| Pages in topic: [1 2 3] > | Do KudoZ questions need to be vetted for enough context? Thread poster: liz askew
|
|---|
liz askew 
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:59
Member (2007)
French to English
+ ...
Hello there
It is the age old problem!
Lately I have noticed that askers provide a distinct lack of context when posting queries, despite being asked for it on many occasions to help translators help the asker!!
I see it is actually beginning to annoy some translators that askers are not providing much context, if ANY.
Do queries need to be vetted for enough context, and if not enough is provided, should the query be returned to the asker? It i... See more Hello there
It is the age old problem!
Lately I have noticed that askers provide a distinct lack of context when posting queries, despite being asked for it on many occasions to help translators help the asker!!
I see it is actually beginning to annoy some translators that askers are not providing much context, if ANY.
Do queries need to be vetted for enough context, and if not enough is provided, should the query be returned to the asker? It is becoming very tiresome indeed to be repeatedly asking for more context and being ignored.
And please don't come back with the age old point about "sometimes there is no context to provide".
I expect now we will get a debate about who decides what makes up context, or what "context" actually is
Kind regards
Liz Askew
[Edited at 2009-05-01 08:08 GMT]
[Subject edited by staff or moderator 2009-05-01 10:38 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
And please don't come back with the age old point about "sometimes there is no context to provide".
Of course not, but some will come back with "don't bother to answer"!
What astonishes me is that some answerers prefer to give a wild answer instead of asking for context, just in case they would be right....
I remember an old topic where someone suggested to add a "context button" on which you could click if you think more context is needed, instead of writing a full request to the asker. But if I remember right the idea was rejected (too many buttons already)...
Stéphanie
| | | | Thomas Pfann
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:59
Member (2006)
English to German
+ ...
| Idea: Vote "Not enough context" | May 1, 2009 |
What about a function similar to the existing "Vote Pro/Non-Pro" button? If a certain number of ProZ members click a button to say there is not enough context the question could be bounced back to the asker who would then have to provide more context or withdraw the question.
Just an idea. Maybe something like this could work?
It could, however, lead to endless arguments about what exactly is "enough" context.
[Edit: Alright, just saw Stéphanie's reply. S... See more What about a function similar to the existing "Vote Pro/Non-Pro" button? If a certain number of ProZ members click a button to say there is not enough context the question could be bounced back to the asker who would then have to provide more context or withdraw the question.
Just an idea. Maybe something like this could work?
It could, however, lead to endless arguments about what exactly is "enough" context.
[Edit: Alright, just saw Stéphanie's reply. Seems something like this had already been suggested and rejected in the past.] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | "Context button" | May 1, 2009 |
| | |
|
|
|
liz askew
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:59
Member (2007)
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | The "don't bother" answer.. | May 1, 2009 |
Hello there
I won't expect a miracle of any sort of solution to this irritating problem, that would be too much to expect.
There will always be people who would rather think negatively than positively.
But where does that leave us - "analysis paralysis"??
Not me:-)
Liz
| | | | liz askew
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:59
Member (2007)
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Not enough context button = great idea [to me only perhaps] | May 1, 2009 |
Your answer is a great one, but that would depend on the whole "community" reaching a consensus about context, what it means and how much is required.
Maybe I am asking for miracles?
Liz
| | | |
Thomas Pfann wrote:
What about a function similar to the existing "Vote Pro/Non-Pro" button? If a certain number of ProZ members click a button to say there is not enough context the question could be bounced back to the asker who would then have to provide more context or withdraw the question.
This is an old idea. We have discussed this a lot in the past, also with the feedback of Proz's staff, and no action was taken in this sense.
Instead, I encourage everyone to simply disregard questions that are lacking context, poorly explained (or unexplained as it happens in 90% of the cases), and unpolite. That way good askers will get the better answers and our time.
(Edited to remove my opinion about what Proz's staff think about this matter).
[Edited at 2009-05-01 14:27 GMT]
| | | | liz askew
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:59
Member (2007)
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | So it's "vote with your feet" or "fingers" in this case. | May 1, 2009 |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote: Thomas Pfann wrote:
What about a function similar to the existing "Vote Pro/Non-Pro" button? If a certain number of ProZ members click a button to say there is not enough context the question could be bounced back to the asker who would then have to provide more context or withdraw the question. This is an old idea, but the many discussions we have had about this and the replies from Proz's staff are proof enough that Proz is not willing to make such a change. Instead, I encourage everyone to simply disregard questions that are lacking context, poorly explained (or unexplained as it happens in 90% of the cases), and unpolite. That way good askers will get the better answers and our time.
| | |
|
|
|
| Asker's lookout | May 1, 2009 |
I'm afraid I'm firmly in the "don't bother" camp. As a rule, I ignore questions where context is lacking unless the asker has made the effort to provide some context but it doesn't fully resolve the issue. The way I see it, if the asker doesn't realise the importance of providing context, then they don't fully understand the translation process and are less deserving of help than people who do. Why should we spend time encouraging them to help us to help them? It's their lookout. The rules clear... See more I'm afraid I'm firmly in the "don't bother" camp. As a rule, I ignore questions where context is lacking unless the asker has made the effort to provide some context but it doesn't fully resolve the issue. The way I see it, if the asker doesn't realise the importance of providing context, then they don't fully understand the translation process and are less deserving of help than people who do. Why should we spend time encouraging them to help us to help them? It's their lookout. The rules clearly state that sufficient context should be given.
