| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | Askers should wait 24 hours before grading or transfer the grading rights to the community Thread poster: Enrique Cavalitto
|
|---|
Enrique Cavalitto 
Argentina
Local time: 19:48
Member (2006)
English to Spanish
TOPIC STARTER | The current implementation is a compromise between valid concerns | Jun 11, 2009 |
The issue of questions closed prematurely has been discussed many times in this and other forums.
In particular there have been many request to block the grading features during the first 24 hours of a question in order to allow the contribution of users all over the world, and thus improve the information available to people who will later look at the answers behind the KudoZ glossary.
This block was never implemented because the main objective of "help" KudoZ questio... See more The issue of questions closed prematurely has been discussed many times in this and other forums.
In particular there have been many request to block the grading features during the first 24 hours of a question in order to allow the contribution of users all over the world, and thus improve the information available to people who will later look at the answers behind the KudoZ glossary.
This block was never implemented because the main objective of "help" KudoZ questions is to provide help to the askers, so the askers should preserve in particular the right to decide when they have got enough help from the answers received so far.
The current implementation constitutes a compromise that considers both points of view. The askers keeps the right to decide when the help received was enough and to indicate the answer that they considered most helpful, plus their choice of glossary entry.
When this decision is made after 24 hours the system does not differ from the previous one.
If the askers chose to remove themselves from the question before 24 hours then the community is given a choice to validate the selection of an answer and a glossary entry.
If the community fails to provide the relevant peer grading, or if it selects the same answer chosen by the asker, the final result is the same as before.
Only if the asker choses not to wait 24 hours and the community selects a different answer will the result differ from the previous implementation.
By the way, when a question is posted (and this has been in place for a long time), the asker is shown the following message:
Regards,
Enrique ▲ Collapse
| | | | Jack Doughty
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:48
Russian to English
+ ...
In memoriam | Selective responses from Enrique | Jun 11, 2009 |
It seems to me that those who accept the imposition of a 24-hour ban and report various bugs in its implementations get a reply. Those who suggest any kind of exceptions to it are ignored.
I repeat, What about Attila's proposal? That is what I would call a compromise, not the present system.
| | | | Enrique Cavalitto
Argentina
Local time: 19:48
Member (2006)
English to Spanish
TOPIC STARTER
Jack Doughty wrote:
It seems to me that those who accept the imposition of a 24-hour ban and report various bugs in its implementations get a reply. Those who suggest any kind of exceptions to it are ignored.
I repeat, What about Attila's proposal? That is what I would call a compromise, not the present system.
Users who post a question are already shown a message that recommends them to wait 24 hours before grading the question. This is in line with the message suggested by Attila.
I believe that the current system is reasonable and that the askers' rights to get help are respected.
I believe that allowing a minimum time for the questions to be open is a positive development.
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | Jack Doughty
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:48
Russian to English
+ ...
In memoriam | Response is still selective | Jun 11, 2009 |
The response totally ignores the main point of Attila's proposal.
I quote:
As an ex-KudoZ moderator, I observed this problem from close, and I agree with Kim Metzger that the problem is very much related to inexperienced KudoZ users. They need to be guided. On the other hand, if the problem hardly exists among experienced KudoZ users, treating it is unnecessary. Some of these experienced KudoZ users expressed their objection against being forced to handle the right of choos... See more The response totally ignores the main point of Attila's proposal.
I quote:
As an ex-KudoZ moderator, I observed this problem from close, and I agree with Kim Metzger that the problem is very much related to inexperienced KudoZ users. They need to be guided. On the other hand, if the problem hardly exists among experienced KudoZ users, treating it is unnecessary. Some of these experienced KudoZ users expressed their objection against being forced to handle the right of choosing the best answer to the community if they try to choose the most helpful answer before the recommended 24-hour limit. Since ProZ.com declares itself to be a meritocracy (ProZ.com's 13th cornerstone), it seems logical to seek a solution that would be able to guide inexperienced users without restricting the rights of experienced ones in any form. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Enrique Cavalitto
Argentina
Local time: 19:48
Member (2006)
English to Spanish
TOPIC STARTER
Hi Jack,
I do not believe that the askers' rights related to getting help from their questions are being limited.
They still can define all the parameters regarding the way the question is asked, and they can still define when they got enough help from the current answers, and indicate the question they find most helpful and their choice of glossary entries.
The only limitation, a validation by the community in certain circumstances of the choice of answer... See more Hi Jack,
I do not believe that the askers' rights related to getting help from their questions are being limited.
