| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | KudoZ Bad, Kudos Good Thread poster: TonyTK
|
|---|
| We need to change the system | Nov 28, 2006 |
I think eliminating the points will discourage many translators (including professional translators) from taking part in KudoZ, because the wish to get points and improve the ranking does not contradict to professionalism. It would be risky to do such a thing. I haven't compared, but in my opinion it would be very helpful to compare the number of answers received for “not for points” questions, with those that are posted “for points”. This relative analysis would give some idea of what w... See more I think eliminating the points will discourage many translators (including professional translators) from taking part in KudoZ, because the wish to get points and improve the ranking does not contradict to professionalism. It would be risky to do such a thing. I haven't compared, but in my opinion it would be very helpful to compare the number of answers received for “not for points” questions, with those that are posted “for points”. This relative analysis would give some idea of what would happen if points were removed. And still, we should not forget, that many answerers to “not for point” questions are those, who receive notifications by e-mail. If point system is removed, many will just turn off notifications, and won’t take part in KudoZ at all.
For this reason, instead of eliminating the point system, I would suggest just changing it. For example, isn’t it strange, that the asker, who is the least competent person among those discussing the question, at least as far as that particular question is concerned, is the only one, who chooses the best answer and grants points? Wouldn’t it be better to let translators grant these points with the help of "agrees" and "disagrees" (e.g., a peer “agree” adds one point to the total number of points earned by that translator, and a “disagree” deducts one point from the total points; also, I would suggest allowing only verified members to post "agrees” and “disagrees”, to protect translators from “anonymous" attacks)? And why should there be a winner. This isn’t a race, is it? Why should there be one “best” answer from three equally correct answers. We are translators and not mathematicians, so there may be more than one correct answer. Why not just let each answerer earn his/her points with the help of "agrees" given by the peers, regardless of the asker’s opinion, time passed, etc. Of course, we cannot foresee all problems, and there may still be personal preferences, etc., but I think this method will work better.
And above all:
TonyTK wrote:
...they're professionals who don't act like professionals.
Yes, professionals don’t act like professionals, if they have to face unprofessional conditions. KudoZ point system is the only criterion on this site (excluding payment) that helps translators get more jobs, because it improves their ranking. So we have to adapt to these rules. I know at least one member who asks questions, then logs in from another IP address or another computer, and answers them, earning points. Why not think of changing this system? Of course, it’s hard to assess translators, who are free to declare what they wish on their profiles, but still there are other criteria that can be considered. I think, along with KudoZ points, another important criterion that should be considered for ranking translators (and I would put it before KudoZ points) is the rates of the translators (visible or invisible), i.e., the higher the rates, the higher the ranking. Rates may not be visible to the outsourcer, but they can be used in search filters, and those translators, who haven’t specified their rates or have lower rates, should be behind those on the list, who have specified their rates and have higher rates, even if they have earned more KudoZ points. Of course, this is not a cure-all, but still I think rates play an important role in assessing a translator’s attitude to the profession, and this system may help us get better paid jobs. Other things that may be considered for ranking might be the BrowniZ points, feedback of the clients, etc. These are such things that can be automated by the site, without having to involve the staff.
Regarding glossary, I would suggest some threshold (say at least three peer “agrees”) for entering a term into the glossary.
[Edited at 2006-11-28 10:05] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Francis Lee (X)
Local time: 19:20
German to English
+ ...
| Punish modesty? | Nov 28, 2006 |
Paulo César Mendes MD wrote:
Maybe creating penalties that made it more "costly" to answer any old thing would improve answer quality. For example, deducting points for 'disagrees', rejected, or hidden answers? Or awarding fewer points to questions with low confidence levels and/or to answerers with low points-to-answers ratios?
Well, deducting points for e.g. getting 3 Disagrees is perhaps debatable (although I personally see no point), BUT why should colleagues with modest confidence levels get fewer points? In many cases, respectable colleagues post a CL2 or 3 because this is a REALISTIC/HONEST confidence level. At the same time, you have points-grabbers and people who are simply clueless (and hugely overestimate their abilities - this applies in particular to non-natives) putting up a CL 4 or even 5 for a flawed answer. And awarding less points to those with low points-to-answers ratios makes absolutely no sense to me.
Paulo César Mendes MD wrote:
I also think it would be useful to have more numeric options for peer grades and confidence levels; e.g. peer agreement from 1 ('completely wrong') to 9 ('totally right') and 9 grade choices for confidence levels as well.
