| Stron w wątku: < [1 2 3 4] > | disagreeing vs being neutral if you have suggested another answer Autor wątku: Daniela Zambrini
|
|---|
lien
Holandia
Local time: 17:51
angielski > francuski
+ ...
Caliaa wrote:
In a case like this being neutral, in my opinion, would not be acceptable and it would be misleading to the asker--specially when there have been a lot of agrees.
I've seen closed questions where the accepted answer (with many agrees) was obviously wrong, of course the asker is not to blame, but if someone had disagreed, that wrong answer wouldn't be in the glossaries.
I agree with Calisa. You have to disagree when the answer is completely wrong, otherwise the asker wouldn't know it is.
If I disagree, I always put the reason to justify it.
| | | | Mihailolja
Wielka Brytania
Local time: 16:51
ukraiński > angielski
+ ...
| worst case scenario | May 25, 2005 |
Hello everybody
I recently answered a question on the Serbian to English kudoz, got 3 disagrees and NOBODY suggested an alternative!
Surely this is worse than disagreeing and providing an answer.
What makes me so annoyed is people disagreeing and then not suggesting an alternative answer! Madness!
Mihailo
| | | | | Eliminate "disagree" or change the rules for the disagree option | May 25, 2005 |
I sometimes answer questions in a language pair where one particular person consistently disagrees with all the other entries. If, for example, there are four entries, this person will disagree with all of them and then write her own answer. The disagree subtracts from "agrees." I don't like the disagree option. I think the rules for this option should be changed.
[Edited at 2005-05-25 15:48]
| | | | Nikki Graham 
Wielka Brytania
Local time: 16:51
hiszpański > angielski
| contact the moderator | May 25, 2005 |
eileengreen wrote:
I sometimes answer questions in a language pair where one particular person consistently disagrees with all the other entries. If, for example, there are four entries, this person will disagree with all of them and then write her own answer. The disagree subtracts from "agrees." I don't like the disagree option. I think the rules for this option should be changed.
This is just one particular person, not the vast majority, so why not contact the moderator about this person's behaviour, rather than change the disagree option.
| | |
|
|
|
Claudia Iglesias
Chile
Local time: 11:51
Członek ProZ.com
od 2002
hiszpański > francuski
+ ...
| No change of rules needed, just some education to users | May 25, 2005 |
I don't understand why some people tend to confuse their answers with themselves. A disagree to an answer is not personal, it's addressed to the answer. According to this we should also agree/disagree only when we have an opinion on the content of the answer and not because the answerer is a friend or from the same country, or on the contrary because "I don't want him to get the points". All Human attitudes are visible in KudoZ and if the use of the three options is not correct you can contact a... See more I don't understand why some people tend to confuse their answers with themselves. A disagree to an answer is not personal, it's addressed to the answer. According to this we should also agree/disagree only when we have an opinion on the content of the answer and not because the answerer is a friend or from the same country, or on the contrary because "I don't want him to get the points". All Human attitudes are visible in KudoZ and if the use of the three options is not correct you can contact a moderator who could try to "educate" the user.
In KudoZ rules it's stated: 4.2 If you answer KudoZ questions, be prepared for colleagues to comment both positively and negatively on your terminology. Do not take it personally.
If I mean disagree I should put disagree. It means that chosing that answer would be a mistake, I have to give no chance to that to happen. If the asker choses that answer despite my disagree it's no longer my problem, but my duty was to say what I thought. Of course, I justify my disagreement (it's compulsory anyway).
I put neutral when I have reasons to think that it would not be a good answer but I'm not very sure. I also explain why I'm not enthousiastic.
I agree when I'm sure that the answer would work.
In any case (agree, neutral, disagree) I can give another answer, they are not related.
If I disagreed with another answer it's because I'm sure that my answer is better (and the other wrong).
If I put neutral and answer it's because I think that my answer is better.
If I agree and answer it's because my answer would be another possibility.
If I'm honest towards myself there is no conflict of interests.
Claudia ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Kudoz is basically a wonderful resource for translators. | May 25, 2005 |
Nikki Graham wrote: eileengreen wrote:
I sometimes answer questions in a language pair where one particular person consistently disagrees with all the other entries. If, for example, there are four entries, this person will disagree with all of them and then write her own answer. The disagree subtracts from "agrees." I don't like the disagree option. I think the rules for this option should be changed. This is just one particular person, not the vast majority, so why not contact the moderator about this person's behaviour, rather than change the disagree option.
