Pro of the Month or similiar
Thread poster: xxxLia Fail
| | xxxLia Fail
Local time: 00:21
Spanish to English
Why don\'t we introduce a system for nominating and honouring colleagues that have proved themselves in ProZ?
We could have a couple per language combination, categorised as Top ProZ, one or two deserving special or honourable mention, and a special thanks section (this way ALL of those who helped others beyond the call of duty would be honoured and we avoid excluding 2nd or 3rd best etc whose help is also valuable and so also deserves recognition).
Right now I have in my head the names of a number of people who, over the period of nearly two years that I\'ve been here, have brightened my life in various ways, whether it\'s the quality of answers, voluntary emails that earn no kudoZ, the brilliant jokes I get from a certain someone in the USA, etc tec.
Indeed Cecilia, I\'m NOT suggesting a best jokes section!!! This is a SERIOUS workplace, what I was indicating was that through ProZ I have met wonderful people, I might even nominate you..........!
[ This Message was edited by: on 2002-04-14 18:28 ]
| || || |
| | Jerzy Czopik
Local time: 00:21
Polish to German
| KudoZ points || Apr 14, 2002 |
I think it\'s a great idea.
But by existing system of gathering KudoZ points ist means, only those have a chance to be the Leader of the Month, who work in very common language combinations, or better with more than one language combination. For example, in the English-German section are much mor questions to answer as in the Polish-German one. So if I would answer ALL questions in Polish-German section and gather even 4 points for each answer, I will never be a leader, because I cant get more than 200-250 points in one month.
So I would suppose to take all points the translator gathered in his language pairs, divide this points through all points he could get (ie. he answered 20 questions, got 50 points, but he could answer 100 questions with 400 points), and multply with 100. So we get the percentage (ie. 25%) and so one can how active this particular translator was. For example gathering 400 points in a section with 4000 possible points would be less than gathering 50 points in a section with 200 points to get. Perhaps it\'s a good idea to compare different language groups.
After all we would have overall leaders and specific leaders, selected by the am. method.
| || || |
| A very nice thought but perhaps but what impression is created? || Apr 14, 2002 |
It\'s a nice thought you have about thanking colleagues. Sadly though, I wonder if some people might react to this in a way that would detract from the professionalism of the site - and its members - overall.
I have only been taking part in ProZ for a few weeks but I immediately found it very helpful.
Since then though I have noticed that there is a tendency for people to be so keen to acquire the existing mark of approval, Kudoz points, that they rush to give answers that are wrong. As a native English speaker, I particularly noticed recently that someone who was not a native speaker, or bilingual, suggested three wrong answers in a row for translations into English. The person had either misunderstood the English, and given a translation complete with references for what was in fact a completely different word, or had understood the meaning but did not know enough English to provide an idiomatic translation, or even the right part of speech.
The answers were being accepted by an asker, listed as a professional translator, who was also not an English native speaker.
When this text finally reaches its English speaking market, the client will simply seem incompetent. The bad translation will damage the reputation of their goods or services.
When I looked at the answerer\'s profile, I saw that it was written in English but contained three glaring grammatical errors.
What happens when a potential purchaser of translation services comes to Proz and sees this? Seeing that the person has amassed lots of points or, by similar competitiveness, is listed as \"Pro of the Month\", they will presume that all the members are incompetent.
It must be said people that who are translating into their native language also rush in and suggest answers when they are clearly guessing, or when they cannot have enough context to give an adequate reply, eg. when only a few words are quoted from a legal translation.
I wonder it would be more rewarding, for all the members, and for their clients, if we were to concentrate more on standards and on how we look to the outside world?
In the UK, anyone who is a member of the Institute of Linguists is supposed, as a condition of membership, to agree to translate only into their native language. Before working into another language, they have to take an exam proving bilingualism.
Perhaps people could be accepted as ProZ members to translate into their native language on the current basis, but if they want to be listed as translating into other languages, they would have to provide accreditation from the government-approved body in that country?
I have no idea, by the way, whether amassing those points does translators any good. I suppose it might get a person\'s name known, but surely it is better to do this by producing consistently good work on time, and being a reasonable and decent colleague. That\'s rare enough to make a person famous.
| || || |
| KudoZ and high standards are not mutually exclusive || Apr 15, 2002 |
Indeed, our priority should be quality, but out in the real world that is also hard to achieve without KudoZ. The KudoZ system seems to serve a specific marketing purpose within ProZ and IMHO it does not lower ProZ standards. As any other system it is not perfect, but you will never be able to keep everyone happy, especially if you are in the business of providing assistance free of charge (envy being just one of many possible factors). I also take part in high quality specialized discussion lists where you get, one average, one terminology query per day, but the number of their members is probably closer to 300 rather than 30,000.
I am afraid it would be technically impossible to correctly weigh everyone\'s contribution to KudoZ by taking into account your criteria. In your 400/4000 example, that answerer may be still eventually ahead of the 50/200 guy if, at the same time, he reaps points in other language combinations.
My 2 cents