| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] | Lawyers, please come back (as KudoZ answerers)! Thread poster: Claire Titchmarsh (X)
|
|---|
CMJ_Trans (X)
Local time: 07:16
French to English
+ ...
| In response to Henry | Oct 31, 2006 |
Firstly, thank you for your answers.
Secondly, I read your comments several times before I wrote my initial comments and on each occasion I sensed you were on the defensive. And this has happened before.
Let's set the record straight: being defensive about one's brainchild is NORMAL. In your position I would probably be the same. But we must try to see beyond this.
I know nothing about ProZ.com's market penetration but I do know that most of the people I k... See more Firstly, thank you for your answers.
Secondly, I read your comments several times before I wrote my initial comments and on each occasion I sensed you were on the defensive. And this has happened before.
Let's set the record straight: being defensive about one's brainchild is NORMAL. In your position I would probably be the same. But we must try to see beyond this.
I know nothing about ProZ.com's market penetration but I do know that most of the people I know personally and have worked with for years have never heard of it. But then, they are not the sort of people to go trawling the website for help. I wasn't and would never have been, had it not been for the "M" and "J" of the CMJ_Trans title, who stumbled across ProZ one day - but that's another story.
I have never worked on the translation freelance market so I have no idea what the needs are out there. That said, it is clear that a lot of people are on their own and having a place to exchanges ideas with peers must be a lifesaver. I do not decry the site. Quite the reverse: I wish I had thought of it first myself!
My theory about there being less and less qualified people likely to discover the site and contribute to it is not rocket science. It is a phenomenon which, in one way or another, affects any new product on the market. Initially the potential to be tapped is huge. Gradually this shrinks because the pool is not replenished as fast as it empties. In ProZ case, there is the added problem that newcomers tend to be looking help for rather than to give it.
However, the main point is that the team at proZ should not bury its collective head in the sand but DO SOMETHING. Suggestions have been made for surveys. Why not? An open-minded examination of the state of ProZ today.
I am conscious that I have well exceeded the 250 word limit that you seem to want to impose but sometimes there is just so much to be said....
Thanks, by the way, for taking up the cudgels for me with Mats. It wasn't really necessary but considerate all the same.
[Edited at 2006-10-31 11:04]
[Edited at 2006-10-31 13:00] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Professional linguists | Oct 31, 2006 |
henry wrote: cbolton wrote: ICL wrote:
For example, if you asked me, I would say the time has clearly come for Proz.com to hire (and pay) a team of professional linguists to take over the control of Kudoz, because the population of Proz.com has become too high (and keeps increasing) and more and more people use and contribute to Kudoz. I thought we WERE professional linguists!  
Catherine, Henry,
I suppose there are a lot of professional linguists in Proz.com, but I seriously doubt that *ALL* of the registered profiles are.
On the other hand, I assumed that Henry could find the said linguists in Proz itself, and I did not say at all that the opposite was the case.
About the unviability of paying a team of linguists to work on this, I doubt Catherine has any real figures about Proz.com's finances in order to support your comment, Henry. You are probably the only one with enough information in this respect to know if it is possible or not.
But since you considered my proposal a "fresh idea" (which I assume means that you *may* consider it), I will explain (as *concisely* as possible) a bit further what I actually meant:
1) Anyone who uses Kudoz frequently knows that there are unuseful entries in Kudoz, and this number might increase in the future (because of Proz.com's population growth). This might be the case of some specific language pairs only, so I am only speaking of my pair in particular.
2) You can hire a team of linguists not necessarily for the long run, but at least for a given period, to "clean" a good part of the said volume of unuseful entries. They would act as a sort of "auditors" of Kudoz, just like in real life auditors go through the finances of a given company to check that everything is OK in the accounting books.
3) About the said team to control Kudoz daily, well, maybe this is not viable financially on a permanent basis, but maybe it is viable on a monthly or quarterly or semester basis, always with the idea of "auditing" and maintaining an overall better quality/control of Kudoz.
4) True, Kudoz is not supposed to be an "authoritative" terminology database, but whether you want it or not, it is being used as such in many many cases, so why not make an extra effort to make it as "authoritative" as possible?
Regards,
Ivette
PS: just corrected an instance of the word "authoritative" (I had written "authorative").
[Edited at 2006-10-31 22:09]
| | | | | Encouraging references | Oct 31, 2006 |
henry wrote:
Also, having a potentially uninformed person choosing the most helpful answer is meant to encourage use of references, or otherwise give answerers reason to be clear in explanations.
