| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | Do KudoZ questions need to be vetted for enough context? Thread poster: liz askew
|
|---|
| What is context? | May 1, 2009 |
I think the problem is that some people don't know what "context" means. They think that context means text, so when they have to translate a table or a list of terms with no link between them, context is null.
So if a kind of "context button" is implemented, some askers won't know what is expected from them and will still answer: "sorry there is no context, really".
So maybe the thing to do is to "teach" them what context is (i.e. any piece of information related to t... See more I think the problem is that some people don't know what "context" means. They think that context means text, so when they have to translate a table or a list of terms with no link between them, context is null.
So if a kind of "context button" is implemented, some askers won't know what is expected from them and will still answer: "sorry there is no context, really".
So maybe the thing to do is to "teach" them what context is (i.e. any piece of information related to their document: format, title, instructions given by the client, etc...)
On the other hand it's not our job to do that, and if a translator doesn't know what context is or doesn't realize that a text isn't made of words only, he/she probably doesn't deserve our help. ▲ Collapse
| | | | liz askew 
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:38
Member (2007)
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Please let us stick to the point - how to resolve the context problem | May 1, 2009 |
Hi
Do we try and reach a solution on this, whether we are individual translators, members of the community, forum, wherever we are from? Do we have to get bogged down with procedure and rules, important as they are:-)
So is it "let us discuss resolving this issue" or is it "sod them all and let's just carry on as it is"?
Blunt though it may be, where does this leave the initial question?
Cheers!
Liz
Henry D wrote: Katalin Horvath McClure wrote:
...Site staff did not seem to agree that the problem exists... Of course lack of context is an issue. As a rule, folks, we ask that forum posters refrain from characterizing others' positions for them. ( It is, literally, a rule - http://www.proz.com/siterules/forum/5#5 ) This helps to keep discussions from becoming distracted.
| | | | | Practical aspects | May 1, 2009 |
The only people who are going to suffer from the "problem" are the people responsible for it, i.e. askers. There is already a simple feature allowing answerers to ask for more information, and there is already a clear rule in place; I don't think it's a matter of getting "bogged down" with rules or procedures. Your proposal sounds to me as if it will involve a fair amount of work on someone's part. Are you suggesting that questions should not appear until they have been "context-assessed" by som... See more The only people who are going to suffer from the "problem" are the people responsible for it, i.e. askers. There is already a simple feature allowing answerers to ask for more information, and there is already a clear rule in place; I don't think it's a matter of getting "bogged down" with rules or procedures. Your proposal sounds to me as if it will involve a fair amount of work on someone's part. Are you suggesting that questions should not appear until they have been "context-assessed" by someone? How is that going to work in practice? Questions can be asked at any time of the day or night. Askers often say that they need help urgently as they are working to tight deadlines, but if a vetting procedure is brought in, this is only going to slow things up. Who is going to spend all this time vetting each question? Volunteers? Some "major" pairs such as IT-EN and EN-FR don't even have moderators at present.
What's more, in the case of highly technical questions, I think only those familiar with the relevant field will really be in a position to judge whether sufficient context has been provided - so really you'd need a whole team of people covering different fields for each language pair, preferably living in several different time zones. This doesn't seem feasible to me - or do you see it working in some other way? ▲ Collapse
| | | | liz askew
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:38
Member (2007)
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Please close the question now. | May 1, 2009 |
This discussion is going nowhere, except getting people heated.
Let's forget I ever raised the topic.
It doesn't really matter at all when it comes down to it. I shall just carry on in my own sweet way and focus.
Cheers!
Please close the question now.
It is a sunny day and there are more important things.
Liz
Peter Shortall wrote:
The only people who are going to suffer from the "problem" are the people responsible for it, i.e. askers. There is already a simple feature allowing answerers to ask for more information, and there is already a clear rule in place; I don't think it's a matter of getting "bogged down" with rules or procedures. Your proposal sounds to me as if it will involve a fair amount of work on someone's part. Are you suggesting that questions should not appear until they have been "context-assessed" by someone? How is that going to work in practice? Questions can be asked at any time of the day or night. Askers often say that they need help urgently as they are working to tight deadlines, but if a vetting procedure is brought in, this is only going to slow things up. Who is going to spend all this time vetting each question? Volunteers? Some "major" pairs such as IT-EN and EN-FR don't even have moderators at present.
