| Pages in topic: [1 2] > | Suggestion: once an answerer has answered, no more possibility to agree/disagree Thread poster: Viktoria Gimbe
|
|---|
I have noticed that all too often, there are answerers answering a question who then go on to disagree/neutral other people's answers.
Isn't it obvious they disagree or are neutral, if they supplied their own answer? I mean, if they supply the same answer as someone else, then they are redundant, right? So, this means their answer is not the same as the other answers, which leaves us with the understanding that this particular answerer rather disagrees with the other answers than he... See more I have noticed that all too often, there are answerers answering a question who then go on to disagree/neutral other people's answers.
Isn't it obvious they disagree or are neutral, if they supplied their own answer? I mean, if they supply the same answer as someone else, then they are redundant, right? So, this means their answer is not the same as the other answers, which leaves us with the understanding that this particular answerer rather disagrees with the other answers than he agrees with them.
I find it very unpleasant when I answer a question and I get a disagree or a neutral from a person who answered also - worse yet, the other person answered after me. The other person got the chance to express themselves on the term by adding their own answer. Why be displeasant? Also, we are not children anymore and I don't think we need to play teacher here...
Anybody has an opinion?
[Edited at 2006-11-05 10:59]
Correction to avoid misunderstanding: I am talking about ABUSIVE disagrees/neutrals. Example: answerer, having answered the question, goes on to disagree with ALL other answers, which are not necessarily contradicting his/hers but mere variants of his/her answer. Or people who disagree with other answers clearly to artificially add an agree to their own answer to grab points.
I thought I'd make this clear because I realized it wasn't clear the first time I posted
[Edited at 2006-11-06 01:30] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Rebecca Hendry 
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:58
Member (2005)
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Disagree only in certain cases | Nov 5, 2006 |
Hi Viktoria,
In the case you describe, I would only add a disagree to another person's answer if it is blatantly wrong (either grammatically or semantically). I would not add any kind of comment if my only misgivings about the other answer were stylistic. I may, however, add a note to my own answer stating why I thought that my own was more suitable for one reason or another.
I think the disagree function is useful but only if it is not abused. It is all too easy for... See more Hi Viktoria,
In the case you describe, I would only add a disagree to another person's answer if it is blatantly wrong (either grammatically or semantically). I would not add any kind of comment if my only misgivings about the other answer were stylistic. I may, however, add a note to my own answer stating why I thought that my own was more suitable for one reason or another.
I think the disagree function is useful but only if it is not abused. It is all too easy for answerers to give out disagrees willy-nilly in order to obtain the points themselves, but, touch wood, this doesn't tend to happen too often. However, in my opinion it is essential that the disagreer give sound justification for their disagree.
In most cases, askers or fellow Kudozers will be able to tell when an answerer disagrees with another answer purely because they want the points for themselves. An unjustified disagree will more often that not be followed by a stream of agrees which negate its effect.
It's always unpleasant to be disagreed with, but sometimes you just need to let the question take its course and rely on the good sense of the answerer.
Becky. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Actively disagreeing versus simply not agreeing | Nov 5, 2006 |
Some comments:
1. The fact that an Answerer posts a different answer does not necessarily mean that they actively disagree with other suggestions, merely that they think their answer may fit better. In the case of the "brainstorming" type of question, it's perfectly feasible to agree with some answers, disagree with others, and still quite reasonably post an alternative of your own. Therefore it is wrong to assume that a new answer = blanket disagreement with all other answers, so t... See more Some comments:
1. The fact that an Answerer posts a different answer does not necessarily mean that they actively disagree with other suggestions, merely that they think their answer may fit better. In the case of the "brainstorming" type of question, it's perfectly feasible to agree with some answers, disagree with others, and still quite reasonably post an alternative of your own. Therefore it is wrong to assume that a new answer = blanket disagreement with all other answers, so the option should remain for people to make their position on other answers crystal clear should they choose to do so.
2. When disagreeing, you provide a reason for doing so, whatever that reason may be. Strictly speaking, the rules prohibit discussing other answers within one's own answer, so this is the only way you can explain why another answer is, in your view, "wrong". Plus which, if there are several "wrong" (in your view) answers, to explain why they are wrong within your own answer could simply make the whole thing a mess.
3. Within recent months, the idea of promoting use of the "disagree" button to discourage what were rather loosely termed "rubbish answers" was put forward and gained some support. Your suggestion would rather hamper progress made in this area. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Freedom to people! | Nov 5, 2006 |
Dear Viktoria and Rebecca,
I believe that people must have freedom to express themselves. I personally do not care about those points. What I care about is people! Best wishes to you all and good luck with your work!
| | |
|
|
|
Erik Freitag
Germany
Local time: 07:58
Member (2006)
Dutch to German
+ ...
| I fully agree with Charlie | Nov 5, 2006 |
I'd like to second Charlie's contribution, and I agree with him on all three points.
| | | | | Me too (fully agree with Charlie) | Nov 5, 2006 |
efreitag wrote:
I'd like to second Charlie's contribution, and I agree with him on all three points.