Why make things more complicated? Now and again I might wish there were an extra level each above and below neutral, BUT the system's basically sufficient as it is; you can always explain (e.g. "almost an Agree") in the comment box.
Anyway, there are far more important issues at stake here (see above) ...
| | | | Marc P (X) 
Local time: 19:20
German to English
+ ...
| The Good, the Bad and the KudoZ | Nov 28, 2006 |
Henrik Pipoyan wrote:
I think eliminating the points will discourage many translators (including professional translators) from taking part in KudoZ.
Henrik, there are numerous other venues (some public, some private) where translators discuss terminology. I am not aware of any other venue that has turned terminology discussion into a game. When I hear people say that translators cannot discuss terminology without making a game out of it, I can only assume that they have no experience of other venues.
Translators may have other reasons for not using KudoZ. Although I find the game aspect off-putting, the main reason that I don't use KudoZ is in fact that I don't wish to discuss my customers' texts with the whole world listening in. I think this is something translators should do amongst themselves in non-public venues.
Some excellent points have already been made in this discussion. In particular, concerning robust debate (or even just plain old normal debate, i.e. not constrained to quiz-show format). Also Paulo César Mendes' comment, that abolishing Kudoz "would be tantamount to admitting that the main criterion used to rank translators in ProZ.com directories is fundamentally flawed"; and CMJ_Trans' and Lia Fail's comments that the current system is not workable. Comments like this invariably draw references to numbers as proof of the system's success, but quality and quantity aren't the same thing.
Marc
| | | | Nikki Graham
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:20
Spanish to English
| Having just come across this thread... | Nov 28, 2006 |
would someone kindly explain why Tony's first post has disappeared? Because the whole thread seems a bit pointless without it...
Thank you
| | |
|
|
|
Angela Dickson (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:20
French to English
+ ...
Nikki, posts are invisible while they are being edited. You just had the bad luck to stumble across this thread at the very moment when Tony was editing his post.
| | | | Fan Gao
Australia
Local time: 03:20
English to Chinese
+ ...
| "First validated answer" mode | Nov 28, 2006 |
Hi,
I think this new option that Proz has introduced will help things whereby questions are closed as soon as an answer receives two net agrees.
As long as the people agreeing have got it right of course:)
Mark
| | | | Francis Lee (X)
Local time: 19:20
German to English
+ ...
| often, first answer = worst answer | Nov 28, 2006 |
Chinese Concept wrote:
Hi,
I think this new option that Proz has introduced will help things whereby questions are closed as soon as an answer receives two net agrees.
As long as the people agreeing have got it right of course:)
Mark
Sorry, Mark, but your final words are the essence of why I find this option a shot in the foot rather than the arm.
- More often than not, the first answer "validated" through this system is perhaps not wrong but certainly sub-standard.
- And just as often, the people agreeing too quickly simply know no better. I personally could not imagine clkicking on the option for one of my own questions.
- Just because two people agree with an answer does not "validate" it in my opinion. There are a lot of cowboys out there on Kudoz, so please at least change this term.
- It only serves to further accelerate the "race for points", i.e. some people are in an even greater rush to post an answer (with the familiar "-" etc. as an explanation)
Abolish and forget.
A colleague above suggested that grading not be allowed until 24 hours after posting. That makes far more sense too me - and as long as Kudoz is supposed to be about quality, of course
| | | | TonyTK
German to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | A few responses | Nov 28, 2006 |
Kim wrote:
" ... The asker could be told to "try again with more context" and to read the rules for asking questions if s/he doesn't know what context is."
Absolutely. I can't for the life of me understand why askers get so upset when badgered for more context.
"Next to the answerer's name we then see in bright blue letters "specializes in field" or "works in field." I know for a fact that this feature has misled many an asker."
This is another featur... See more Kim wrote:
" ... The asker could be told to "try again with more context" and to read the rules for asking questions if s/he doesn't know what context is."
Absolutely. I can't for the life of me understand why askers get so upset when badgered for more context.
"Next to the answerer's name we then see in bright blue letters "specializes in field" or "works in field." I know for a fact that this feature has misled many an asker."
This is another feature I'd scrap, to be honest. If we want to know how much people know about a particular subject, we should take the trouble to look at their profile and past answers.
"And I'm also concerned about the effect sloppy, dishonest work has on our profession."
I agree. At a time when fewer and fewer newbie translators have the opportunity to benefit from the expertise of more established colleagues in an in-house environment and are unleashed on the market with little or no insight into required standards or the translating profession as a whole, the more experienced translators at venues like ProZ.com have a responsibility to set the tone and guide them on their way – for example by showing them how to research terminology without taking short-cuts and helping them to realise the importance of quality.