Henry -
This is an extremely indirect way of encouraging references. The old rules were much more to the point:
4. Answering KudoZ questions
4.5 - Avoid answering in language pairs in which you are not capable, and in fields in which you are not knowledgeable.
4.6 - The explanation box is for providing justification of your answer. The reference boxes are for links to online resources that the asker and others may consult for confirmation.
We eliminated those rules and substituted the following new rule:
3.2 Links are preferred over cut-and-pasted text for large texts. When substantiating one's suggested translation with information available elsewhere on the web, rather than copying a large segment of text as reference, it is preferable to include an excerpt from the text, along with a link for those who desire more information.
The emphasis of this rule is on how one might go about providing references if one chose to do so. "When substantiating one's suggested translation with information available elsewhere ..." The emphasis of this rule that was substituted for the previous ones is on discouraging pages of Google hits (usually showing only that the target term exists).
But if we want to improve the quality of answers submitted, it seems clear to me that we've got to be much more direct about the importance of documenting an answer. Sure, there are many occasions when documentation is inappropriate, unnecessary. The asker may just need some brainstorming for a good marketing term or literary translation.
But what we've got to do something about is the serial answerer who answers everything that comes up without knowing a thing about the subject and/or little expertise in the language pair. We have far too many folks in this category and they are damaging KudoZ. We must make them understand that pulling answers out of the air is not acceptable.
Everyone is now forced to enter something in the explanation box. Our confidence tricksters have a way around this: they enter a smiley or "my take."
[Edited at 2006-10-31 15:21]
[Edited at 2006-10-31 16:52]
| | | | suvasree
Local time: 10:46
English to Bengali
+ ...
Henry wrote: I thought of it as a game that would have a serious and useful product.
Whatever prompted its conception, the spirit of Kudoz is hardly that of a game. I don't know about "useful" but many seem to be of the opinion that the product of that game is not "serious". No serious discussion is possible in that forum. The points system induces a race which means speed. Building a glossary is akin to the job of an etymologist. Time or speed has no relevance there even if they may have some relevance in the practical field of professional translation.
Henry wrote: First of all, I meant for the points to "let one know that something had happened." Like the click of a mouse.
Sorry, but I failed to understand this. Are you serious?
Henry wrote: I would like ProZ.com to be a true meritocracy, with the best translators rising to the top, and the directory as it appears today was meant to be the beginnings of that. But the only criteria used now are KudoZ, browniz and time registered, and I do not consider these to have created a meaningful meritocracy.
Then why are you still persevering with it? Will there be a consensus as to what constitutes merit in the field of translation and how to determine it? Is it possible to find some indicators by objective means? My answer to this is 'impossible'. Perhaps your thoughts are different. Sorry for taking recourse to an extreme analogy but can you tell me who is the better artist, Vincent Van Gogh or Pablo Picasso? Who has more merit? Don't you find that any judgement you pronounce would be an injustice to one or the other of them?
Henry wrote: I have not given up on the idea of a meritocracy, but the approach that I think is appropriate is now much different. There is no absolute "best" translator. There are only among-the-best translators for given projects, for given clients.
You began opinionatedly but then softened your stance a bit in "no absolute best"! Thank you.
You may still consider a forum not based on points, a forum where free discussion will be possible. Let the suggested alternatives remain as they are and allow individual translators to make their own judgements from the proposed translations. It may not be healthy for the art (if anything of "art" is still left in it here) of translation to try to find the "best" translation and the "best" translator.
Merit will prevail even without the Kudoz points. Perhaps "merit' in translation is an abstract, subjective, somewhat illusive entity, closer to the merit of a poet than that of an athlete and hence more difficult or almost impossible to judge or quantify.
Finally, thank you for taking your time to reply to my questions.
Regards,
Suvasree
[Edited at 2006-11-01 04:50]
| | |
|
|
|
| Thanks, suvasree! | Nov 1, 2006 |
suvasree wrote: Henry wrote: I thought of it as a game that would have a serious and useful product. Whatever prompted its conception, the spirit of Kudoz is hardly that of a game. I don't know about "useful" but many seem to be of the opinion that the product of that game is not "serious". No serious discussion is possible in that forum. The points system induces a race which means speed. Building a glossary is akin to the job of an etymologist. Time or speed has no relevance there even if they may have some relevance in the practical field of professional translation. Henry wrote: First of all, I meant for the points to "let one know that something had happened." Like the click of a mouse. Sorry, but I failed to understand this. Are you serious?
Yes. In a way, the concept was that simple--like deciding that a computer mouse should make a sound, and give tactile feedback, when one clicks.