I appreciate your comment, Nikki. On most questions people just disagree and try to be helpful, although I feel that the neutral option would be enough. I think Kudoz is such a wonderful idea. I have gotten quick responses on several occasions when I felt really desperate and under pressure for an answer.
| | | | invguy
Bułgaria
Local time: 18:51
angielski > bułgarski
| Matter of attitude, not of behaviour. | May 25, 2005 |
Daniela, I think your question would not make a topic at all on one simple condition: if we'd do our best so that KudoZ remains a place strictly intended for **problem-solving**. That is, if we all leave out any trace of personal attitude; if - while answering - we forget about points, competition and personal likes/dislikes, and focus on the asker's specific problem.
Yep, easier said than done, I agree  Anyway, here'... See more Daniela, I think your question would not make a topic at all on one simple condition: if we'd do our best so that KudoZ remains a place strictly intended for **problem-solving**. That is, if we all leave out any trace of personal attitude; if - while answering - we forget about points, competition and personal likes/dislikes, and focus on the asker's specific problem.
Yep, easier said than done, I agree Anyway, here's my take:
If I suspect an answer may be **misleading** for the asker, I do give a "disagree", **regardless** of whether I have proposed my own answer or not.
It is perfectly possible that I might not be confident enough to answer, yet be 100% sure that a proposed answer is wrong. Alternatively, I might see someone else having proposed the correct answer and 'stand in his/her defence'. Then, if I have given the correct answer myself, but I think the asker needs to be alerted against a wrong one, I'd do what I can to that effect.
In addition, the more fervently an answerer defends his/her own wrong (IMO) answer, or the higher their confidence level, the more likely I would chime in with a "disagree". Well-grounded, of course; an ungrounded disagreement is definitely not of much help to anyone - and not a sign of good manners either.
I do not give a "disagree" when the answer is so obviously wrong that it just can't be taken seriously, or when I see/know that the asker can't get tricked into this. There is no need to add unnecessary tension, it could only spoil the atmosphere of good-willed cooperation. It's not a matter of scolding someone for answering carelessly or incorrectly, the #1 goal is to aid the asker to get to the answer they need.
A "disagree" is a red flag: alert, danger. You'd think twice before using it - but if you need to, you ought to.
__________________________
A "neutral" would be what I'd use when I don't quite agree with an answerer's approach (viewpoint, reference, understanding), however I have no reason to believe their answer could confuse the asker.
I'd also give a "neutral" to a wrong answer with low confidence level (1 or 2) - just to reiterate that I find the answerer's doubt to be justified.
Again, all this has nothing to do with whether I have provided my own answer, or not.
Then, a neutral peer-grade is a useful tool when the asker has given little, or irrelevant, or no context. In this case it might mean that I think the answer is in a wrong context (which I make sure to clarify by my accompanying comments).
A "neutral" is a yellow flag: warning, possible trouble. You would not use it instead of a red flag, it might get overlooked... it is often a bad idea to tone down a professional opinion just for the sake of sounding more diplomatic.
___________________________
Lastly, I might put in an "agree" - with **or without** additional comments. Again, regardless of whether I have provided my own answer, or not.
If I have answered myself, agreeing with someone else's different answer means that I recognise it as a viable alternative - or that my answer's idea was just to exhaust all possibilities (which I'd certainly make clear through my confidence level).
"Agree" = green flag.
___________________________
BTW if an answer has received enough (and unanimous) positive, neutral or negative peer-grades that match my estimate, I'd normally refrain from adding mine. I'd only comment if there was a 'peer argument' (positive vs. negative) that I'd want to influence in the right (IMO) direction, or if I could add something important to the debate through my comments. But then, in the last case, I might just as well use the "Ask the asker" field, to avoid 'adding heat' to the discussion.
In short, I think the problem lies not in how (and whether at all) one would peer-grade others' answers. It rather lies in our ability to assume an impartial, professional-only attitude, not allowing our own comments to be emotionally 'flavoured' in any way. If we manage to do that, the rest is simply proper usage of those three signal flags.
Just my $ 0.02.
P.S. One last thing: ideally, a peer-grade (plus comment) is useful not only to the asker but also to the answerer. I have happened to be grateful to colleagues disagreeing with me, their comments either showing me that I have missed something important, or challenging me to dig deeper and improve my own reasoning. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Angela Arnone
Local time: 17:51
Członek ProZ.com
od 2004
włoski > angielski
+ ...
| Sorry Mats, but I can't agree with you here | May 25, 2005 |
It may well be that there are already answers available - so you disagree with what you think is wrong and point the asker in the right direction by agreeing with a more suitable answer.
And although it sounds contradictory, it does happen that you know something has been totally misunderstood, but you may not be sure of the correct version so you don't stick your neck out.
Then, whilst commiserating with Mihailo, I can't quite agree there either. Surely it would have been wor... See more It may well be that there are already answers available - so you disagree with what you think is wrong and point the asker in the right direction by agreeing with a more suitable answer.
