Aleksandr Okunev wrote:
1) Now the general assumption advertised by Proz is that Kudoz score is a direct reflection of one's professionalism. Which it is not IMVHO. I do not think that there is a way to stop Kudoz hunting. Client education would help a but, and, as old people say "stupidity is a punishment in itself".
Well, exactly. I humbly hope there are better quality-assurance strategies at the client’s disposal than relying on KudoZ scores.
Aleksandr Okunev wrote:
2) what shall we think about those who contribute(d) to the article base, give advice on the forums, keep their profiles coherent, do many other useful things to the translation community and, by this, maintain the image of Proz at the present, seemingly high, level? *** Why do their contributions not count? *** I would suggest to remove member grading by Kudoz score and install new, more logical and client friendly search filters enabling the clients to find a translator or a team quickly and 'correctly', if you like.
Good idea
Aleksandr Okunev wrote:
3) Why is the asker given the right to grade the answers? By the mere nature of the system, the asker is the least competent person in this particular field, subject and context. He or she should not be given this right. I am not speaking about the cases of grading answers on the basis of personal likes and dislikes, these things do happen but they are not inherent in the system, while grading by the asker is. If you say that the asker has the most of the context to judge, well, it is the asker's duty (and it's a must in the other terminology assistance systems I take part in) to provide all the context required to provide an answer. Robot grading IMHO is much more fair.
While your point is well argued, you seem to overlook that ideally, a person inexperienced in a particular field should never translate texts in it. If the asker has no idea of what he is translating (as sometimes he or she does, but that’s more of an exception than a rule), then your suggestion about robot grading is reasonable (though how then to make sure that the peers, who agree or disagree with a particular answer, are competent enough?). Yet, more often than not the asker has some background in the area and can separate the wheat from the chaff. Besides, since the asker knows the context better than anyone else, it is again he who is in the best position to choose the right answer.
Aleksandr Okunev wrote:
4) Why is only one answerer given the points? We all have once seen a Kudoz page where another answerer, seeing a slightly imprecise answer, instead of making a note and clicking on "Agree" hijacked the idea and scored. Another point is that when I ASK questions very often the most correct answer is not the most useful one, or there is a spectrum of professional opinions almost equally useful, but I have to choose just one. Since I do not hope that this point scoring system is going to be abandoned, I think the points should be given to all or most answerers.
…and who would do the grading (which returns us to the question no.3)? And if everybody who answered is rewarded, than you have your unfair system when people who answer frequently, though not necessarily correctly, will fare better than thoughtful but occasional answerers.
Aleksandr Okunev wrote:
5) I want to have a "Not for grading" confidence level.
I like that
Aleksandr Okunev wrote:
Lastly. I am posting this on the forum because firstly I would like to hear your opinion about this and secondly I am tired of the situation when all my messages to Proz staff generate a robot response (at best) or sink into a black hole with no follow-up.
But shouldn’t you rather wage your war at the forum dedicated to KudoZ issues?
P.S. Wasn’t it Aristotle who said that democracy is the worst possible way of government? Alas, we are just as far from meritocracy on ProZ, as anywhere else. That's life
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