Paulo wrote:
"For example, deducting points for 'disagrees', rejected, or hidden answers? Or awarding fewer points to questions with low confidence levels and/or to answerers with low points-to-answers ratios? … I also think it would be useful to have more numeric options for peer grades and confidence levels."
While I agree with the sentiment (deducting points for a certain number of "disagrees" is something I used to think would be a viable option, for example), I'm come to the conclusion that it might be better to make the system simpler rather than even more complex. Hence my call for doing away with confidence levels and answer hiding. I believe the only way to improve things (with or without a points system) is by setting examples and establishing an accepted standard of quality based on our comments on other people's answers.
Lia wrote:
" ... The glossary doesn't function as a glossary, it functions as a 'resource' where one must assess asker and answerers and chosen answer with great care."
Exactly
"Yes, the forum is an elements in ProZ.com that seems to work well. Apart from discussions, where else can you get such fast answers to tricky CAT, Word, Excel problems etc?"
That's one of the reasons I intend to join ProZ in 2007 – because, despite my misgivings about KudoZ, it is still an excellent resource. Like many before me, if KudoZ gets any worse, I'll still use ProZ, but I'll just ignore the terminology section.
Henrik wrote:
"I think eliminating the points will discourage many translators (including professional translators) from taking part in KudoZ, because the wish to get points and improve the ranking does not contradict to professionalism."
Agreed. I know for a fact that many of the points leaders are also excellent translators.
"For this reason, instead of eliminating the point system, I would suggest just changing it. For example, isn’t it strange, that the asker, who is the least competent person among those discussing the question, at least as far as that particular question is concerned, is the only one, who chooses the best answer and grants points?"
It's certainly a problem, but I can't see a way around it without making things even more complicated.
"Wouldn’t it be better to let translators grant these points with the help of "agrees" and "disagrees" (e.g., a peer “agree” adds one point to the total number of points earned by that translator, and a “disagree” deducts one point from the total points; also, I would suggest allowing only verified members to post "agrees” and “disagrees”, to protect translators from “anonymous" attacks)?"
Again, I agree with the sentiment. My fear is that we may lose sight of the overall objective if we become too bogged down in the technicalities of KudoZ. To my mind, the overriding goal must be to improve the quality of input from answerers. Everything else – while it may also be important – is secondary. I think the key to achieving this goal is to make it frequently and abundantly clear that shoddy answers are not acceptable.
[Bearbeitet am 2006-11-28 12:18] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Wait till 2007 for any possible Kudoz improvements | Nov 28, 2006 |
CMJ_Trans wrote:
In the wake of this Henry ran a forum on "your 3 wishes per person" and promised a big rethink, if not shake-up, of the way the site works/worked.
OK they all went gallivanting off to Edinburgh and someone somewhere has clearly been putting a great deal of time and energy into site marketing BUT what happened to the promised changes?
The first of these related to jobs, which is not relevant to this forum, but the second WAS the points system and, I suspect, until we've had Part 1, we ain't goin' to get Part 2........
Hi,
I don't know if you all follow the Proz-specific forums, but just recently Robert Forstag made a comment (at
http://www.proz.com/topic/57466?start=15&float= ) about the pending expectations raised regarding the promised changes in the "Let's improve Proz" thread (mentioned here by CMJ_Trans).
It seems, according to Proz management, that we are not to going to have any changes/improvements (in the jobs, KudoZ or other areas) before the year 2007, even though we were basically given the impression that immediate actions were going to take place as a result of the published summary of the said improvement thread.
I am mentioning this just in case anyone is not informed about this.
Regards,
Ivette
| | | | | Kudoz Bad, Kudos Good | Nov 28, 2006 |
This is a very interesting topic, and the points raised here are good ones. I still would not like to see the existing KudoZ-system changed. This is a glossary maintained by ProZ-users worldwide for the benefit of translators worldwide. It won't be perfect, but it should work if everybody just sticks to the KudoZ-rules (and rules of etiquette when commenting on contributions) which are available on this site and which are straight forward. According to the rules site staff are able to take measu... See more This is a very interesting topic, and the points raised here are good ones. I still would not like to see the existing KudoZ-system changed. This is a glossary maintained by ProZ-users worldwide for the benefit of translators worldwide. It won't be perfect, but it should work if everybody just sticks to the KudoZ-rules (and rules of etiquette when commenting on contributions) which are available on this site and which are straight forward. According to the rules site staff are able to take measures against users who repeatedly violate them. Perhaps all users should be reminded periodically of KudoZ- (and forum) rules by staff.