And although it sounds contradictory, it does happen that you know something has been totally misunderstood, but you may not be sure of the correct version so you don't stick your neck out.
Then, whilst commiserating with Mihailo, I can't quite agree there either. Surely it would have been worse to send the asker off with a wrong translation?
It is possible that the disagrees came from people who spoke English and saw that the offered answer was just plain wrong, without considering the actual translation element. I'm afraid that happens - a phrase is offered with grammar or spelling mistakes in it, so this should be pointed out, notwithstanding the actual correctness of the translation itself.
Angela
Mats Wiman wrote:
Dear all,
'Disagree' simply means "I disagree" (but also it expresses the conviction that I am in the linguistic position to determine that the suggestion made is wrong in the given context).
I find it rude and unfair to just mark an answer with 'Disagree' and then leave. Logic demands that:
1. You substantiate your disagree. Saying "Not right here" (What is?), "Not idiomatic English" (What is?) or "Never heard before" (Have you heard everything said by everybody?).
2. If you're 'so knowledgeable' as to stamp someone else's answer with a 'Disagree' you also posess the linguistic ability to deliver a superior suggestion.
If you cannot do the 1 and the 2, you should keep silent and let those who can try to help the asker.
Mats
[Edited at 2005-05-25 19:48] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Mats Wiman
Szwecja
Local time: 17:51
Członek ProZ.com
od 2000
niemiecki > szwedzki
+ ...
In Memoriam | Sorry Angela. Text was missing | May 26, 2005 |
I have edited my posting as it shoulkd be (addition in bold):
I find it rude and unfair to just mark an answer with 'Disagree' and then leave. Logic demands that:
1. You substantiate your disagree. Saying "Not right here" (What is?), "Not idiomatic English" (What is?) or "Never heard before" (Have you heard everything said by everybody?) DOES NOT SUFFICE. You should be able to exemplify or point to a certain word or phrase to illustrate the error. (The bold part was omitted when posting)
2. If you're 'so knowledgeable' as to stamp someone else's answer with a 'Disagree' you also posess the linguistic ability to deliver a superior suggestion.
If you cannot do the 1 and the 2, you should keep silent and let those who can try to help the asker.
Without substantiation or an alternative suggestion (which need not be mine - I could gladly point to someone else's answer if I concur) you leave the asker in even greater confusion, which is not the object of the KudoZ exercise.
Mats
| | | | Angela Arnone
Local time: 17:51
Członek ProZ.com
od 2004
włoski > angielski
+ ...
| There you are then - I knew you and I would never disagree! | May 26, 2005 |
Angela
Mats Wiman wrote:
Without substantiation or an alternative suggestion (which need not be mine - I could gladly point to someone else's answer if I concur) you leave the asker in even greater confusion, which is not the object of the KudoZ exercise.
Mats
| | | | Angela Arnone
Local time: 17:51
Członek ProZ.com
od 2004
włoski > angielski
+ ...
| Indeed. This was why peer grading had to be identified. | May 26, 2005 |
It was obvious from many clues that members gave negative peer grading through "dislike", "envy" or other negative feelings that they could not manifest in other ways. Being anonymous it was easy to attack an answerer by disagreeing with their suggestions - without having to justify why. With the dual result of making your "enemy" look unprepared or ignorant and throwing the wasker into total confusion.
When peer grading we need to set priorities and the first one is being professional. If... See more It was obvious from many clues that members gave negative peer grading through "dislike", "envy" or other negative feelings that they could not manifest in other ways. Being anonymous it was easy to attack an answerer by disagreeing with their suggestions - without having to justify why. With the dual result of making your "enemy" look unprepared or ignorant and throwing the wasker into total confusion.
When peer grading we need to set priorities and the first one is being professional. If I misunderstand a text or translate it wrongly, I do want people to point it out (politely). We're all human and we all err. Disagree grading should be seen that way - so it should not be abused to "knock points off" someone else who has answered or to offend the answerer. It is to ensure that the best version if offered to the asker and consequently to the site glossary.
And going slightly off topic now, can I please ask you all to check the glossary before you ask/answer questions? The glossary is getting unweildy with hundreds of repeat entries that are there through sheer laziness!!!!
Ciao
Angela
invguy wrote:
if we'd do our best so that KudoZ remains a place strictly intended for **problem-solving**. That is, if we all leave out any trace of personal attitude; if - while answering - we forget about points, competition and personal likes/dislikes, and focus on the asker's specific problem.
▲ Collapse
| | | | df49f (X)
Francja
Local time: 17:51
| savoir-vivre | May 27, 2005 |
Daniela Zambrini wrote: Selçuk Budak wrote:
(...) suggesting an answer and thinking that your point deserves a seperate answer is a disagreement with other answers however on nuances. Otherwise, why should you need both a separate answer and a "disagree vote" cast on other answers?
