| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16] > | KudoZ: should "rubbish" help be appreciated? Thread poster: IanW (X)
|
|---|
| Disagrees can also be "rubbish", sometimes... | Jul 28, 2006 |
Enrique wrote:
... I believe our community would be up to the task.
Details could be worked out. I would first like to know whether or not KudoZ users would be in support of this type of approach.
Kind regards,
Enrique
Count me in, Enrique, certainly! But first, please make sure that the MODERATORS get some triaining on how to moderate the sudden increas in disagreements.
Recently I started using disagrees much more, and for my troubles have had retaliatory disagrees attached to some of my answers, for no other reason than that someone took offense at having me point out the issue with their rubbish answer. Very petty, and annoying, but whatever. In any event, moderators need to learn how to deal with that.
| | | | IanW (X)
Local time: 19:16
German to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Reliabiity ratios | Jul 28, 2006 |
Much as I like the idea of reliabiity ratios, one problem that does spring to mind is that answerers in popular pairings are at a disadvantage. For example, in the English-German pairing my "acceptance rate" is 32% but it is 63% in the Irish-English pairing.
This isn't because my Irish-English answers are more reliable, but rather because this questions are quite rare and when they are asked there are generally only one or two answers offered, compared to seven or eight in the Engl... See more Much as I like the idea of reliabiity ratios, one problem that does spring to mind is that answerers in popular pairings are at a disadvantage. For example, in the English-German pairing my "acceptance rate" is 32% but it is 63% in the Irish-English pairing.
This isn't because my Irish-English answers are more reliable, but rather because this questions are quite rare and when they are asked there are generally only one or two answers offered, compared to seven or eight in the English-German pairing. I'm not very mathematically inclined, but perhaps someone else can work out a way for this figure be adjusted to reflect the number of answers given at the time of grading?
And while the self-regulating peer comments set-up would certainly work very well in many pairings, there are others that have been largely abandoned by native speakers. I won't name any pairings, but I'm sure Catherine knows what I am talking about.
[Edited at 2006-07-28 06:52] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Ian Winick wrote:
Much as I like the idea of reliabiity ratios, one problem that does spring to mind is that answerers in popular pairings are at a disadvantage. For example, in the English-German pairing my "acceptance rate" is 32% but it is 63% in the Irish-English pairing.
It would probably be a simple matter, mathematically, to determine whether your acceptance rate is greater than or less than the statistical probability of being selected at random, by comparing the reliability ratio to this probability. If, on average, there are 2 answers to every IR-EN question, then you have a 50% probability of being selected. If there are 6 answers to every En-GE question, you have a 17% probability. You could fine-tune this to take account only of the number of answers proposed to questions that you have answered... I would imagine the processing time for these calculations would be very lengthy, though
And while the self-regulating peer comments set-up would certainly work very well in many pairings, there are others that have been largely abandoned by native speakers. I won't name any pairings, but I'm sure Catherine knows what I am talking about.
Hmmm, not sure what you're getting at - surely we can only comment on answers that are there....? Or do you mean that if people start disagreeing with every answer that contains a minor linguistic slip, then non-native-standard answerers might be disinclined to offer help with untangling a particularly tortuous turn of phrase? Which could be countered by people posting "agrees" to the idea, while perhaps gently correcting any grammar issues.... Anyway, the idea is to discourage "rubbish", not people who are trying to help - it just needs a reasonable attitude from all concerned.
| | | | | Suggestion for filtering questions/askers | Jul 28, 2006 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
the idea is to discourage "rubbish", not people who are trying to help - it just needs a reasonable attitude from all concerned.
With your (community) idea in mind, I suggest adding, in the "Ask question screen", a drop-down option, right after "Write-in field (For further specification)", aimed at *filtering* the questions/askers themselves.
For example, something like:
Have you searched this in any bibliographical sources?
1) Yes. Please state which ones (online or printed). [If they give any references, this would also become very valuable help for users/members in general about information sources that they might not have been aware of.]
2) No. Please see our "term searching techniques page" at XXXX [You would have to create the said page, a combination of your Kudoz guidelines, plus some basic "techniques" about how to search terminology.]
Just another suggestion.
PS: I forgot, it would also discourage the lazy ones who prefer to have others do the search work for them.
PS: Oops, also forgot that, in case they choose "No", they would not be allowed to post the question (and thus be forced to do the some search work before posting a question).
[Edited at 2006-07-28 11:36]
| | |
|
|
|
| On personal comments in peer comments | Jul 28, 2006 |
Stuart Allsop wrote: Enrique wrote:
It is not part of the role of KudoZ moderators to act as linguistic authorities, and in this case there is nothing the moderator could do as such.
If you feel an answer is wrong you can use the peer-comments feature to formulate your opinion, including your linguistic reasons.
Don't count in it, Enrique! I tried doing exactly what you say, and for my troubles I was temporarily banned from agreeing or disagreeing, believe it or not! I had noticed someone playing the "guessing game" on the ES-EL and EL-ES pair, and I started posting disagrees with technical reasons why the answers were not only wrong but just plain nuts, plus a request to "please stop guessing" in each case. After about 20 or 30 of those, I suddenly found that I had been banned from agreeing, and not by the moderator from the ES-EL pair, as you might except, but by a moderator from some Arabic pair! I guess that the Arabic mod was a friend of the guy I was trying to stop, or some such, and got a bee in his bonnet about my hassling his pal. Fortunately, the mod on the ES-EL pair reinstated my ability to agree/disagree, and told the "guesser" to get in line and stop guessing. So, just a word to the wise: To keep rubbish answers out of Proz and out of the KOG, it is not always enough to disagree with linguistic and technical cause, if the polluter happens to be buddies with a moderator.