Besides a Disagree what is important isn't when or who, but why.
Claudia
| | | |
efreitag wrote:
I'd like to second Charlie's contribution, and I agree with him on all three points.
I'd like to "fourth" it ...
Personally I find it rather childish to view a disagree as something "unpleasant", provided everything is kept at a linguistic level. It's not about being "nice" and not diagreeing so as just to sooth an answerer's ego, it's about giving the asker (and future users) the best possible help. Criticism, as long as it's constructive, is something you just need to be able to handle in this game.
[Edited at 2006-11-05 13:37]
| | | | | Addressing other answers in one's own answer | Nov 5, 2006 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
2. When disagreeing, you provide a reason for doing so, whatever that reason may be. Strictly speaking, the rules prohibit discussing other answers within one's own answer, so this is the only way you can explain why another answer is, in your view, "wrong". Plus which, if there are several "wrong" (in your view) answers, to explain why they are wrong within your own answer could simply make the whole thing a mess.
I heartily agree with most of what you've written on this topic, Charlie, but not entirely with point 2. While you are certainly right that the rules as currently formulated prohibit discussing other answers within one's own answer:
3.4 The only acceptable means of commenting on another's answer is by using the peer comment feature. Using the answer posting form or the answer explanation box to comment on another's suggestions is not allowed.
I think this is another rule that needs to be revisited. It was most likely designed to fix a problem, but is, in my opinion, poorly formulated and counterproductive.
I have read many well-constructed answers that address other proposed solutions step by step, and I've found them helpful. I guess the rule was written to quell flame wars, but again we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
[Edited at 2006-11-05 13:14]
| | |
|
|
|
| Keep the rule, but watch the manners when it's not followed | Nov 5, 2006 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
3.4 The only acceptable means of commenting on another's answer is by using the peer comment feature. Using the answer posting form or the answer explanation box to comment on another's suggestions is not allowed.
I think this is another rule that needs to be revisited. It was most likely designed to fix a problem, but is, in my opinion, poorly formulated and counterproductive.
I have read many well-constructed answers that address other proposed solutions step by step, and I've found them helpful. I guess the rule was written to quell flame wars, but again we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
Kim, I wouldn't reach that conclusion so quickly, I'd say that there were valid reasons for creating that rule, but that within a certain frame moderators can allow exceptions. When the arguments are constructive and useful for everybody, and that nobody complains, there's no reason to remove them. The best place is besides the agree/disagree button anyway.
Claudia
| | | | | Yep, true enough | Nov 5, 2006 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
I have read many well-constructed answers that address other proposed solutions step by step, and I've found them helpful. I guess the rule was written to quell flame wars, but again we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
Indeed, and I nearly added that I myself have occasionally been guilty of breaking this rule in past, explaining in more detail why another answer is "wrong" in the process of expaining the rationale behind my own answer. Sometimes, of course, the 256 characters allowed just isn't enough
However, as long as the spirit is right and the whole answer is well-intentioned, I see no issue with doing this, and AFAIK, no-one has ever complained when I've done so.
But the main point is that Viktoria's suggestion would mean that this would be the ONLY way to argue against (or disagree with) another answer if one had one's own answer to suggest, and, as I say, I don't feel that such a restriction would be particularly constructive. You could end up with a whole list of reasons for disagreeing with a range of answers, all included within the body of one's own suggestion. This would be confusing, at best, and furthermore, surely the best place to initially posit reasons for disagreeing with an answer is under that answer itself?
And, er, thanks to everyone who has agreed with me so far
| | | | | Healthy discourse | Nov 5, 2006 |
Claudia Iglesias wrote:
Kim, I wouldn't reach that conclusion so quickly, I'd say that there were valid reasons for creating that rule, but that within a certain frame moderators can allow exceptions. When the arguments are constructive and useful for everybody, and that nobody complains, there's no reason to remove them. The best place is besides the agree/disagree button anyway.
Yes, a very sensible approach, Claudia. Use common sense. But there's surely no harm in revisiting our rules, especially when they are open to interpretation and may end up being counterproductive. I love a good, healthy dialog in KudoZ when we're putting our heads together to find an ideal solution to a real translation problem, and members have told us (and me personally at powwows) that they're unhappy with what they see as overregulation.
| | | | tazdog (X)
Spain
Local time: 07:58
Spanish to English
+ ...
| another agree for you, Charlie | Nov 5, 2006 |
Despite the title of the thread, I don't think anyone has any problem with "agrees" posted by others who have answered the same question. (Food for thought...)
