| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | 6th ProZ.com Translation Contest: Not enough qualification votes in. Please help! Thread poster: RominaZ
|
|---|
RominaZ 
Argentina
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Number of votes needed to disqualify an entry | Mar 21, 2008 |
Dear Elisa,
I would like to know how many negative votes are needed to disqualify an entry and how many positive votes are needed to qualify one. Does it change with the number of entries for a language pair and how?
Entries are qualified when they receive 3 positive votes. On the other
hand, they are disqualified when they reach the number of 4 net negative
votes, whichever happens first.
Dear Magda,
Hi again Romina,
Today I check the voting page again and I see that for ENG-PL there is no qualification round at all even if there are 10 entries. It says that the submissions are closed and final voting will start on Wed 26th - and what about the qualification round? I see that in other language pairs the qualification round took place with less then 10 entries (7,8,9), but for Polish, Hindi, Bulgarian, Ukrainian and Indonesian different rules apply. Why?
Hello Magda,
You are not a nuisance at all.
The purpose of the qualification round is to downsize the number of entries in those pairs where there is a lot of participation to have a manageable number at the final composed of just those entries the community has selected as possible winners. Meanwhile submission is extended in pairs with less participation to give them more chances to have greater representation in the final.
The line was drawn at 6. Past experience has shown that the pairs that by the time qualification round starts have fewer that 6 entries only add a few more entries.
This contest has been unprecedented as to the number of participants, entries and live language pairs. On the other hand, qualification round voting has been less effective than would have been ideal. We will have to consider the experience gained in this contest and try some changes next time around.
Thanks
| | | | RominaZ
Argentina
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Thanks for your votes! | Mar 21, 2008 |
Dear All,
Thanks for your votes. Two more pairs have been closed out!
I'll keep you posted.
Romina
| | | | redred
China
Local time: 03:55
English to Chinese
+ ...
RominaZ wrote:
Entries are qualified when they receive 3 positive votes. On the other
hand, they are disqualified when they reach the number of 4 net negative
votes, whichever happens first.
RominaZ,
Take ones for example, how about 3 positive votes versus 3 negative votes simultaneously? Go to the qualified round?
4 positive votes versus 4 negative votes, it is not 4 NET negative ones, it is qualified too?
redred
[Edited at 2008-03-22 03:45]
| | | | Susie Miles (X)
Local time: 16:55
English to Spanish
| I am lost now.... | Mar 23, 2008 |
Henry D wrote:
Not true. In many cases only one vote in either direction is needed to settle the matter for a given entry. People have already responded to the request for help in some pairs. In English to Spanish, for example, in a half day, 12 of the 29 entries that had been pending have now either been qualified or disqualified. There are still 17 to go (please consider voting now, English to Spanish translators!)
Thanks for taking part and for posting!
I don’t understand what is meant by:
“The qualification round has begun in the language pairs below (voting closed)”
There are about 31 qualified entries out of 47 in the En>Sp pair. Does it mean we have to ‘add notes’ to each one of them giving our opinion? How is the process now? Sorry, but I am lost…
How are we going to vote, if the voting is closed? Only En>Sp translators who did not vote before are now requested to vote? And those voters will be able to vote negatively without providing a valid reason?
Another question: Will the reasons provided before or now will be visible at the end?
Thank you, Susie
[Edited at 2008-03-23 09:21]
[Edited at 2008-03-23 09:29]
| | |
|
|
|
Susie Miles (X)
Local time: 16:55
English to Spanish
| Pending entries | Mar 23, 2008 |
[quote]Henry D wrote:
The only result in prolonging the qualification round for another week might be a (dis-)qualification of 2-3 another entries in each language combination...
Not true. In many cases only one vote in either direction is needed to settle the matter for a given entry. People have already responded to the request for help in some pairs. In English to Spanish, for example, in a half day, 12 of the 29 entries that had been pending have now either been qualified or disqualified. There are still 17 to go (please consider voting now, English to Spanish translators!)
Dear Henry,
I don't find it fair that the remaining 'pending' entries are now considered as 'qualified entries'. If they were pending it means they never got the necessary votes to qualify. I think that if prolonging the period for another week was implemented it should had been only among those that were still pending. The first 12 (or so) that had already reached the category to be considered as qualified entries, should not be subject to disqualification now, with this extension period...
| | | | RominaZ
Argentina
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Qualifying round: Some clarifications | Mar 23, 2008 |
Dear redred,
Take ones for example, how about 3 positive votes versus 3 negative votes simultaneously? Go to the qualified round?
In the example you describe that entry would have qualified as it reached the 3 positive votes first and it was far from reaching the -4 net.
Susie Miles wrote:
I don't find it fair that the remaining 'pending' entries are now considered as 'qualified entries'. If they were pending it means they never got the necessary votes to qualify.
Dear Susie,
That is not the case here at all. The status of the "pending" entries was decided by the community's votes. They responded actively to the post and expressed their opinion by voting. This voting defined the status of the pending entries in Eng -Spa and led to the qualification of some entries and disqualification of the other.
