.
Kudoz has been in trouble for years and people (like me) have got tired of saying so and making suggestions. Kirill is right. This whole discussion is futile.
[Edited at 2007-08-07 00:16]
| | |
|
|
|
Nikki Graham wrote:
The point I was trying to make about the leaders board is that you are not top and at any time another native speaker could adjust their speciality fields and oust you from your (not so comfortable) position in the new directory if they so wished because they have been around longer than you and amassed more points.
Strictly speaking you are, of course, right. It is physically possible for the leader to change his speciality fields to include finance and be above me. I don't know how much that would change in terms of exposure, in fact I doubt there is a huge difference between being top and being third...
BUT...
The real question is "Why on earth would he want to do that?" Clearly he feels uncomfortable with finance to the degree of not indicating it as a working field...it seems unlikely to me that he would suddenly reconsider this.
The problem with the leader board argument is that a lot of people answer KudoZ questions for reasons other than exposure. Take my good friend, Kirill, whom you mentioned. He has been on Proz.com longer than me and he has far more Rus-Eng KudoZ points than me in most fields, including many of my speciality fields. In theory he could dominate the heck out of me in terms of Rus-Eng exposure. The only problem is he doesn't translate into English. At all. So while he is above me on the leader board, that doesn't translate into exposure, which is the only thing that matters.
I am glad you agree with me that my position in the field is "not so comfortable" - that was the point I have been, rather labouriously, trying to make from the off: getting to the top of that randomly chosen field (it was the first one I looked at) is not very hard.
Nikki Graham wrote:
Therefore, given that this is just one language pair, and in Spanish to English, for example, the overall leader has 18,000 odd points, which is far more than the leader in the pair you were talking about, I'm sure you can appreciate that it is NOT so easy for newcomers to come top, even in speciality fields. And, whilst we're on the subject, given that you say it only took you a year, why should a newcomer be forced to answer Kudoz questions solidly for a year just to have enough points to be in the top ten (if indeed, that is all it takes, which I doubt)?
I think it's important to maintain statistical consistency here. The reason that the Spa-Eng leader has far more points is likely to be that there are far more points up for grabs in your pair. That said, of course it's not *easy* for newcomers to come top but I doubt it's impossible to achieve a good level of exposure in specific fields. I think it's also useful to keep referring back to the point of KudoZ: helping the asker. At the end of the day, 18,000 points is 4,500 useful answers and probably a lot of others that didn't get picked, which is something to be rewarded. After all, by contributing to KudoZ so much your Spa-Eng leader helped this site generate traffic and attract new business.
On the point about a year, I think there is a balance to be struck here with any solution. Yes, Kudoz is about helping the asker but it's not fair to just wipe 7 years' worth of contributions because the system needs a revamp either.
People get tired of all this. And please bear in mind that long-standing participants have not just left Kudoz. They have deleted their profiles to boot.
People have a tendency to do that. I recently moved house and had to join a new, local, gym. I read some reviews about the gym on the Internet and the people who had joined recently were extremely happy with it. The people who had been long-standing members, on the other hand, were unhappy with some recent changes made by the new management. I, like other newcomers, see none of the problems described by the "oldtimers". It's fairly normal that with time long-standing members develop a sense of ownership and forget that they're paying for a service, just like everyone else. Their expectation levels rise, particularly in respect of the consideration given to their wishes/requests.
No business operates with a 100% client retention rate - the fact that people leave is normal.
Kudoz has been in trouble for years and people (like me) have got tired of saying so and making suggestions. Kirill is right. This whole discussion is futile.
I don't recall whether it was a post (if it was a post I can't find it) or a conversation I had with Henry but my understanding is that they are monitoring developments in the Kudoz system closely. Much of what you say was said of the futility of discussing some sort of feedback system for translators. Then it was introduced. Then many of the people who had complained about it being futile to suggest it suddenly opposed it
Anyway, I reckon all of what we say now is being taken into account and I have no doubt that a strategy for Kudoz renovation is being developed.
[Edited at 2007-08-07 01:06]
| | | | | Suggestions from a newcomer | Aug 7, 2007 |
I like KudoZ. I think it is fun trying to help people, and I have received very valuable help from others there.
Of course, I live in a peaceful, minor language pair
The point that gets people so worked up is something I did not even realize until now: your KudoZ activity determines your position in the directory, and therefore probably your likelihood of being offered jobs.
It seems indeed unfair th... See more I like KudoZ. I think it is fun trying to help people, and I have received very valuable help from others there.
Of course, I live in a peaceful, minor language pair
The point that gets people so worked up is something I did not even realize until now: your KudoZ activity determines your position in the directory, and therefore probably your likelihood of being offered jobs.