On the grading of answers I would like to disagree with Henrik Pipoyan who suggests that points should be awarded on the basis of positive peer comments. I do think that the asker will always be the best person to judge which answer has been 'most helpful' to him or her. The peer comment function (provided peer comments are strictly factual) is there to help him or her make that judgement, no more, no less. I think the present grading system is better than having no grading system (or other form of feedback for KudoZ-answerers) at all. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Chinese Concept wrote:
Hi,
I think this new option that Proz has introduced will help things whereby questions are closed as soon as an answer receives two net agrees.
As long as the people agreeing have got it right of course:)
Mark
First-validated answers are an utterly terrible idea as I argued when the option was first introduced. I am sad to say that my direct experience with these questions since that time has served only to prove me right.
As for the general topic of this thread, I also disagree, particularly with Marc. *Added for Marc*: Sorry Marc, I should have been clearer. I think the game aspect is very important. That's what I disagree with you about.
Allow me to ventilate a theory: for 95% of translators KudoZ is a stage in their online development here at Proz.
Newcomers to the Kudoz arena, who may or may not be experienced translators, often gain invaluable skills through the process of participation. They make friends by answering questions and interacting with other participants. They find a niche for themselves and a community of people with similar interests/skills/rates/opinions. They accumulate points which give them exposure. They refine their research skills in order to respond to questions quickly. They learn by reading others' answers and explanations. Finally, once this formative process has run its course most people lose interest in Kudoz as a daily "hobby". They no longer rush to answer every question. They no longer seek to hastily research anything and perhaps only respond where they can rely on their own knowledge, rather than hurried research online. The game no longer appeals as it once did. The wonderful nicotine rush has been replaced by the rather unpleasant taste of cigarette smoke, which was not noticeable before. The smoking analogy is particularly appropriate given the remaining 5% of hardcore addicts Of course, while this transformation is occurring to you it is very difficult to grasp. After all, as human beings we're far more likely to attribute responsibility to someone/something else. "These cigarettes really taste different. What DO they put in them these days?"
I would imagine that most people who ask a lot of questions on Kudoz go through the same process, which gradually moves them away from an initial dependence on Kudoz to an eventual position of self-reliance where Kudoz is used sparingly and only when all other avenues have been exhausted. Again, the addiction analogy applies for a small proportion of “serial askers”.
I, like many others, have often been tempted to reminisce about the “good old days” when everyone on Kudoz was a true Pro, when the grass was green, the birds chirped and we all lived happily under the caring, watchful gaze of ever-present moderators.
So, to summarise, Kudoz is not just terminology help. Kudoz is, for many people, an induction into the Proz community. A crash-course is online research, a show-case of talent and lack thereof. It’s a stage. Once you’re through it, you tend to look back with warmth and cringe at the “dreadful state” of the whole thing, much as you might when you go back to your school after 20 years.
The truth is, Kudoz has always been flawed as a terminology assistance venue. The clueless answerers have always been there. The askers with no idea of how to select an answer have always been there. If anything, Kudoz is gradually improving due to the restrictions imposed on the number of questions that can be asked by one person in a given period. In the RussianEnglish Kudoz community we have even created a Disagree Team to make sure we don’t go easy on people who may mislead askers with completely erroneous answers.
Yes, some of the real pros have left but then so have many others. When I first joined Proz over 2 years ago one of my first encounters was with a man of great erudition whose answers helped me several times and with whom I have subsequently established a good working relationship. Simultaneously I was also confronted with a clueless idiot who called me names and went through all my answers for the previous month and put a disagree to every single one as revenge for my comment to his answer. Today, they are both inactive here, no doubt replaced by others.
Nostalgia isn’t what it used to be. (c)
[Edited at 2006-11-28 12:46]
[Edited at 2006-11-28 12:51]
| | | | TonyTK
German to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | As a smoker trying to kick the habit ... | Nov 28, 2006 |
Konstantin Kisin wrote:
The wonderful nicotine rush has been replaced by the rather unpleasant taste of cigarette smoke, which was not noticeable before.
... I don't find your smoking analogy too convincing ... but I'm happy to accept your assessment of KudoZ as a training ground for young translators. My point is that they'd benefit even more if they were confronted with high standards from the outset.
In the RussianEnglish Kudoz community we have even created a Disagree Team to make sure we don’t go easy on people who may mislead askers with completely erroneous answers.