Henry wrote: I would like ProZ.com to be a true meritocracy, with the best translators rising to the top, and the directory as it appears today was meant to be the beginnings of that. But the only criteria used now are KudoZ, browniz and time registered, and I do not consider these to have created a meaningful meritocracy. Then why are you still persevering with it?
Is it not worth setting as an objective, however difficult it is to achieve, that those who develop their translation skills to a high level would stand out?
Henry wrote: I have not given up on the idea of a meritocracy, but the approach that I think is appropriate is now much different. There is no absolute "best" translator. There are only among-the-best translators for given projects, for given clients. You began opinionatedly but then softened your stance a bit in "no absolute best"! Thank you.
Then I gave the wrong impression at the start. In principle, all we do as site staff members is provide tools. Ideally, we would provide a means for you--optionally!--to experience an environment in which what is worthy of merit, according to *your* definitions, would stand out. I would not support any imposition of one's views of what is worthy of merit over another's.
Again, the current situation (sorting only by KudoZ, browniz and registration date) is far from ideal.
You may still consider a forum not based on points, a forum where free discussion will be possible. Let the suggested alternatives remain as they are and allow individual translators to make their own judgements from the proposed translations. It may not be healthy for the art (if anything of "art" is still left in it here) of translation to try to find the "best" translation and the "best" translator.
I don't agree with your views on the status of points and art at ProZ.com, to say the least, insomuch as they deny the existence of real professionals in the community. For all the foibles of our platform, I see lots of great professionals here engaging in serious discussion and honest collaboration. If you don't, I would encourage you to take a fresh look.
Merit will prevail even without the Kudoz points. Perhaps "merit' in translation is an abstract, subjective, somewhat illusive entity, closer to the merit of a poet than that of an athlete and hence more difficult or almost impossible to judge or quantify.
On that, at least, we can agree.
Finally, thank you for taking your time to reply to my questions.
Thank you for your interesting questions! They get to the heart of the issues.
| | | | | Thanks, CMJ_Trans | Nov 1, 2006 |
CMJ_Trans wrote:
...DO SOMETHING.
Will do. I look forward to your participation in any discussion that follows our posting of a KudoZ action plan.
| | | |
Kim Metzger wrote: henry wrote:
Also, having a potentially uninformed person choosing the most helpful answer is meant to encourage use of references, or otherwise give answerers reason to be clear in explanations.
Henry - This is an extremely indirect way of encouraging references.
It is just a side effect, Kim, not the point. We can certainly revise the rules, but the fact that a potentially uninformed asker is the one who chooses the "most helpful" answer has an impact more profound than what we can achieve with rules.
That the person with the need decides when the need is satisfied is central, in my opinion, to KudoZ, to a culture of collaboration (and to a service industry). In fact, it is now one of the points mentioned in the Sixteen (16) cornerstones of ProZ.com that I posted recently.
As for the specific change that you reference, it was judged that the old "rules" were less rules (which must be enforceable) than they were guidelines. If you can suggest concrete, enforceable rules, let's consider them.
| | | | | Old rule 4.6 was not eliminated | Nov 1, 2006 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
The old rules were much more to the point:
4. Answering KudoZ questions
4.5 - Avoid answering in language pairs in which you are not capable, and in fields in which you are not knowledgeable.
4.6 - The explanation box is for providing justification of your answer. The reference boxes are for links to online resources that the asker and others may consult for confirmation.
We eliminated those rules and substituted the following new rule:
3.2 Links are preferred over cut-and-pasted text for large texts. When substantiating one's suggested translation with information available elsewhere on the web, rather than copying a large segment of text as reference, it is preferable to include an excerpt from the text, along with a link for those who desire more information.
Old rule 4.6 was not eliminated. I was not replaced by new rule 3.2 but by rule 1.3, quoted below:
1.3. Text boxes may be used only for their intended purposes. For example: * The "Ask the Asker" box makes it possible to ask for additional information concerning a question or its context. * The answerer's explanation box is intended for providing justification of a suggested translation.