It seems indeed unfair that it is based on points total, since in many cases it will be difficult for newcomers to measure up. How about changing it to basing the listing on activity in the last year (or some other suitable period)?
Some KudoZ points are not as merited as they should be. Here, I can only speak for my own pairs, and that does not seem to be a big problem. It is human nature that some people will only answer a question if they are very sure, while others will suggest whatever enters their heads. Nothing to do about that, is there?
But to avoid too much nonsense in glossaries, one would probably need a sort of approval system. A comitte of 2-3 old hands who approved entries before they got into the glossary would probably do the trick?
[Edited at 2007-08-07 09:09] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Nikki Graham
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:58
Spanish to English
Konstantin Kisin wrote:
The problem with the leader board argument is that a lot of people answer KudoZ questions for reasons other than exposure. Take my good friend, Kirill, whom you mentioned. He has been on Proz.com longer than me and he has far more Rus-Eng KudoZ points than me in most fields, including many of my speciality fields. In theory he could dominate the heck out of me in terms of Rus-Eng exposure. The only problem is he doesn't translate into English. At all. So while he is above me on the leader board, that doesn't translate into exposure, which is the only thing that matters.
This may be the case in your pair and indeed others (of which I naturally have no experience), but, as far as I am aware, non-natives do offer translation services into English in the Spa-Eng, French-Eng, Portuguese-Eng and German-Eng pairs
I am glad you agree with me that my position in the field is "not so comfortable" - that was the point I have been, rather labouriously, trying to make from the off: getting to the top of that randomly chosen field (it was the first one I looked at) is not very hard.
OK, here we go back to a point I have already made. A year of solid Kudoz answering is hard work. I'm afraid it took me far longer than twelve months to get to the top of some of my speciality fields and to get into the top ten overall in my pair. But even though I don't answer as many questions as I did five years ago, and even though I have dropped down to I think 8th now, I'm still there. Because it is mightily difficult for people who have been around for less time than me to beat my total, especially as I still participate.
What would you, and indeed anyone in your position do, if someone (native speaker) came along and started earning lots of points in some of your speciality fields and threatened your leadership position in the new directory? Would you then make more of an effort to answer questions to maintain your exposure or would you let it slide?
I think it's important to maintain statistical consistency here. The reason that the Spa-Eng leader has far more points is likely to be that there are far more points up for grabs in your pair. That said, of course it's not *easy* for newcomers to come top but I doubt it's impossible to achieve a good level of exposure in specific fields.
Here, I believe, is the essential difference in our thinking. Of course there are more points to be had, and the overall leader has been answering questions for seven years. I very much doubt if any newbie could ever beat that total. Of course it's not impossible to achieve a good level of exposure in specific fields, but it would require a great deal of dedication, effort and time (we're talking years) and I think this is unfair, unnecessary and detrimental to quality, as the tendency is for these people to point chase to achieve their aim as quickly as possible. A "reliability ratio" would eliminate a lot of pressure on newcomers and would level the field.
I think it's also useful to keep referring back to the point of KudoZ: helping the asker. At the end of the day, 18,000 points is 4,500 useful answers and probably a lot of others that didn't get picked, which is something to be rewarded. After all, by contributing to KudoZ so much your Spa-Eng leader helped this site generate traffic and attract new business.
Then perhaps the site could reward these people in some other way, but not with continued unfair exposure based on how long they have been answering Kudoz.
I don't recall whether it was a post (if it was a post I can't find it) or a conversation I had with Henry but my understanding is that they are monitoring developments in the Kudoz system closely. Much of what you say was said of the futility of discussing some sort of feedback system for translators. Then it was introduced. Then many of the people who had complained about it being futile to suggest it suddenly opposed it
I'm afraid you have lost me here and I don't know what feedback system you are referring to. Perhaps I was on holiday that week.
| | | | Steffen Walter
Germany
Local time: 13:58
Member (2002)
English to German
+ ...
| Period-based display of listing implemented already; KudoZ glossary clean-up/quality assurance | Aug 7, 2007 |
Hilde Granlund wrote:
It seems indeed unfair that it is based on points total, since in many cases it will be difficult for newcomers to measure up. How about changing it to basing the listing on activity in the last year (or some other suitable period)?
Hi Hilde,
This feature has been implemented a long time ago. When you open the leaderboard, it shows three lists/columns: "Last 3 months", "Last 12 months" and "All time". This should put things in perspective already, at least to a certain extent.
But to avoid too much nonsense in glossaries, one would probably need a sort of approval system. A comitte of 2-3 old hands who approved entries before they got into the glossary would probably do the trick?