They still can define all the parameters regarding the way the question is asked, and they can still define when they got enough help from the current answers, and indicate the question they find most helpful and their choice of glossary entries.
The only limitation, a validation by the community in certain circumstances of the choice of answer and glossary entry, do not affect, in my opinion, the reception of help by the asker (the main objective of help KudoZ).
Regards,
Enrique ▲ Collapse
| | | | Attila Piróth
France
Local time: 00:48
Member
English to Hungarian
+ ...
| Differences of perception | Jun 11, 2009 |
Enrique wrote:
Users who post a question are already shown a message that recommends them to wait 24 hours before grading the question. This is in line with the message suggested by Attila.
Hi Enrique,
That is a matter of perception. Right, this in line with the first message I suggested -- but that message is just the common denominator in your implemented solution and my proposal. What happens after this message makes a great difference. So, the two approaches do not depart right at the start. They depart at a later point, and go into very different directions from then on.
I proposed granting askers the ultimate, undisputed choice: they can close the question any time they want and select the most helpful answer. In your implemented solution they are free to close the question any time they want or select the most helpful answer. The choice between and and or is the crux of the matter here. It is clearly shown by the fact that the answer selected by the community is not – and cannot be– called the "most helpful" answer. It is called the "best" answer.
Putting a larger emphasis on educating and guiding newcomers was on the agenda among moderators and staff before I resigned in March. It is in this approach that I propose to solve the problem of making a premature and uninformed choice when closing KudoZ questions. (Incidentally, I made essentially the same proposal on the moderators forum, and it got a good feedback from fellow moderators.) Educating newcomers is a very important issue, since the site is so vast. I strongly believe that "Did you know" messages can be very efficient. This 24-hour issue would be a great occasion to test this approach.
Enrique wrote:
I do not believe that the askers' rights related to getting help from their questions are being limited.
I disagree with this perception. In line with the opinions expressed by some other participants in the present thread, I pose the question differently:
Are askers' rights related to the entire KudoZ process are being limited?
Since they do they have the right to award the 4 KudoZ points to the answer of their choice 12 hours after posting the question, their rights are limited. Don't you agree?
Is this such a big difference of perception? I believe so. KudoZ is a community interaction based on help. As a part of it, askers are expected to close their questions. This – and in particular, providing feedback on the answers and giving KudoZ points to the asker who helped them most – is a very important part of the KudoZ game. It is the established way of expressing their thanks to those who helped. Since by attempting to close a question within 24 hours they cannot ensure that the points are given to the asker of their choice, they lose part of their control of this process. (In other words, askers rights to choose the most helpful answer used to be undisputed. This is simply no longer the case with the implemented choice.)
I may be in minority, so I would not mind having some feedback from active KudoZ participants: You answer two similar KudoZ questions, and you receive 4 KudoZ points for each answer. In the first one the asker provided an explanation why she chose your answer, and thanked you for your insightful comments. In the second, the grading robot chose your answer based on peer agreement. Do you feel the same? If it happens regularly with the same askers, will you keep investing the same equal amount of energy in your answers provided to the two askers? I, for one, will not.
Attila
| | | |
Attila, you're right. I just experienced your point in practice
I take my time to answer kudoz questions:
1. If I'm sure I'm suggesting a correct alternative in my language pairs and fields or correlated fields
2. I never rush to answer - and I'll research terms to make sure the answer will really make a difference (hence some of my suggestions are chosen despite peers' agreements.)
... See more Attila, you're right. I just experienced your point in practice
I take my time to answer kudoz questions:
1. If I'm sure I'm suggesting a correct alternative in my language pairs and fields or correlated fields
2. I never rush to answer - and I'll research terms to make sure the answer will really make a difference (hence some of my suggestions are chosen despite peers' agreements.)
3. I don't mind early closed questions. At least once - before the '24-hour rule', I have helped a translator after the question was closed - and it did help the asker.
I discovered proZ when I needed help for a word. I did not know how it worked, but I thought the translation suggestion was fine. Later on, when I registered, I was horrified with the nonsense of many selected answers and worried about proZ non-users unawareness of the 'mechanics' of the system.
For a while, I was totally into the game - points!!! Then I realized it really damages Kudoz glossary credibility... I must say, I use the glossaries frequently - but with great care - taking time to read discussions and consulting other sources to confirm it (this practice is not kudoz related - I always do this to check a term I don't know).