I think that if prolonging the period for another week was implemented it should had been only among those that were still pending.
Exactly, voting was extended only among the pending entries. Qualified entries are qualified entries. Their status had been defined already.
The first 12 (or so) that had already reached the category to be considered as qualified entries, should not be subject to disqualification now, with this extension period...
They are not subject to disqualification now. As I said, their status had been defined already.
If you take a closer look at the contest page you'll see that the phrase
“The qualification round has begun in the language pairs below" is above the chart that contains all language pairs. (Note: it has been there since qualification started). The words "voting closed" is only next to those pairs where qualification has closed because the number of votes cast was enough to define the status of entries. As you see qualification is still open in some pairs.
All pairs where voting has closed are waiting for the final voting round which will start on Wednesday, March 26, 15 GMT.
See you there!
| | | | | The qualification/DQ rules don't work! | Mar 23, 2008 |
In this contest I only voted (but did not submit an entry) in the Russian-English pair.
Among the 13 entries sumbitted, one belonged to a non-native. You could tell it right away - too many simple grammar errors that no EMT would ever allow. Sure enough, it was a good effort, but it deserved to be DQed.
I checked in about a week or so later and, to my astonishment, saw this entry qualified.
There were also a few more entries that fell under the "No, others are cle... See more In this contest I only voted (but did not submit an entry) in the Russian-English pair.
Among the 13 entries sumbitted, one belonged to a non-native. You could tell it right away - too many simple grammar errors that no EMT would ever allow. Sure enough, it was a good effort, but it deserved to be DQed.
I checked in about a week or so later and, to my astonishment, saw this entry qualified.
There were also a few more entries that fell under the "No, others are clearly better" category. The exact number depends on how picky you are, but at least 2 other translations were clearly inferior.
Right now, we have 11 entries qualified (including all but one of the clearly inferior ones) and 2 pending. This proves my point: at least for my pair, the current rules do not work.
[Edited at 2008-03-23 17:30] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Mikhail Kropotov wrote:
Among the 13 entries sumbitted, one belonged to a non-native. You could tell it right away - too many simple grammar errors that no EMT would ever allow. Sure enough, it was a good effort, but it deserved to be DQed.
I checked in about a week or so later and, to my astonishment, saw this entry qualified... This proves my point: at least for my pair, the current rules do not work.
I think I know the entry you mean. Obviuos mistakes (several ones of any choice — grammar, spelling) even in the very first phrase, not to say of the 'non-English twang'... But yes, it has succesfully qualified! This again proves that qualification is not a professional evaluation, but 'beauty contest' or what not. If everything is within fair play limits, then, minimum, voting like this refutes all criteria of assessing the quality of translation. And people who voted for that entry must be forbidden to vote for ever and ever and ever: not noticing mistakes like that is a proof you don't know the rules of the language, not to say of skill and style matters etc.
| | |
|
|
|
Mikhail Kropotov wrote:
The qualification/DQ rules don't work!
As staff members, reviewing the outcome of qualification voting this time, we are in agreement with this statement. It looks like requiring a reason threw things out of kilter, and an unexpectedly low number of entries has been disqualified. This will make final round voting more taxing, but it should not affect the outcome.
We'll try something different for qualification round voting next time.
Looks like we've got a bigger issue this time around, though, one that might even be so serious that it affects some pairs in the current contest. We have been looking into matters and will report in detail today after we gather more information.
[Update, March 25: We are still evaluating.]
| | | | | Unnecessary Procedures | Mar 26, 2008 |
To my opinion;
Prequalification stage is absolutely unnecessary and also unfair.
Because you are opening those entries earlier than the other pairs.
By opening them earlier than the others you are violating the rights of those people, they can not revise their entries anymore, but the other contestants who submitted their entries in other pairs, they can revise by looking at the opened entries. (there are too many multilinguists in the site). Because submission and editi... See more To my opinion;
Prequalification stage is absolutely unnecessary and also unfair.
Because you are opening those entries earlier than the other pairs.
By opening them earlier than the others you are violating the rights of those people, they can not revise their entries anymore, but the other contestants who submitted their entries in other pairs, they can revise by looking at the opened entries. (there are too many multilinguists in the site). Because submission and editing phase is still open during the prequalification of other entries.
This system is infringing all contestants' rights.
Also one more unfair thing; in the prequalification stage voters have a right to disqualify an entry, however in the final voting stage there is not any disqualification. So its looks like a punishment than prequalification.
Also I am agree with the idea that the contest is loosing it's sense. Because the rules for the contest have never been discussed with the users, site staff have put their rules and insisting on them. But they know nothing about being a contestant. The rules for the contest should be revized as you see there are some problems, that people do not agree.
[Edited at 2008-03-26 03:59] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Thank you, M. Ali | Mar 26, 2008 |
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote:
Prequalification stage is absolutely unnecessary and also unfair
Thanks for your assistance offline, M. Ali. I will post shortly.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » 6th ProZ.com Translation Contest: Not enough qualification votes in. Please help! | 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! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