Here I am fully with you. This has been frequently suggested over the last couple of years, and, quite clearly, a system is urgently required to clean up the KudoZ glossary - if not "on the go" (i. e. when questions are actually closed), then at least "after the fact" (in other words, the correction/revision of entries at a later point in time). However, as Nancy pointed out earlier, this would deserve a separate forum thread and the attention of site staff.
Coming back to the actual topic of this thread: Yes, why not design a ranking system on the basis of a (rough and simplified) "reliability ratio" or "points/answers ratio" as suggested initially? That being said, I am fully aware of the fact that this wouldn't be a perfect system either as the situation will most certainly be different in "major" and "minor" language pairs.
My 2c,
Steffen
[Edited at 2007-08-07 10:35]
| | |
|
|
|
Kirill Semenov
Ukraine
Local time: 14:58
Member (2004)
English to Russian
+ ...
| "Added value" | Aug 7, 2007 |
Steffen Walter wrote:
Yes, why not design a ranking system on the basis of a (rough and simplified) "reliability ratio" or "points/answers ratio" as suggested initially? That being said, I am fully aware of the fact that this wouldn't be a perfect system either as the situation will most certainly be different in "major" and "minor" language pairs.
Wow, getting a feedback on this from a moderator! I was probably too pessimistic after two years of trying to push the suggestion through to the proZ staff without any success.
I can't see anything bad in introducing an alternative rating system of the "reliability ratio" (we are still to invent a better, milder term for it to not abuse anyone) and keep it along with the current kudoz total rating system.
Konstantin and me are good friends, but our views on this and many other points differ, which is great, of course, because when meeting online we always have something to argue about. I see the following benefits (to name the most obvious one) of showing the RR (K/Q) statistics openly available:
1) It may stop kudoZ hunters from trying to accumulate points by putting 20 answers and occasionally winning 4 points. The massive overkill approach may be removed totally.
2) The point 1) will benefit the askers - no longer they are enforced to select the best answer among a dozen of so similar or `editing-typos-of-you-lot' answers.
3) It will add more choice to the potential outsourcers
4) It will provide more background to the askers which means more help.
5) but not the least. It will be honest and objective: it's not about being and old-timer or newbie, it's about the quality.
[Edited at 2007-08-07 10:52]
| | | | CMJ_Trans (X)
Local time: 13:58
French to English
+ ...
| However, don't forget ... | Aug 7, 2007 |
that there will still be idiosyncrasies.
1) as and when askers can award from 1 to 4 points, something which often involves a value judgment, the ratio will always be a bit off kilter
2) I naively thought, when I first discovered this site, that the idea was to help other people. That, to me, meant sacrificing "self" and throwing in one's 3 cents, even if it meant that someone else came up later and ran with the ball, earning the acclaim of peers and the points to boot. If t... See more that there will still be idiosyncrasies.
1) as and when askers can award from 1 to 4 points, something which often involves a value judgment, the ratio will always be a bit off kilter
2) I naively thought, when I first discovered this site, that the idea was to help other people. That, to me, meant sacrificing "self" and throwing in one's 3 cents, even if it meant that someone else came up later and ran with the ball, earning the acclaim of peers and the points to boot. If the ratio is enforced, it will make to difference to me. I can go on as before because I don't have anything to prove any more. But there are bound to be those who will think twice before setting balls rolling, waiting perhaps instead to jump in the end and cream off the points. Sounds balmy to some of you but there are clearly those who CARE about such things.
3) what happens about what I would call the "stupid" questions? I mean by that, the questions that answerers ought not to be asking, the ones that they should be able to find in any standard dictionary, etc. Most people are beginning to boycott (or have long boycotted) such questions but the points from such dumb questions will still count on an equal footing to the rest (unless dubbed "non-pro", which is another story/problem).
4) and again what about the stupid answers that get accepted?
OK - so many questions (and more unsaid) and no real answers but all reasons why (not the first time I have said this) I am sceptical about the whole thing.
Famous last words....?
[Edited at 2007-08-07 12:23] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Steffen Walter wrote:
Hi Hilde,
This feature has been implemented a long time ago. When you open the leaderboard, it shows three lists/columns: "Last 3 months", "Last 12 months" and "All time". This should put things in perspective already, at least to a certain extent.
I have seen that. But what people seem to care about is their directory listing. Which is where the outsourcers look, one would presume. And that is based on all-time rating, I think?
And the person topping the list could be someone who was extremely active three years ago, but has since disappeared from the scene - theoretically?
Would it not be more useful to outsourcers as well to see who is currently very active - in other words: keen to get a job
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » HowZ your K/Q? | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
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 