I know of at least one translator who routinely requests more context from askers but then stubbornly refuses to provide it herself when asking questions despite having been asked to do so on numerous occasions in the past. Some people will simply never get the message, no matter how many times you try to educate them. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Why bother? Really. You can already ask for context. You ask and if the asker can't be bothered, neither can I! BTW, I don't really answer Kudoz anymore... I just get really really angry...
| | | | | The Lord helps those who help themselves... | May 1, 2009 |
or, more secularly, sod them.
I used to be in favour of a button, but now I content myself with despising the kind of half-wit who posts a 4 word question with nothing else. I never get offered 4 word jobs, and even if I did, I imagine there would be a client, working in a particular field/sector/industry, or something else to go on.
I wondered about some kind of minimum character count in the description field, but people could get round such as restriction quite easil... See more or, more secularly, sod them.
I used to be in favour of a button, but now I content myself with despising the kind of half-wit who posts a 4 word question with nothing else. I never get offered 4 word jobs, and even if I did, I imagine there would be a client, working in a particular field/sector/industry, or something else to go on.
I wondered about some kind of minimum character count in the description field, but people could get round such as restriction quite easily.
At a time when moderators are fleeing the site in droves, I can't imagine that a manual vetting procedure will be given much consideration.
What also annoys me (and this is context-related, not thread drift) is those who make no mention of options under consideration or indeed those that have been rejected. If there was to be vetting of questions, I would reject those that gave no indication of the Askers thought processes, not matter how many paragraphs of context were provided.
Except, of course, that would require Askers to have actually given the question some thought. Which they rarely have. So, I repeat - sod them. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | If only...(complete solidarity...) | May 1, 2009 |
If askers don't give enough context, the obvious answer is, indeed, to treat them with the contempt they deserve.
If only everybody would agree to do just that !
No answers might just force some of the worst - and most regular - offenders to take a step back and realise why their enquiries are receiving no response, perhaps even mend their ways (one can always hope !)
The problem is that, while many people may have "voted with their fingers", there are alwa... See more If askers don't give enough context, the obvious answer is, indeed, to treat them with the contempt they deserve.
If only everybody would agree to do just that !
No answers might just force some of the worst - and most regular - offenders to take a step back and realise why their enquiries are receiving no response, perhaps even mend their ways (one can always hope !)
The problem is that, while many people may have "voted with their fingers", there are always others who dive in the deep end and answer just the same. I've even done it myself in exasperation, to try and show how far wrong you can be, if you answer out of context.
There was a question only yesterday in a certain language pair, where we were several virtually begging for context (the phrase was interesting and translatable in several ways depending on CONTEXT). There were still those fools who rushed in where angels feared to tread. That negates the whole process of asking for more details.
Is it therefore surprising that standards here are dropping? When it is just the blind leading the lead, what can you expect?
The real question is how can you force people NOT to answer, when there is no real context to go on?
I leave that one to better brains than mine! ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
liz askew
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:59
Member (2007)
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Yes, I am getting the idea now:-)
Cheers!
Liz
Charlie Bavington wrote:
or, more secularly, sod them.
I used to be in favour of a button, but now I content myself with despising the kind of half-wit who posts a 4 word question with nothing else. I never get offered 4 word jobs, and even if I did, I imagine there would be a client, working in a particular field/sector/industry, or something else to go on.
I wondered about some kind of minimum character count in the description field, but people could get round such as restriction quite easily.
At a time when moderators are fleeing the site in droves, I can't imagine that a manual vetting procedure will be given much consideration.
What also annoys me (and this is context-related, not thread drift) is those who make no mention of options under consideration or indeed those that have been rejected. If there was to be vetting of questions, I would reject those that gave no indication of the Askers thought processes, not matter how many paragraphs of context were provided.
Except, of course, that would require Askers to have actually given the question some thought. Which they rarely have. So, I repeat - sod them.
| | | |
Yes, this topic was already discussed several times, with several proposals, but no real solution. Site staff did not seem to agree that the problem exists, and some sort of solution/change was justified.
I do not want to repeat what I said in one of those threads, but since I am still on the same opinion, I just post the link here:... See more Yes, this topic was already discussed several times, with several proposals, but no real solution. Site staff did not seem to agree that the problem exists, and some sort of solution/change was justified.
I do not want to repeat what I said in one of those threads, but since I am still on the same opinion, I just post the link here:
http://www.proz.com/forum/kudoz/109300-enhancement_of_the_kudoz_system_by_discouraging_questions_without_context_a_proposal-page6.html#896942 ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Please let members of this community -- including staff members -- speak for themselves | May 1, 2009 |
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.
| | | | | 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? | 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 
