| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | Voting for answers Thread poster: Ilona Hessner
|
|---|
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote:
I think there should be restrictions or limitations on these issues. For example limiting the asker going against the majority if a specific answer got at least 60% of all peer comments.
I don't think that translation of technical terms can be a democratic issue. Some times you have to go against the mainstream, just to avoid the propagation of a big error.
Maybe, I'm also an example of such a "funny asker" who doesn't choose the answer with the highest number of agrees. Only the asker has the complete context and the usual translation of a term may not fit in there.
| | | | | Ever heard of the "bandwagon effect"? | May 25, 2009 |
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote:
I think there should be restrictions or limitations on these issues. For example limiting the asker going against the majority if a specific answer got at least 60% of all peer comments.
Assume that somebody posts an answer to a question that is wrong because the answerer didn't understand the question in the first place. Still, other peers get the wrong impression too, and post their agrees to this answer. More peers agree because so many "agreers" simply can't be wrong (bandwagon effect!). Precisely that happened in one of my language pairs not long ago, and not for the first time. The answer getting the most agrees was plain WRONG, but what you are suggesting is that the asker should be compelled to choose it as the "right" one because it collected the majority of agrees? Pardon me for being blunt, but that's absurd.
When asking questions myself, I often choose answers which haven't collected the majority of agrees because they are most helpful to me.
Coming back to the topic of this thread: Admittedly, there are some peers (at least in my language pairs) who appear to just browse through the questions and put an agree to 5 out of 7 answers (maybe just to collect BrowniZ). Still, I don't think that peers should be limited to agreeing with one suggestion only because often there are several good ways of expressing one and the same thing, and we should be allowed to comment and vote on that.
[Edited at 2009-05-25 11:38 GMT]
| | | | | Another point: discussion on answers provided | May 25, 2009 |
Hi,
I am quite glad this thread has been opened, as it gives me the opportunity of entering a comment who started "buzzing in my head" some days ago.
The matter started when, looking at an answer in a Kudoz, I opened a discussion to ask if, according to other translators, the answer given was correct.
Other people joined the discussion, who was eventually closed and cancelled by the moderator because, according to Kudoz rules, the only way to comment an answer is the "agree-dis... See more Hi,
I am quite glad this thread has been opened, as it gives me the opportunity of entering a comment who started "buzzing in my head" some days ago.
The matter started when, looking at an answer in a Kudoz, I opened a discussion to ask if, according to other translators, the answer given was correct.
Other people joined the discussion, who was eventually closed and cancelled by the moderator because, according to Kudoz rules, the only way to comment an answer is the "agree-disagree-neutral" button + explanation.
Isn't it possible to allow discussions arised by an answer (of course, provided that they are only linguistic and not insulting?
Bye
Manuela ▲ Collapse
| | | | | No need for more regulation!!! | May 25, 2009 |
Indeed, I agree that the agree should be given to one option only. However, there are situations in which more than one agree makes sense: if there is 10 possible replies and only two are valid (even with a slightly different wording), posting agrees in the two correct options increases the chances that the asker chooses a reply that makes sense, in a sea of incorrect proposals.
PLEASE DO NOT OVER-REGULATE KUDOZ!! Please allow some freedom of judgement for the individual!!!
| | |
|
|
|
| Many KudoZ questions are about ordinary terms in unusual contexts | May 25, 2009 |
You can sometimes find the word in the dictionary, but the writer of the source text has used it in an unusual way. I find this because I often translate creative texts where there is no single right or wrong answer.
When I am proofreading, I come across an expression I know is wrong in English, but the client wants to know why... It can be very hard to explain, because the word is there, quite plainly, in the client's little red dictionary, but is used for instance in a legal cont... See more You can sometimes find the word in the dictionary, but the writer of the source text has used it in an unusual way. I find this because I often translate creative texts where there is no single right or wrong answer.
When I am proofreading, I come across an expression I know is wrong in English, but the client wants to know why... It can be very hard to explain, because the word is there, quite plainly, in the client's little red dictionary, but is used for instance in a legal context or in some other special sense, which is only found in a specialist dictionary. When time is short, it is great to get a neat explanation from a colleague instead of having to work it out it myself!
***
I have seen questions about idioms and metaphors where it takes two answers to help the asker - one that explains the expression and translates it literally, and one that gives an idiomatic or metaphorical equivalent, which is often what is needed.
In English there is an expression: 'Carrying coals to Newcastle' - which is usually meaningless when translated literally, and these days may be meaningless to many English speakers too.
I might use the Danish equivalent instead, which means 'to cross the river to fetch water.' They have another about giving bread to the baker's children.
I would happily give agrees to an answerer who explained the original meaning of the source language proverb as well as to an answerer who suggested an equivalent in the target language.
Only one gets points, but both have contributed something useful to the discussion and understanding of the term, and I like to thank everyone who does that.
[Edited at 2009-05-25 08:58 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | KudoZ rule 3.4 | May 25, 2009 |
Manuela Dal Castello wrote:
The matter started when, looking at an answer in a Kudoz, I opened a discussion to ask if, according to other translators, the answer given was correct.
Other people joined the discussion, who was eventually closed and cancelled by the moderator because, according to Kudoz rules, the only way to comment an answer is the "agree-disagree-neutral" button + explanation.
Isn't it possible to allow discussions arised by an answer (of course, provided that they are only linguistic and not insulting?
The moderator did the right thing here, as rule http://www.proz.com/siterules/kudoz_answ/3.4#3.4 states that the only acceptable means of commenting on another's answer is by using the peer comment feature.