What's more, in the case of highly technical questions, I think only those familiar with the relevant field will really be in a position to judge whether sufficient context has been provided - so really you'd need a whole team of people covering different fields for each language pair, preferably living in several different time zones. This doesn't seem feasible to me - or do you see it working in some other way?
| | |
|
|
|
| Not heated at all | May 1, 2009 |
liz askew wrote:
This discussion is going nowhere, except getting people heated.
If you're referring to me, I'm not getting heated at all, Liz; all I was interested in was your thoughts as to how vetting would work in practice, and that's something that would have to be considered. As I say, I think there would be a number of potential problems, but that's just my point of view; others may be able to see ways around them.
| | | | liz askew
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:38
Member (2007)
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | I've lost interest - I personally don't want to get bogged down in this. Close the question. | May 1, 2009 |
As I said I have more important things to do now.
Please close the question.
Liz
liz askew wrote:
This discussion is going nowhere, except getting people heated.
If you're referring to me, I'm not getting heated at all, Liz; all I was interested in was your thoughts as to how vetting would work in practice, and that's something that would have to be considered. As I say, I think there would be a number of potential problems, but that's just my point of view; others may be able to see ways around them. [/quote]
| | | | | I try humour... | May 1, 2009 |
I don't always have time for action when no rules are violated, but I do try to keep an eye on as many questions as possible in the pairs I moderate.
Sometimes an "answer" jumps to mind, and I look to see if it is useful. I occasionally find it is probably way off, but there is no context... So I add it in the discussion box, or as an answer with a confidence rating not higher than 2. I make a request for more context with an explanation of how my grasshopper mind made the associati... See more I don't always have time for action when no rules are violated, but I do try to keep an eye on as many questions as possible in the pairs I moderate.
Sometimes an "answer" jumps to mind, and I look to see if it is useful. I occasionally find it is probably way off, but there is no context... So I add it in the discussion box, or as an answer with a confidence rating not higher than 2. I make a request for more context with an explanation of how my grasshopper mind made the association, and logic is not always the strong point there. 
In fact a discussion of what comprises useful context could be quite useful, as the topic of buttons or no buttons seems to be exhausted. It just might jog a few people into understanding what the problem is.
And there are probably no moderators who have time to vet for context.
Besides, we moderators are not supposed to be linguistic experts in our capacity as moderators, so we can't decide across the board how much context is adequate. Two key words might say it all to a real expert in the right field, and ten lines of waffle would still be useless.
(Though as ordinary KudoZ users we do have our ideas in our own fields of course.)
When I ask questions I try to describe the background of my text, as I very often find that cutting and pasting three lines above and three lines below the problem term is not going to help anyone.
This also avoids revealing anything about the client that might be confidential, another standard excuse for not giving context.
Have a nice weekend! ▲ Collapse
| | | | liz askew
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:38
Member (2007)
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Yes, let us never lose sight of that saving grace...it helps in the most dire of circumstances.
Enjoy your weekend too!
Liz
| | |
|
|
|
Tony M
France
Local time: 09:38
Member
French to English
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
This is an issue I have very often ruminated over when (sad person that I am!) I've had nothing better to do.
I long ago came to the conclusion that any attempts to legislate for this (and a number of other 'question asking' issues...) were doomed to failure — we have seen how so many no doubt well-intentioned attempts to add 'legislation' to the site have either led to labyrinthine complexity, or have ultimately failed (cf. the cave-in over the 'policing' of the old 'ask the aske... See more This is an issue I have very often ruminated over when (sad person that I am!) I've had nothing better to do.
I long ago came to the conclusion that any attempts to legislate for this (and a number of other 'question asking' issues...) were doomed to failure — we have seen how so many no doubt well-intentioned attempts to add 'legislation' to the site have either led to labyrinthine complexity, or have ultimately failed (cf. the cave-in over the 'policing' of the old 'ask the asker' box!)