I've decided I'd try 'the 24-hour rules' in practice, instead of trying to get all the details. So, to make sure that answers posted to my recent questions would be properly selected, I was there 24 hours later to select the most appropriate answer.
Now, a question I answered was chosen by the asker before 24hs. However, another answer was selected by peers (first suggestion) before I had posted my suggestion. This answer is wrong...
So what I understood is that since peers voted for suggestion #1, the glossary posted by the asker will be rejected and substituted by a wrong one...IMO, the answerer who got the peers' votes could keep the points, and the asker should be the one to decide which is the best term for the context of his/her text.
Edited to add:
I don't bother to answer questions of peers who post tons of questions and close them weeks later or don't close them at all.
Attila I vote for your suggestions
[Edited at 2009-06-12 05:20 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | KudoZ has tremendous value to askers - it shouldn't be taken for granted | Jun 12, 2009 |
I don't agree that experienced translators are always more patient. Some of them have told me that as long as they got what they wanted, that's all that matters. They are not concerned about glossary pollution. They regard KudoZ as a service. They've forgotten (or never knew) what life was like before. It has real commercial value if you consider the many challenges it has solved for colleagues whose time and/or reputation it helped to save and who thereupon got paid for their work. The help I h... See more I don't agree that experienced translators are always more patient. Some of them have told me that as long as they got what they wanted, that's all that matters. They are not concerned about glossary pollution. They regard KudoZ as a service. They've forgotten (or never knew) what life was like before. It has real commercial value if you consider the many challenges it has solved for colleagues whose time and/or reputation it helped to save and who thereupon got paid for their work. The help I have gotten was so valuable that I would have been willing to pay for it. Indeed, I would not object to paying a small fee to ask a question. At the very least, we need to raise awareness about the real value of this freebie.
Regarding the computer making a selection before the asker has a chance to do so: maybe that window could be extended.
There is no perfect solution. I think the feature is a quantum improvement and a giant step forward. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Just to add my two cents: I think this is a completely unnecessary 'feature'. We know the problems involved and why they led to the 24 hr recommendation, but it shouldn't be any more than that.
| | | | Jack Doughty
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:48
Russian to English
+ ...
In memoriam | Still no real response | Jun 12, 2009 |
There has still been no real staff response to Attila's proposal, beyond a bland assurance that askers' rights are not being restricted, which is like saying black is white.
I am reminded of the occasion when Jeremy Paxman interviewed Michael Howard, the then Home Secretary, on BBC television in May 1997 (asking him if he had put pressure on the head of the Prison Service in the matter of the sacking of a prison governor). Paxman asked the same question twelve times, and each time ... See more There has still been no real staff response to Attila's proposal, beyond a bland assurance that askers' rights are not being restricted, which is like saying black is white.
I am reminded of the occasion when Jeremy Paxman interviewed Michael Howard, the then Home Secretary, on BBC television in May 1997 (asking him if he had put pressure on the head of the Prison Service in the matter of the sacking of a prison governor). Paxman asked the same question twelve times, and each time failed to get a straight answer. Michael Howard finally did answer the question in 2004. Are we going to have to wait seven years for an answer to this one? ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Reply to Attila | Jun 12, 2009 |
Askers always have the right to **use** whatever answer they want. Nothing stops them from exercising that right. The problem arises when they cause damage to the community. I strongly disagree that their right extends to that point.
Flawed answers do harm to everyone involved - the asker, the asker's client, the answerer, the colleages whose better answers are ignored, and posterity, via the glossary. In my language combinations, it often happens that a quick early reply elicits a ... See more Askers always have the right to **use** whatever answer they want. Nothing stops them from exercising that right. The problem arises when they cause damage to the community. I strongly disagree that their right extends to that point.
Flawed answers do harm to everyone involved - the asker, the asker's client, the answerer, the colleages whose better answers are ignored, and posterity, via the glossary. In my language combinations, it often happens that a quick early reply elicits a string of "agrees" from colleagues who haven't read the question carefully or who lack knowledge of the particular field, translation experience, or native command of the language.
Or **a better answer comes along** - which is the beauty of the 24-hour wait. Several times I've posted an answer quickly, gotten a lot of "agrees", and then much later someone comes along with a better answer, and that's the one that's chosen. And rightly so. That was the whole point of the discussion - to draw in colleagues who have something to offer to the debate.