Dear Stuart,
Your peer comments are good, providing linguistic reasons not only for disagrees but also for agrees. Peer comments are an integral part of the KudoZ system and I believe a great improvement in quality could be achieved from this information.
Now in the particular case you mention above I beg to differ with your evaluation. Your "please stop guessing" requests were personal comments and therefore not allowed, please see http://www.proz.com/siterules/kudoz_answ/3.5#3.5
When your peer-comment rights were temporarily blocked you had issued disagrees such as:
" Folks here are PROFESSIONAl translators. They only ask questions when the dictionaries do not help. Read the "About Proz" section. They want intelligent suggestions, not mindless machine translations."
"Please stop guessing. Didn't you get the hint yet? Your stupid guesses are getting to be VERY annoying. ... PS. I did not say that YOU were stupid: I said your GUESSES were stupid. Then again...."
These comments are clearly unacceptable. The moderator who blocked your rights did so in accordance with the rules, not because he was a friend of the answerer.
Again, these are isolated cases and your contributions are very valuable. I am in no way judging you here, just clarifying a situation brought here by you.
Kind regards,
Enrique
| | | | | yes to the idea | Jul 28, 2006 |
I agree with the "more bite" idea but can't think of a neat way of implementing it...then again, that ain't my job
| | | | | Peer comments with bite | Jul 28, 2006 |
Enrique wrote:
Your peer comments are good, providing linguistic reasons not only for disagrees but also for agrees. Peer comments are an integral part of the KudoZ system and I believe a great improvement in quality could be achieved from this information.
These comments are clearly unacceptable. The moderator who blocked your rights did so in accordance with the rules, not because he was a friend of the answerer.
Again, these are isolated cases and your contributions are very valuable. I am in no way judging you here, just clarifying a situation brought here by you.
Kind regards,
Enrique
Dear Enrique - I certainly agree with you that the moderator in question was simply enforcing the rules as they stand.
Maybe it would be a good idea to standardize the comments peers can make about questions and answers. Just as we have drop-down boxes for reasons for squashing questions, we could have a set of responses to questions and answers. This would keep people like Stuart and me out of trouble.
But the options need to "have bite".
P.S. such comments would be IN ADDITION TO the peer's linguistic reasoning in the particular situation.
[Edited at 2006-07-28 13:31]
| | | | IanW (X)
Local time: 19:16
German to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Comments with bark and bite | Jul 28, 2006 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
Maybe it would be a good idea to standardize the comments peers can make about questions and answers. Just as we have drop-down boxes for reasons for squashing questions, we could have a set of responses to questions and answers. This would keep people like Stuart and me out of trouble.
But the options need to "have bite".
Yes, a "buy a dictionary (stoopid)" option would be top of my wish-list ...
| | |
|
|
|
| Bark and Bite II | Jul 28, 2006 |
Ian Winick wrote:
Yes, a "buy a dictionary (stoopid)" option would be top of my wish-list ...
Closely followed by "native speaker of (target language) my a***"
| | | | Nikki Graham 
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:16
Spanish to English
| How about... | Jul 28, 2006 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Ian Winick wrote:
Yes, a "buy a dictionary (stoopid)" option would be top of my wish-list ... Closely followed by "native speaker of (target language) my a***"
Did you even bother to read the question?
| | | | | Personal comments | Jul 28, 2006 |
Nikki Graham wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote: Ian Winick wrote:
Yes, a "buy a dictionary (stoopid)" option would be top of my wish-list ... Closely followed by "native speaker of (target language) my a***" Did you even bother to read the question?
Sorry if I am missing a joke, but all three examples would be against http://www.proz.com/siterules/kudoz_answ/3.5#3.5
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | IanW (X)
Local time: 19:16
German to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Yes, Enrique, you are missing a joke - these were not meant to be taken seriously.
| | |
|
|
|
Dyran Altenburg (X)
United States
Local time: 13:16
English to Spanish
+ ...
| My personal favorite | Jul 28, 2006 |
Nikki Graham wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote: Ian Winick wrote:
Yes, a "buy a dictionary (stoopid)" option would be top of my wish-list ... Closely followed by "native speaker of (target language) my a***" Did you even bother to read the question?
What part of "experts only"was hard to understand? [followed by a 'tard smiley]
| | | | Klaus Herrmann
Germany
Local time: 19:16
Member (2002)
English to German
+ ...
| Standardization? | Jul 28, 2006 |
What happened to the freedom of choice which has been endorsed earlier in this thread? KudoZ had it's best times (in my SC) when peer comments (agrees AND disgrees) lead to a true discussion and real results. Taking that away will make us voting machines.
| | | | | Personal comments | Jul 28, 2006 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
Maybe it would be a good idea to standardize the comments peers can make about questions and answers. Just as we have drop-down boxes for reasons for squashing questions, we could have a set of responses to questions and answers. This would keep people like Stuart and me out of trouble.
But the options need to "have bite".
P.S. such comments would be IN ADDITION TO the peer's linguistic reasoning in the particular situation.
Dear Kim,
According to rule http://www.proz.com/siterules/kudoz_answ/3.5#3.5 peer comments must be purely linguistic and include no personal comments. Therefore there should be no comments in addition to the peer's linguistic reasoning in the particular situation.
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » KudoZ: should "rubbish" help be appreciated? | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