However, I do think that the site itself could do more to 'educate' people so that they can get the most out of it; for the smaller buttons/boxes, the mouse-over tips are already quite a lot of help — but I don't think that's enough for the key text entry boxes (like the headword question and the context).
I wonder if there is some way that less experienced askers (say, those who have asked less than a certain number of questions?) could be 'pestered' (sorry!) by a little text that explains how to enter your question term / what sort of context is meaningful, which pops up every time they put their cursor into the corresponding box? It seems to me this ought to be fairly easy to implement, programming-wise, and would at least be a good reminder of some sensible guidelines, right at the moment when it is needed (instead of referring people off to some FAQ / tutorial / How to... / list of rules, etc.) — after all, that's just basic human psychology! ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Tony M wrote:
I wonder if there is some way that less experienced askers (say, those who have asked less than a certain number of questions?) could be 'pestered' (sorry!) by a little text that explains how to enter your question term / what sort of context is meaningful, which pops up every time they put their cursor into the corresponding box? It seems to me this ought to be fairly easy to implement, programming-wise, and would at least be a good reminder of some sensible guidelines, right at the moment when it is needed (instead of referring people off to some FAQ / tutorial / How to... / list of rules, etc.) — after all, that's just basic human psychology!
I just had a look and found that there is already a bit of blue text on the "Ask question" page, just underneath the "Explanation" box (a required field), which says:
"As much explanation as possible should be entered for the term. Consider including: type of document/situation, country and dialect, URLs, translations you are considering, etc."
I'm not sure if this is one of the tips you're referring to, but even if it is, perhaps it could be made to "pester" askers just a little bit more, as you suggest!
| | | | liz askew
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:38
Member (2007)
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Well, as an ex-teacher (many moons ago) | May 1, 2009 |
Sure, legislation is often less effective than education, but it protects us all...we hope.
Yep, I am in favour of educating people, but only when they want to be educated.
And I am beginning to wonder if some actually do.
But your ideas are good ones, FWIW. I raised this point more in support of those translators who are willing to help others but are not given enough context to do so and this leads to frustration, cynicism and the "sod them " attitude.... See more Sure, legislation is often less effective than education, but it protects us all...we hope.
Yep, I am in favour of educating people, but only when they want to be educated.
And I am beginning to wonder if some actually do.
But your ideas are good ones, FWIW. I raised this point more in support of those translators who are willing to help others but are not given enough context to do so and this leads to frustration, cynicism and the "sod them " attitude.
I am no technical expert, but were there a practical solution to this issue, then you have my support. But don't ask me to design the wherewithall to do it:-)
BTW my intentions are not to stir up a hornet's nest, or hurt anybody's feelings here. I just saw the "context" thing as an issue and hoped it could be resolved.
Enjoy your weekend too!
Liz
Tony M wrote:
This is an issue I have very often ruminated over when (sad person that I am!) I've had nothing better to do.
I long ago came to the conclusion that any attempts to legislate for this (and a number of other 'question asking' issues...) were doomed to failure — we have seen how so many no doubt well-intentioned attempts to add 'legislation' to the site have either led to labyrinthine complexity, or have ultimately failed (cf. the cave-in over the 'policing' of the old 'ask the asker' box!)
However, I do think that the site itself could do more to 'educate' people so that they can get the most out of it; for the smaller buttons/boxes, the mouse-over tips are already quite a lot of help — but I don't think that's enough for the key text entry boxes (like the headword question and the context).
I wonder if there is some way that less experienced askers (say, those who have asked less than a certain number of questions?) could be 'pestered' (sorry!) by a little text that explains how to enter your question term / what sort of context is meaningful, which pops up every time they put their cursor into the corresponding box? It seems to me this ought to be fairly easy to implement, programming-wise, and would at least be a good reminder of some sensible guidelines, right at the moment when it is needed (instead of referring people off to some FAQ / tutorial / How to... / list of rules, etc.) — after all, that's just basic human psychology!