Why are you worried about askers' rights? They're lucky to have a flock of colleagues at their beck and call to help them solve their problems. What about askers who aren't even ProZ members? I've seen people log in and post sentences from a love letter or an instruction manual. We can't pick and choose which askers have more decider rights than others. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Fighting the windmills (still) | Jun 12, 2009 |
I agree with the points Attila made - I brought up similar things in my postings in this thread:
Not convinced Jun 2 Enrique wrote:
In particular the point you quote states that the asker can decide the parameters of the question. I was not talking about that part, but the few words following it: directing the flow of an exchange To me, this means initiating the exchange, overseeing it, and closing it. Enrique wrote:
The only difference with the former system is that the answer selected by the community could be different from the one preferred by the asker, Yes, and that means the asker cannot give KudoZ to the person he/she thought was the most helpful. Enrique wrote:but at this point the asker has already received the help they needed and already selected for their translation the option they considered most useful. Yes, but he/she has not given "back" to the answerer in the form of KudoZ-points. Accepting an answer and deciding on how many points are given and to whom is very much part of the whole KudoZ-exchange.
So, if the concept of "help" is still valid for KudoZ, then the asker should retain the right to select AND award the points to the answer he/she considers most helpful, this function should not be passed onto the community.
If the concept has changed, and the goal is to select the answer that most participants think is the "correct" answer, then it may seem feasible to pass the selection to the community. Enrique's other initiative, the "GBK questions project" works that way - the answers are selected and entered into the glossary based on peer agreement. Assuming this works OK there, perhaps the idea was that this mechanism could be used for the regular KudoZ as well?
Hmmm. Not really.
Aside from the required strict format of the answers, and the overall purpose of posting questions, there is another BIG difference between the regular KudoZ system and GBK.
In GBK, you can only answer the question if you meet a certain criteria: your working languages, your native language, and your specialty fields must match that of the question.
In other words, you have answers and peer opinions from specialists working in the specified field and language pair, and either the source or the target language is their native. Given these, I think the reliability of the "community's choice" is significantly higher than in regular KudoZ, where there are no such limitations whatsoever. In the regular KudoZ system, anybody can answer and peer grade in any language pair, in any specialty as they wish. With this new system peers can overrule the asker's choice (who may be a specialist, selecting another specialist's answer that may look very strange for a "layman", versus another answer that would be a popular choice for people not trained in that specific field, and therefore receiving many "agrees").
By the way, if an answer is selected "by the community" this way, overruling my choice, will I still be able to edit the glossary? So far, the glossary entries could be edited by the asker and the selected answerer after closing the question - is this still unchanged under this new "feature"?
Anyway, I think this new "feature" is nothing more than tinkering, and I started to feel we are all wasting our time talking about it, when it probably does not matter in the big picture. There are more fundamental changes that would make a difference - I am not going to list them here now as they were repeatedly suggested by users, members, moderators etc. over the years.
Katalin
| | |
|
|
|
| A few replies to Muriel | Jun 12, 2009 |
Muriel Vasconcellos wrote:
Askers always have the right to **use** whatever answer they want. Nothing stops them from exercising that right.
Yes. Agreed. However, it is also their right AND responsibility to reward the answerers. Since KudoZ is a "freebee" as you correctly pointed it out, the only material reward that an asker can get is the points. The new system forces the asker to make a choice: either wait 24 hours, or waive their right (get out of their responsibility) to award points and pick a glossary entry.
The problem arises when they cause damage to the community.
What is exactly the "damage"?
Perhaps this:
Flawed answers do harm to everyone involved - the asker, the asker's client, the answerer, the colleages whose better answers are ignored, and posterity, via the glossary.
Is this the "damage"? The flawed answers, entries in the glossary?
If that's what you meant, I wholeheartedly agree.
However, I am afraid this new "feature" does not solve this problem.
I think it is wrong to assume that people closing their questions earlier than 24 hours are likely to pick a flawed answer. There are people like that, but there are others, too, who simply CAN make an informed choice within a short period of time - several of them contributed to this thread. This "feature" is "punishing" them, even though they don't "deserve" it.
In my language combinations, it often happens that a quick early reply elicits a string of "agrees" from colleagues who haven't read the question carefully or who lack knowledge of the particular field, translation experience, or native command of the language. (bold emphasis is mine)
Thank you very much for pointing out the core problem. I think the reason for flawed answers and glossary entries is not a matter of WHEN the question is closed. It is much more related to WHO the asker is, and WHO the answerers are.
Or **a better answer comes along** - which is the beauty of the 24-hour wait. Several times I've posted an answer quickly, gotten a lot of "agrees", and then much later someone comes along with a better answer, and that's the one that's chosen.