Sounds rather drastic - but it underlines the problems we've been talking about. My only regret is that you couldn't come up with a more dynamic name.
| | |
|
|
|
Virgile
Australia
Local time: 03:20
English to French
+ ...
I totally agree with Konstantin. I just managed to shake off the habit. I am sure that some of my answers were not up to to it all the time but I relied on the disagree process to prove me wrong. It was fun and allowed me to feel like I was belonging somewhere. The fun has a bit worn off, for several reasons.
First, I have observed a few unprofessionnal behaviours. To disagree is good if there is an explanation and/or an alternative offered. Pure spite is worthless. Some people get way too... See more I totally agree with Konstantin. I just managed to shake off the habit. I am sure that some of my answers were not up to to it all the time but I relied on the disagree process to prove me wrong. It was fun and allowed me to feel like I was belonging somewhere. The fun has a bit worn off, for several reasons.
First, I have observed a few unprofessionnal behaviours. To disagree is good if there is an explanation and/or an alternative offered. Pure spite is worthless. Some people get way too agressive...
On the other hand. I have offered answers to questions in my area of expertise. And I was sure my answer was the most accurate as I worked in that particular scientific field for more than 15 years and I used this terminology almost every day of these 15 years.... Guess what? Another answer, which was off the plot was choosen. A bit disheartening....
The other thing that bothers me is that some of the questions could easily be answered by opening a dictionnary or by searching google. Aren't people supposed to try first before asking on Kudoz?????
However, I think the system is OK. It is rather the asker and answerer behaviours that need changing.... Until that happens, no system will work 100%.
Cheers
Muriel ▲ Collapse
| | | | | You get what you pay for | Dec 3, 2006 |
I think it's important to keep in mind that KudoZ answers are free consulting. I originally found ProZ.com while searching for a term on Google. The first 3 hits were KudoZ answers, and after a little cross checking one of them happened to be correct. The important point being, only ONE of them were correct. Considering what we pay for KudoZ answers (uhh, nada), some serious due dilligence is in order before handing it over to a cash paying customer.
One note on the quality of a... See more I think it's important to keep in mind that KudoZ answers are free consulting. I originally found ProZ.com while searching for a term on Google. The first 3 hits were KudoZ answers, and after a little cross checking one of them happened to be correct. The important point being, only ONE of them were correct. Considering what we pay for KudoZ answers (uhh, nada), some serious due dilligence is in order before handing it over to a cash paying customer.
One note on the quality of answers. I recently got a job offer from a steady outsourcer (my first +10,000 word offer through ProZ). Upon reviewing the job, I realized it was a little too far outside my knowledge for me to be able to complete at an acceptable level of quality or in a reasonable amount of time. The outsourcer asked me if I could recommend someone for the job. I actually recommended someone based on the quality of his KudoZ responses (I've never met him personally but he is a very prolific KudoZ participant). My decision wasn't based on the number of points he had attained, but on the QUALITY of his answers.
At least for him, the system worked as it should.
It would be nice to get a +10,000 word offer that was in my field, though.
SaludoZ!
-Jason ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Ideas on improving quality | Dec 3, 2006 |
Dr. Jason Faulkner wrote:
The first 3 hits were KudoZ answers, and after a little cross checking one of them happened to be correct. The important point being, only ONE of them was correct. Considering what we pay for KudoZ answers (uhh, nada), some serious due dilligence is in order before handing it over to a cash paying customer.
One note on the quality of answers.... The outsourcer asked me if I could recommend someone for the job. I actually recommended someone based on the quality of his KudoZ responses (I've never met him personally but he is a very prolific KudoZ participant). My decision wasn't based on the number of points he had attained, but on the QUALITY of his answers.
Hi Jason - please keep on posting here. I enjoy reading your observations. I think the quality problem boils down to two major weak spots: 1. the poor quality of many of the questions and 2. the poor quality of many of the answers.
I have two recommendations:
1. Give our professional translators the right to vote to downgrade a poorly phrased pro-level question (inadequate context, etc.) to non-pro or to squash them with the asker receiving a note telling him/her to try again with sufficient context and to read the rules if s/he doesn't know what context is.
2. Allow answers to pro-level questions only from members who have established a respectable reliability ratio. The site has all the stats on the reliability of members - questions answered vs. answers selected. This information does not have to be published. A member with a low reliability rating would simply not be able to enter an answer until he has improved his reliability by answering non-pro questions.
[Edited at 2006-12-03 18:40]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » KudoZ Bad, Kudos Good | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | 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 
