How about a right to appeal for squashed askers? Thread poster: Jon Zuber (X)
|
|---|
Jon Zuber (X)
Spanish to English
+ ...
When a question is squashed, email could be sent to askers informing them of their right to appeal. Appealed questions would be reviewed by staff, who could reinstate them, protected against subsequent squashing. With the following fillips:
-Squashers too frequently overturned would lose squashing privileges.
-Squashers confirmed often enough would become unappealable.
-Askers whose squashes are confirmed often enough would lose the right to appeal.
... See more When a question is squashed, email could be sent to askers informing them of their right to appeal. Appealed questions would be reviewed by staff, who could reinstate them, protected against subsequent squashing. With the following fillips:
-Squashers too frequently overturned would lose squashing privileges.
-Squashers confirmed often enough would become unappealable.
-Askers whose squashes are confirmed often enough would lose the right to appeal.
This would ensure that squashing was done in accordance with the intentions of site owners, and end the ongoing foofaraw in the fora about what is squashworthy and what not. Yes, it would be extra work initially, but in the long run everyone would gain. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
| Unnecessary squashing | Feb 18, 2002 |
It hasn\'t happened to me personally, but I think it\'s a little unfair to squash a question because it\'s \"repetitious\" if the answer is not in the glossary. Proz gets new members every day, and just because the old-timers are tired of seeing a question doesn\'t mean it isn\'t legitimate. I think it is sufficient to simply not answer the question if you have seen it before, without punishing the asker for not being around when it was asked first.
This small issue aside, I... See more It hasn\'t happened to me personally, but I think it\'s a little unfair to squash a question because it\'s \"repetitious\" if the answer is not in the glossary. Proz gets new members every day, and just because the old-timers are tired of seeing a question doesn\'t mean it isn\'t legitimate. I think it is sufficient to simply not answer the question if you have seen it before, without punishing the asker for not being around when it was asked first.
This small issue aside, I see the Kudoz system as a really invaluable tool for translators. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Hans-Bertil Karlsson (X)
Sweden
Local time: 22:07
Norwegian to Swedish
+ ...
In memoriam | repeated questions | Feb 24, 2002 |
I think you misunderstood \"repeat\". I think that mean that somebody put the same question twice (by double-clicking or whatever), not that we have seen \"I love you\" 57 times the last months 
| | | |
John Kinory (X)
Local time: 21:07
English to Hebrew
+ ...
| Unappealable? You mean, god-like? | Feb 24, 2002 |
First of all, this suggestion adds yet another layer of complexity to what is rapidly becoming more a game of dungeons-and-dragons than a site for professional translators to discuss matters of mutual interest.
Secondly, your proposed rules are not just a bureaucratic but a legalistic nightmare. Why should people be unappealable if they have been proved right in the past? Does that make them incapable of being wrong?
Ditto for the other suggestions.
[addsig]
| | |
|
|
|
| You are rignt , Hans | Feb 24, 2002 |
Recently I have squashed two or three questions because THE SAME asker had posted THE SAME question twice.
Regards,
BSD
| | | |
Ralf Lemster 
Germany
Local time: 22:07
English to German
+ ...
| Re: Unnecessary squashing | Feb 25, 2002 |
Quote:
On 2002-02-18 13:16, idwerk wrote:
It hasn\'t happened to me personally, but I think it\'s a little unfair to squash a question because it\'s \"repetitious\" if the answer is not in the glossary. Proz gets new members every day, and just because the old-timers are tired of seeing a question doesn\'t mean it isn\'t legitimate. I think it is sufficient to simply not answer the question if you have seen it before, without punis
... See more Quote:
On 2002-02-18 13:16, idwerk wrote:
It hasn\'t happened to me personally, but I think it\'s a little unfair to squash a question because it\'s \"repetitious\" if the answer is not in the glossary. Proz gets new members every day, and just because the old-timers are tired of seeing a question doesn\'t mean it isn\'t legitimate. I think it is sufficient to simply not answer the question if you have seen it before, without punishing the asker for not being around when it was asked first.
No punishment intended. However, I don\'t think it\'s asking too much to check the KudoZ questions previously asked and answered before posting a new question (in fact, the KudoZ entry form explicitly asks to check in previously answered questions). A repetition can only occur if the database already holds the term requested.