Chosen by whom? The asker, who waits 24 hours? The new feature does not have any effect on those askers.
Assume this is an asker that does not wait, and passes the grading to the community. If the quick answer has collected many agrees, the system may as well pick that one, in spite of the later posted, "correct" answer. So, no improvement in terms of preventing flawed entries.
That was the whole point of the discussion - to draw in colleagues who have something to offer to the debate.
I agree.
And who are those colleagues? Perhaps the opposite of the quick fire, knee jerk answerers you mentioned above? Perhaps you think it would be good to receive contributions from colleagues who have read the question carefully, have knowledge of the particular field, translation experience, or native command of the language? (If that's what you mean, I again, wholeheartedly agree.)
Don't you think that instead of tinkering with the timing issue of closing the question, some other measures would be much more effective in solving the problems?
For example, don't you think offering the ability for the asker to ask a question and also LIMIT the circle of answerers (by specialty field, working and/or native language, etc.) would help in preventing flawed answers and glossary entries? I myself would very much welcome such an option.
Why are you worried about askers' rights? They're lucky to have a flock of colleagues at their beck and call to help them solve their problems.
Agreed. That's why it is the asker's responsibility, not only his/her right to do the minimum, acknowledge the help received by picking the most helpful answer and awarding the points.
What about askers who aren't even ProZ members? I've seen people log in and post sentences from a love letter or an instruction manual.
I think this touches on a different problem. By the way, people don't even have to be logged in to ask KudoZ questions.
We can't pick and choose which askers have more decider rights than others.
This is interesting you mention, as it seems to be in conflict with the first paragraph you wrote:
Askers always have the right to **use** whatever answer they want. Nothing stops them from exercising that right. The problem arises when they cause damage to the community. I strongly disagree that their right extends to that point.
So, should they have less "decider rights" than others or not?
Don't forget that one of the cornerstones of ProZ is meritocracy. That means that not everybody is equal. It has positive and negative sides, but I believe the concept of meritocracy would offer ways to approach the real problems of KudoZ in an effective way.
Katalin
| | | | Attila Piróth
France
Local time: 00:48
Member
English to Hungarian
+ ...
| Answers to Muriel | Jun 12, 2009 |
Hi Muriel,
Thank you for your post. It raises quiet a few important points. I fully agree with you about certain -- and disagree about others.
Muriel Vasconcellos wrote:
Askers always have the right to **use** whatever answer they want. Nothing stops them from exercising that right.
I'm sorry, this has strictly nothing to do with the KudoZ exchange.
Muriel Vasconcellos wrote:
The problem arises when they cause damage to the community. I strongly disagree that their right extends to that point.
A landmark of the KudoZ process is the closing of the question. Then it enters the glossary.
Are you disappointed by the quality of certain glossary entries? So am I. But that should be treated separately. If a major overhaul of the KudoZ glossary is feasible, I am all for it. I am convinced that it is possible to make a glossary, based on the KudoZ exchange, that is much more reliable than the present one. But the enforcement of the 24-hour recommendation is too small a step to be enough.
Muriel Vasconcellos wrote:
Flawed answers do harm to everyone involved - the asker, the asker's client, the answerer, the colleages whose better answers are ignored, and posterity, via the glossary. In my language combinations, it often happens that a quick early reply elicits a string of "agrees" from colleagues who haven't read the question carefully or who lack knowledge of the particular field, translation experience, or native command of the language.
Exactly. And so how would the proposed alternative of transferring the right of selecting the best answer to the community help? It would not in this situation -- neither in another, typical one: The answer receives two answers, with the same proposed translation, but the second answer, which came a couple of minutes later, backs up the choice with a more detailed explanation. I know too well from experience that in such cases the first answer will usually get more agrees -- so, if the community's choice rules, the better documented but later submitted answer has little chance. Moreover, in case of a tie, the new implementation gives preference to the first submitted answer -- which is a serious mistake in my opinion, as I expressed it here.
Enrique wrote:
Regarding the grading criteria in case of a tie, the normal grading robot makes its decision about a couple of weeks after the posting of the question, so it was considered that over such long time the answer posted later should be better.
In the new implementation the decision is made only 72 hours after the grading was left in the hands of the community, so it was considered that the first answer should be given priority.
By making the time frame shorter, the blue part (color added by myself) of the argument in the FAQ gets even more weighty:
1.9 - What happens if a "help" question isn't graded?
...