[Edited at 2009-05-01 18:03 GMT]
[Edited at 2009-05-01 18:04 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Anne-Marie Grant (X)
Local time: 08:38
French to English
+ ...
| What will motivate askers to provide more context | May 1, 2009 |
is the thought that they will not get a decent answer if they don't. I agree that the prompt needs to happen clearly and decisively at the point where people are completing the question fields.
Also, I would much prefer to see a 'vote not enough context' button than a 'vote pro/non-pro' button - I think it would sort out the problem very quickly.
| | |
|
|
|
Rachel Fell
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:38
French to English
+ ...
| Agree with Anne-Marie - and | May 1, 2009 |
I was just thinking it could be done at the point of asking the question, as I know it can be easy to overlook adding context when your head is full of it.
I like the 2nd idea too.
[Edited at 2009-05-02 14:56 GMT]
| | | |
As Peter has described in some detail (and I hinted at earlier), an actual vetting procedure would be quite labour intensive.
To counter-balance what I said before, it might also be worth pointing out that sometimes, 4 words can be enough. I distinctly remember a couple of IT questions many, many moons ago where the crowd was baying for more context but in all honesty, there was only one thing it could mean, ever, in any conte... See more As Peter has described in some detail (and I hinted at earlier), an actual vetting procedure would be quite labour intensive.
To counter-balance what I said before, it might also be worth pointing out that sometimes, 4 words can be enough. I distinctly remember a couple of IT questions many, many moons ago where the crowd was baying for more context but in all honesty, there was only one thing it could mean, ever, in any context.
So not only would a purely automatic, character counting mechanism probably not work, we should also bear in mind that a manual vetting procedure might also fail, simply through ignorance.
Which leads us to the path of only those with some kind of expertise in the field being the ones who decide whether the context is sufficient or not, not any old Joe Soap who happens to open the question.
Ignoring the related issue of people not putting the right field for the question, I would suggest that the optimum solution is therefore the old chestnut of the "more context" button, with an additional weighting factor depending on the button-clicker's known expertise in the field.
If 2 experts in the field think more context is needed, that probably carries more weight than 4 or 5 people who know as much as the Asker does.
So you could devise a system based on existing kudoz points in the field, whereby if you click that button but have no points in the field, it counts as 1 click, if you have up to (say) 200 points in the field it counts as 2 clicks, up to 500 it counts as 4 clicks, etc. etc, and you need, say 10 click-equivalents before a message is sent to the Asker.
If the Asker fails to respond within 48 hours the question is removed.
If this happens 3 times in 3 months, the Asker loses the right to ask questions for 3 months.
Let's face it, there's no point going down this path if there is no reward/punishment angle. I can't think of a reward for "good" questions (nor a way to measure a "good" question); the only alternative is punish the "bad".
But it's complicated and adds another "feature" to the site and... well, it's easier to just walk away from the questions and go do some weeding, or something.... ▲ Collapse
| | | | casey
United States
Local time: 03:38
Member
Japanese to English
| Sometimes you just want input | May 2, 2009 |
Sometimes the translator himself/herself is suffering with a lack of context in the original text (such as a list of words in a table). If you're working for an agency, you can't just say, "I'm not going to translate this unless you give me more context." You have to put something in and leave a note. In these cases I like to get input from native speakers of the source language to see if they have any insight. I can't provide context in these cases because there is none, but I'm not really look... See more Sometimes the translator himself/herself is suffering with a lack of context in the original text (such as a list of words in a table). If you're working for an agency, you can't just say, "I'm not going to translate this unless you give me more context." You have to put something in and leave a note. In these cases I like to get input from native speakers of the source language to see if they have any insight. I can't provide context in these cases because there is none, but I'm not really looking for the perfect answer, either.
Edit: I just saw Stéphanie's comment up there. Yes, you always have the subject matter and little tidbits of information like that (and most of the time you would pick the category based on that information), but sometimes that little bit is not enough to help the answerers any more than it was a help to the asker...so you're still left with a lack of context.
[Edited at 2009-05-02 01:17 GMT]
[Edited at 2009-05-02 01:17 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | 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 » Do KudoZ questions need to be vetted for enough context? | 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! » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