Sometimes, the terms stored might not fit your needs - in that case, why don\'t you just mention that fact as a comment when posting? I\'m sure no moderator will squash anything when seeing a legitimate comment there. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Jon Zuber (X)
Spanish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Quote:
On 2002-02-24 22:12, Yoni wrote:
Why should people be unappealable if they have been proved right in the past? Does that make them incapable of being wrong?
As it stands, *all* squashers are what you call godlike. None can be appealed; the only recourse an asker has is to repost, with no guarantee the same person won\'t shoot the question down again. What I\'m proposing is a limitation, not an exp... See more Quote:
On 2002-02-24 22:12, Yoni wrote:
Why should people be unappealable if they have been proved right in the past? Does that make them incapable of being wrong?
As it stands, *all* squashers are what you call godlike. None can be appealed; the only recourse an asker has is to repost, with no guarantee the same person won\'t shoot the question down again. What I\'m proposing is a limitation, not an expansion, of squashing power. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Mary Worby
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:07
German to English
+ ...
| Squashers are not gods! | Feb 27, 2002 |
Although moderators are! The moderators actually have the right to reinstate questions they feel have been unjustly squashed. I\'ve seen squashed questions suddenly reappear ... so this right of appeal does actually exist, after a fashion.
Regards
Mary
| | |
|
|
|
Werner George Patels, M.A., C.Tran.(ATIO) (X)
Local time: 16:07
German to English
+ ...
| You're kidding, right? | Feb 27, 2002 |
Quote:
On 2002-02-27 08:34, MaryR wrote:
Although moderators are! The moderators actually have the right to reinstate questions they feel have been unjustly squashed. I\'ve seen squashed questions suddenly reappear ... so this right of appeal does actually exist, after a fashion.
Regards
Mary
Mary,
Moderators are not gods either; t... See more Quote:
On 2002-02-27 08:34, MaryR wrote:
Although moderators are! The moderators actually have the right to reinstate questions they feel have been unjustly squashed. I\'ve seen squashed questions suddenly reappear ... so this right of appeal does actually exist, after a fashion.
Regards
Mary
Mary,
Moderators are not gods either; they are as fallible as anyone else (some even more so  ). ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Mary Worby
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:07
German to English
+ ...
| Strictly tongue in cheek! | Feb 27, 2002 |
Werner
The analogy between moderators and gods was strictly tongue-in-cheek. I was merely pointing out that squashed questions do not disappear into a pit of doom, never to be seen again, and that there is a reinstating option
Regards
Mary
| | | |
Werner George Patels, M.A., C.Tran.(ATIO) (X)
Local time: 16:07
German to English
+ ...
| What a relief! | Feb 27, 2002 |
Quote:
On 2002-02-27 17:28, MaryR wrote:
Werner
The analogy between moderators and gods was strictly tongue-in-cheek. I was merely pointing out that squashed questions do not disappear into a pit of doom, never to be seen again, and that there is a reinstating option
Regards
Mary
Sorr... See more Quote:
On 2002-02-27 17:28, MaryR wrote:
Werner
The analogy between moderators and gods was strictly tongue-in-cheek. I was merely pointing out that squashed questions do not disappear into a pit of doom, never to be seen again, and that there is a reinstating option
Regards
Mary
Sorry, Mary, but I had to ask  ▲ Collapse
| | | |
| Question about squashing | Feb 27, 2002 |
I have been out for a week and when I came back I had that one of my answers had been selected by peers. When I tried to see it I couldn\'t see it again because it had been squashed. But I can put it in the glossary if I want to. The reason given by the squasher is \"repetition\", but as far as I remember there was no repetition, and I had several agrees. The squasher is a moderator.
My question is :
Can a question be squashed after Kudoz have been given ? Here they were awar... See more I have been out for a week and when I came back I had that one of my answers had been selected by peers. When I tried to see it I couldn\'t see it again because it had been squashed. But I can put it in the glossary if I want to. The reason given by the squasher is \"repetition\", but as far as I remember there was no repetition, and I had several agrees. The squasher is a moderator.
My question is :
Can a question be squashed after Kudoz have been given ? Here they were awarded by peers, that means that time had passed. Or may be it had been squashed before and I hadn\'t notice it ?
Sorry for my English, thanks for your answers.
Claudia ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Login to reply/comment 