Charlie has made some very good points, and I agree 100%.
Sometimes I feel it's necessary to disagree with another answer even when I've offered my own, because the other answer is dead wrong (often because the answerer hasn't understood the source text). What's even worse is if the wrong answer manages to pick... See more Despite the title of the thread, I don't think anyone has any problem with "agrees" posted by others who have answered the same question. (Food for thought...)
Charlie has made some very good points, and I agree 100%.
Sometimes I feel it's necessary to disagree with another answer even when I've offered my own, because the other answer is dead wrong (often because the answerer hasn't understood the source text). What's even worse is if the wrong answer manages to pick up some agrees from equally clueless peer graders. Those tend to have a snowball effect sometimes unless the error of the answer is pointed out.
As long as there is a legitimate reason for the disagree, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed, no matter who posts it. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Let's not change the topic here | Nov 5, 2006 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
Yes, a very sensible approach, Claudia. Use common sense. But there's surely no harm in revisiting our rules, especially when they are open to interpretation and may end up being counterproductive. I love a good, healthy dialog in KudoZ when we're putting our heads together to find an ideal solution to a real translation problem, and members have told us (and me personally at powwows) that they're unhappy with what they see as overregulation.
Kim, as a moderator you know better than many of our members how far kudoz disputes can go, that's why I think we need the frame (to keep the rule), but we're talking particularly about this rule which doesn't allow to comment on other's responses in your own space.
Maybe rules need to be revisited and maybe some members see overregulation, but the topic isn't that one here.
Claudia
| | | | Textklick
Local time: 06:58
German to English
+ ...
In memoriam | My two Eurocents | Nov 5, 2006 |
Claudia Iglesias wrote:
Besides a Disagree what is important isn't when or who, but why.
Claudia
With you there...
Back at http://www.proz.com/topic/51612?start=165&float=
Kim Metzger wrote:
"Maybe we could formulate responses that are purely linguistic and that won't be regarded as personal as guidelines for peer comments."
Klaus Herrmann responded:
Here are some:
• Not used by target audience: The suggested translation may be understood but is not used by target audience.
• Out of context: The suggested translation may be found in a dico, but is not applicable in the given context.
• Technically wrong: The suggested translation may be found in a dico but is technically wrong
• Innonative - The suggested translation exists but no native speaker has used the suggested translation in this way before.
• Does not exist: The suggested translation does not exist in the target language.
• Unrelated to question: There is no connection between Q&A (think twice before checking this one!)
Modifiers:
+ Sorry.
+ Google doesn't prove a thing
+ is not a compelling reason
+ German uses umlauts and hyphens.
The options above are some of the typical objections one could have. The modifiers are a joke (sort of)."
BTW - I wonder how long this thread will run? (See point 14 at http://www.proz.com/translation-articles/articles/964/);-).
To read not a few opinions on the art of Zen, Kudoz and disagreeing, try searching the words "Kudoz, agree, disagree" - either singly or in concert - within the forums.
Freedom of speech, common sense, logic, manners and particularly the KOG are important criteria IMO.
Cheers
Chris
[Edited at 2006-11-05 14:09]
| | | | Claire Titchmarsh (X)
Local time: 07:58
Italian to English
+ ...
agree for Charlie.
I also agree with Cindy:
[quote]
Despite the title of the thread, I don't think anyone has any problem with "agrees" posted by others who have answered the same question. (Food for thought...)
Very true. I also agree with people who provide an answer to a question, maybe after I've posted an answer, but I see that theirs is better.
As you said, Viktoria, we aren't children, but the lack of face-to-face dialogue seems to make us all hypersensitive and prone to toddler tantrums. If we all thought of Kudoz like a virtual translation office where people exchanged intelligent and helpful ideas, maybe we wouldn't interpret a disagree as meaning "I hate you, your family and all of your friends, your suggestion is crap and should not be allowed beyond the firewall on your computer, and what on earth do you think you're doing being a translator".
Rather, we would think of it as a constructive comment of the type we would make to a friend/colleague in our office if they happened to give us a suggestion. What do you do in real life when someone contradicts you, do you say to a colleague "You callous and thoughtless fiend, how DARE you disagree with my suggestion"?? No, you say "oh well perhaps you're right (or not, as the case may be)" and get on with your work.
In other words, we would have a normal conversation. It happens in other online forums, but not often in Kudoz.
| | | | | 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 » Suggestion: once an answerer has answered, no more possibility to agree/disagree | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
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 