Regards,
enrique
| | | | | Sure the moderator did the right thing... | May 25, 2009 |
Sure the moderator did the right thing, as far as there are rules they must be respected (it was me who did not, although in "good faith").
And in fact my question is: could the rule be changed? what do other people think about this?
Manuela
| | | | | Contribute to this entry | May 25, 2009 |
Manuela Dal Castello wrote:
The matter started when, looking at an answer in a Kudoz, I opened a discussion to ask if, according to other translators, the answer given was correct.
Other people joined the discussion, who was eventually closed and cancelled by the moderator because, according to Kudoz rules, the only way to comment an answer is the "agree-disagree-neutral" button + explanation.
Isn't it possible to allow discussions arised by an answer (of course, provided that they are only linguistic and not insulting?
In fact, Manuela, it IS possible to continue a discussion after a question has been closed. It is the little-known option of "contribute to this entry", which can be found in the upper right-hand corner, but only after a question has been closed.
If you come across an obviously bad decision on the part of an asker, for example, you can make your linguistic points here. It's a pity so few KudoZ contributors are aware of this option.
| | |
|
|
|
Angela Greenfield 
United States
Local time: 11:50
Russian to English
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Discussion box - to Enrique | May 25, 2009 |
I am very happy we touched upon rule 3.4. I think that in absence of other venues to discuss answers this rule should be removed. I agree that we have to adhere to site rules, but when the rule is redundant it needs to be changed. Kudoz for me is not just an opportunity to help someone (and for most people it is not, either). I wish I could say just that, but we are not all Mothers Teresas, you know. Some people are competitive and want the token points. That's what makes them happy. I, for inst... See more I am very happy we touched upon rule 3.4. I think that in absence of other venues to discuss answers this rule should be removed. I agree that we have to adhere to site rules, but when the rule is redundant it needs to be changed. Kudoz for me is not just an opportunity to help someone (and for most people it is not, either). I wish I could say just that, but we are not all Mothers Teresas, you know. Some people are competitive and want the token points. That's what makes them happy. I, for instance, while not competitive, like to LEARN while participating and I hope others do, too. If you restrict the linguistic discussion to the 225 characters in the peer comment box you restrict my ability to benefit from helping my peers. I REALLY don’t care about the points and what answer gets chosen as long as we collectively get close to the truth. What I DO care about is when a colleague gives an answer and this answer gets an overwhelming support just because he/she is considered a wizard in this particular area. But we are all human, and we all make mistakes. I had it happen to me once. I gave an answer, got "agree" entries from my peers and then had to remove the answer because I found (on my own) that it was WRONG. I would like to be able to POLITELY challenge the answerers to substantiate their questions and give the logical reasoning behind their choices. What’s wrong with that? We will all benefit from that.
As it is now, while I am not allowed to ask an answerer about his reasons for a particular choice of an answer in the discussion box, I quite often in the same discussion box get verbally abused by other peers for posting my “agree” with an answer nobody likes, for instance.
Don’t take me wrong. I am a big fan of this site and I consider it a great learning tool. While the bulk of my work comes from elsewhere (in fact I really don’t get much work from this site) I am your loyal member exactly for that reason - I LOVE TO LEARN. Let’s make it possible for everyone.
Thank you. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ilona Hessner
Germany
Local time: 17:50
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Voting just once - | May 25, 2009 |
erika rubinstein wrote:
In fact I dont understand, what you mean. How will it be possible to find the best solution without voting for different answers?
Hi Erika, I think that we should should use our "agree" option just once. How would you feel after posting a question resulting in two answers each with 2 agrees posted by exactly the same members?
| | | | Ilona Hessner
Germany
Local time: 17:50
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Surprised by the reponse to this topic | May 25, 2009 |
Dear Colleagues,
Yes, I am surprised and I have not yet read all your comments!
But our common aim is to find the best solution - for our translations and for ProZ.com as well. -
Thank you!
| | | | Paul Dixon
Brazil
Local time: 12:50
Portuguese to English
+ ...
| Response to Ilona | May 26, 2009 |
In response to Ilona's point, if I had posted a question and got 2 answers with 2 agrees by exactly the same people, I would consider it as normal and, what's more, highly beneficial as I would be absolutely sure that the results were interchangeable - then I would choose one (using chronological precedence) to award the points.
I see no problem in agreeing with more than one answer, provided it is done when the answers are essentially the same (as in my example of "talvez", see my ... See more In response to Ilona's point, if I had posted a question and got 2 answers with 2 agrees by exactly the same people, I would consider it as normal and, what's more, highly beneficial as I would be absolutely sure that the results were interchangeable - then I would choose one (using chronological precedence) to award the points.
I see no problem in agreeing with more than one answer, provided it is done when the answers are essentially the same (as in my example of "talvez", see my answer above). ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| multiple responses are OK | May 26, 2009 |
Hello Ilona
Have you talked to your KudoZ moderators about it, or raised it in your particular Community? I don't see multiple responses as a particular problem, but that's just from my experience ...
Lesley
| | | | | That depends ... | May 26, 2009 |
Ilona Hessner wrote:
How would you feel after posting a question resulting in two answers each with 2 agrees posted by exactly the same members?
... on the answers given. If both suggestions are valid, and two peers have confirmed that both are valid by agreeing with both of them - what's wrong with that?
And if you are a regular KudoZ user, you'll know very quickly which peers are "agreers out of habit" - BrowniZ grabbers - and which peers you can rely on to reflect for a second or two before posting an agree (or two, for that matter).
| | | | | 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 » Voting for answers | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
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 