The answer with the highest number of net agrees is selected. If two answers have the same number of net agrees, the last one entered is selected. The idea is that if two answers gather the same number of net agrees, the one that did so in a shorter period of time may be better.
Muriel Vasconcellos wrote:
Or **a better answer comes along** - which is the beauty of the 24-hour wait. Several times I've posted an answer quickly, gotten a lot of "agrees", and then much later someone comes along with a better answer, and that's the one that's chosen. And rightly so. That was the whole point of the discussion - to draw in colleagues who have something to offer to the debate.
Agree. I am for encouraging respecting the 24-hour recommendation -- but my emphasis is on taking an informed decision. Quickly made decisions are often less informed -- so the 24-hour recommendation is reasonable -- but, as Katalin points it out, it is not the only (or probably not even the main) problem. To take an informed decision, askers should be informed, rather than constrained. I am for informing them better than how they are informed now.
But there is one more crucial point here: when you say "better answer", this judgment reflects a position of linguistic authority. I don't think the problem of incorrect glossary entries can be solved without appointing an appropriate linguistic authority. There are several options -- the one that is involved in the present implementation, the whole community, regardless of their expertise, language pair and what not, is arguably one of the worst. The choice made for GBK is already better, as pointed out by Katalin.
Muriel Vasconcellos wrote:
Why are you worried about askers' rights?
I am one of many. If you read the present thread, you will see that many others are concerned with askers' right as well. Just read through he thread: a significant percentage of posters have expressed their concerns, mentioning, among others, that they feel the new implementation was in conflict with ProZ.com's cornerstones. My personal reasons are given in the second last paragraph of this post.
Muriel Vasconcellos wrote:
They're lucky to have a flock of colleagues at their beck and call to help them solve their problems.
Yes, KudoZ is a very useful thing, I agree. And yes, we are lucky. Many of the active participants use it both ways: give and get help. It is an exchange. And the initiator of the exchange, who requests help this time (and may give it back ten-fold next time), should be respected, too.
Muriel Vasconcellos wrote:
What about askers who aren't even ProZ members? I've seen people log in and post sentences from a love letter or an instruction manual.
If these questions are not in line with KudoZ posting rules, a moderator should be contacted. Members can post a higher number of questions (per day), and restrict the answerer's group to a team, so they have a better control of parameters -- but otherwise there is no difference in what can be posted and what not.
Muriel Vasconcellos wrote:
We can't pick and choose which askers have more decider rights than others.
While it would be technically possible, the solution I propose is not along these lines at all.
Kind regards,
Attila
| | | | Jack Doughty
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:48
Russian to English
+ ...
In memoriam | Manner of staff responses | Jun 12, 2009 |
I agree with Katalin. As far as poor glossary entries are concerned, they alone could be subjected to a 24-hour restriction, or other changes could be made in the rules concerning them.
But at the risk of being thought to be going off topic, or hijacking the thread, I would like to say that as this discussion progresses, my concern is more with the manner of staff responses to it than with the question itself (it is irritating to have to wait 24 hours to retain control of my asker's right... See more I agree with Katalin. As far as poor glossary entries are concerned, they alone could be subjected to a 24-hour restriction, or other changes could be made in the rules concerning them.
But at the risk of being thought to be going off topic, or hijacking the thread, I would like to say that as this discussion progresses, my concern is more with the manner of staff responses to it than with the question itself (it is irritating to have to wait 24 hours to retain control of my asker's rights, but I can live with that). It is possible to make a case for a blanket 24-hour restriction, and I respect those who are doing so even if I do not agree with them. It is not possible to keep on repeating that there is no restriction of asker's rights involved, when there quite obviously is.
What sort of "ocracy" is ProZ.com? A meritocracy? I would like to think so. A democracy? No, and it has never claimed to be one. A bureacracy? Sadly, I think that is now becoming an apt description.
Some problem arises concerning the forums, KudoZ, or some other aspect of the site. A discussion takes place in the forums. The subject fades out and nothing more is heard for months. Then a new rule is introduced without any warning. At this point it becomes the "party line" and no significant change to it will take place, not for years anyway. Further forum discussions take place but are not allowed to have any effect. Suggestions in them, good or bad, are met with stonewalling assertions that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds,
and the substance of them is not addressed.
End of rant. Sorry, just something I wanted to get off my chest.
P.S. I posted this before seeing Attila's latest post.
[Edited at 2009-06-12 08:50 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Askers should wait 24 hours before grading or transfer the grading rights to the community | 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! » |
| | 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 