(...)
Anyway, if you just have a "this might also be.." kind feeling, instead of posting a separate answer, you can simply put an agreement note to the answer that you find appropriate to the effect that "this may also.." which is the usual practice in my language pair, for example, when pointing to a synonym that seems to have a more frequent or contemporary usage. That's my feeling too. I'm glad but also sorry that I'm not the only one who was puzzled. I still don't want to think that answering and also disagreeing on the same issue is a mere calculation.. . I imagine we cannot expect everyone to stick to rules or fair-play, but the only way we can promote a fair attitude is to set a good example. So my personal approach will be to EITHER disagree with a suggestion in the comment box OR to answer a question. But that's just my idea, no obligation to follow me 
My own ethics command that I follow exactly the path detailed above by Daniela and Selçuk - I offer a different suggestion only if I disagree with other answers, hence my disagreement is implicit in my posting a separate answer. A disagree in addition to that would reflect (and this is purely my own perception of ethical behavior) disrespect and/or arrogance and/or lack of savoir-vivre and/or a Kudoz-point-hunting lack of fair play. (In cases where another answer is obviously wrong and misleading for asker, then a Neutral will suffice if absolutely necessary.)
(Interesting to read the different stances and perceptions on this issue)
best regards - dominique
| | |
|
|
|
| I don't "vote" | May 27, 2005 |
Fuad Yahya wrote:
The intentions behind the disagree vote may be wholesome, but there is no denying the conflict of interest: The voter is in competition with the other answers. The competitive nature of the KudoZ game...
In fact, the whole idea of the disagree vote is misguided. If voting is supposed to help the asker choose, then one should vote for the best answer. If the content of a particular answer is so jarring that a comment is warranted, then posting a comment should be sufficient. The option of voteless comment should be programmed into KudoZ.
Fuad, when I enter agree/neutral/disagree I am not "voting", I am expressing my opinion. Furthermore, I am not "competing" with anyone. And I do not "vote" for the "best" answer when even the "best" is wrong. And a "neutral" is in practice a "voteless" comment.
Regards
David
| | | | | This is how the system works, even if you do not think of it that way | May 27, 2005 |
David Sirett wrote:
when I enter agree/neutral/disagree I am not "voting", I am expressing my opinion.
The system is built in such a manner that it takes your "opinion" and counts it as a vote to be added to other votes in a precisely computed manner.
David Sirett wrote:
I am not "competing" with anyone.
If you post an answer, then you are in direct competition with all other answerers. That is how the system works.
David Sirett wrote:
a "neutral" is in practice a "voteless" comment.
It is the closest thing we have to a voteless comment, but it is not voteless. That is why once you have entered a neutral vote, you cannot enter another vote or another comment.
What I am advocating is separating voting from comments. Votes should be anonymous "agrees"; comments should be signed, with no vote attached.
| | | | invguy
Bułgaria
Local time: 18:51
angielski > bułgarski
Fuad Yahya wrote:
What I am advocating is separating voting from comments. Votes should be anonymous "agrees"; comments should be signed, with no vote attached.
I see where you're coming from, Fuad, but anonymous votes would in fact encourage 'emotional' voting. (As a matter of fact, I don't approve the word "vote"; I'd prefer "grade", or - even better - "comment".)
I'd rather do the opposite: replace the "disagree/neutral/agree" scheme with a field called "peer comment", which can be labeled as "objection" or "agree(ment?)", or not labeled at all.
That would give four possible usage alternatives:
a) write a comment and label it as "objection";
b) write a comment and give it no label;
c) write a comment and label it as "agree";
d) just give an "agree" label, without writing a comment.
The "objection" label tick box would remain greyed out if there is no comment. That makes perfect sense: whenever you **object**, you should be able to explain your reasons.
Some would say one could write anything in the comment field. Yes, indeed - but then the lack of reasoning would be obvious, and the objection would be most probably disregarded. Such a solution actually 'outlaws' unsubstantiated disagreement.
You would be able, however, to tick the "agree" label even if there is no comment.
In addition, you would have the opportunity *only* to comment, without necessarily grading the answer. That would replace the current "neutral" grade, but without the concealed/implied negative meaning. In fact, you would be free to comment in a variety of ways: either adding information that might be helpful, or expressing doubt, or pointing out inconsistencies, asking clarifying questions, giving general remarks etc.
Such an opportunity is often needed, and would be beneficial to an efficient discussion. At present, one can only use for the purpose the "Ask the asker" field, which is not quite adequate.
Just thinking...
| | | | | Stron w wątku: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » disagreeing vs being neutral if you have suggested another answer | 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 » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