* Reference boxes provide a place for links to online resources that the asker and others may consult for confirmation. Use of the above form fields for purposes other than those described is prohibited. For example, comments such as 'Studied medicine for 3 years' should be entered in the explanation box, not in the reference boxes. http://www.proz.com/siterules/kudoz_general/1.3#1.3
Regards,
Enrique
| | |
|
|
|
| I know this thread was about lawyers... | Nov 1, 2006 |
...but I'm not entirely convinced that arguing the toss about what the rules do or don't say is massively helpful, even if that is pretty much what lawyers are for
I would have thought that, given time and the willingness to do so, it would not be beyond the wit of the site staff to run a few database queries to determine:
a) who these vanished experts are/were (i.e. those racking up healthy scores in days of yo... See more ...but I'm not entirely convinced that arguing the toss about what the rules do or don't say is massively helpful, even if that is pretty much what lawyers are for
I would have thought that, given time and the willingness to do so, it would not be beyond the wit of the site staff to run a few database queries to determine:
a) who these vanished experts are/were (i.e. those racking up healthy scores in days of yore in particular fields & language pairs)
and
b) whether they i) still contribute to kudoz* and ii) are still active elsewhere on the site (this being to determine whether they have given up kudoz entirely, but are, perhaps, still practising translators).
[* subsets: 1. actually answering questions; 2. just posting agrees/disagrees]
I too share Catherine's perception that the people who used to seem knowledgeable about law are now largely absent from my language pair (Fr-Eng), but perhaps this could be backed up with solid statistics, before deciding whether action needs to be taken... ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Confusing organization | Nov 5, 2006 |
Enrique wrote: 1.3. Text boxes may be used only for their intended purposes. For example: * The "Ask the Asker" box makes it possible to ask for additional information concerning a question or its context. * The answerer's explanation box is intended for providing justification of a suggested translation.
* Reference boxes provide a place for links to online resources that the asker and others may consult for confirmation. Use of the above form fields for purposes other than those described is prohibited. For example, comments such as 'Studied medicine for 3 years' should be entered in the explanation box, not in the reference boxes. http://www.proz.com/siterules/kudoz_general/1.3#1.3
[/quote]
Thanks for clarifying that we've still got these rules, Enrique, but clearly we've put them in the wrong place, right? Why should we have rules about answering questions under the rules for asking questions? No wonder I and others thought the rules had disappeared.
| | | | | General rules, not rules for asking questions | Nov 20, 2006 |
Kim Metzger wrote: Enrique wrote: 1.3. Text boxes may be used only for their intended purposes. For example: * The "Ask the Asker" box makes it possible to ask for additional information concerning a question or its context. * The answerer's explanation box is intended for providing justification of a suggested translation.
* Reference boxes provide a place for links to online resources that the asker and others may consult for confirmation. Use of the above form fields for purposes other than those described is prohibited. For example, comments such as 'Studied medicine for 3 years' should be entered in the explanation box, not in the reference boxes. http://www.proz.com/siterules/kudoz_general/1.3#1.3 Thanks for clarifying that we've still got these rules, Enrique, but clearly we've put them in the wrong place, right? Why should we have rules about answering questions under the rules for asking questions? No wonder I and others thought the rules had disappeared.
Hi Kim, please note that rule 1.3 belongs to the category "KudoZ - 1. General rules", meaning rules that apply to all KudoZ activities (not for asking questions) so I don't agree with your comment.
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | | Rules for answering questions | Nov 20, 2006 |
Enrique wrote:
Hi Kim, please note that rule 1.3 belongs to the category "KudoZ - 1. General rules", meaning rules that apply to all KudoZ activities(not for asking questions) so I don't agree with your comment.
It's good to have this info in the general rules, but we should also spell it out in the section on answering questions.
Just the other day I was using Wordreference, a site that offers a service that is similar to KudoZ, and found these instructions interesting:
1. Any information, translations and definitions posted in these forums must be accompanied by a reasonable attempt to verify accuracy. Give sources for extensive quotations. If you are unsure of the accuracy of your information or translation, please say so.
| | |
|
|
|
Kim Metzger wrote: Enrique wrote:
Hi Kim, please note that rule 1.3 belongs to the category "KudoZ - 1. General rules", meaning rules that apply to all KudoZ activities(not for asking questions) so I don't agree with your comment.
It's good to have this info in the general rules, but we should also spell it out in the section on answering questions.
There is a general area for all rules, then a general area for KudoZ and also within KudoZ two specific areas, one for asking and another for answering and making peer comments. Rules posted in the general areas would be redundant if reposted in the particular areas.
Of course all this is not new for you, as you participated as moderator in the discussion when the new version of the site rules was implemented.
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | | Rules for answering questions | Nov 20, 2006 |
Enrique wrote:
Of course all this is not new for you, as you participated as moderator in the discussion when the new version of the site rules was implemented.
Hi Enrique - yes, I participated in the discussion you mention, and like other moderators voiced my objections to the way the rules have in effect become diluted. I hope your new proposals will make things more explicit regarding what we should expect from KudoZ answerers.
Regards, Kim
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Lawyers, please come back (as KudoZ answerers)! | 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 » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
