| Σελίδες για το θέμα: [1 2] > | Voting for answers Αποστολέας σε συζήτηση: Ilona Hessner
|
|---|
Ilona Hessner 
Γερμανία
Local time: 10:29
Αγγλικά σε Γερμανικά
+ ...
Being member since August 08 I have recognised that some colleagues enter their "Agree" to some answer options. In my opinion this procedure is not helpful - it should be restricted to one solution, the wording which is considered as the best one.
| | | | | What do you mean? | May 24, 2009 |
In fact I dont understand, what you mean. How will it be possible to find the best solution without voting for different answers?
| | | | Jack Doughty
Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο
Local time: 09:29
Ρωσικά σε Αγγλικά
+ ...
Εις μνήμην | To more than one answer option? | May 24, 2009 |
Do you mean that you do not think people should give an agree to more than one answer to the same question? I don't think you expressed your meaning very clearly, but if this is what you mean, I agree in general, although I sometimes do it to two answerers who give the same answer at the same time.
| | | | Enza Longo
Καναδάς
Local time: 04:29
Γαλλικά σε Αγγλικά
+ ...
| there may be more than one way to say the same thing | May 24, 2009 |
Languages are so flexible that oftentimes you can use several ways to express the same idea, making one answer no less correct than another. If such is the case, I'll agree with more than one answer.
| | |
|
|
|
B D Finch
Γαλλία
Local time: 10:29
Γαλλικά σε Αγγλικά
+ ...
| Two (or more) "agrees" can be OK | May 24, 2009 |
Some questions have no absolutely right answer, if creative answers are required it may well be that several people give really good answers and it is not unreasonable to agree with more than one.
Alternatively, you might post an "agree" and then somebody comes up with something even better. It might seem mean to remove the first "agree".
| | | | Ilona Hessner
Γερμανία
Local time: 10:29
Αγγλικά σε Γερμανικά
+ ...
ΞΕΚΙΝΗΣΕ ΤΟ ΘΕΜΑ | Restriction of the "Agree" option | May 24, 2009 |
Hello Jack,
You have got it right! People should NOT give an agree to more than one answer to the same question.
In my opinion the KudoZ instrument is intended to help colleagues to find the right translation. So everyone should vote for his/her favorite wording.
| | | | | There is a bug! | May 24, 2009 |
I don't agree with the limitation of the peer comments.
But the only thing that I can not understand exactly is;
-How an asker can define the best answer if he/she already asks for the help of the public.
And the second thing;
-System provides to asker to choose best answer for him/her, but he/she uses this translation only one time and then this translation goes into the database where all people benefit from those answers several times.
... See more I don't agree with the limitation of the peer comments.
But the only thing that I can not understand exactly is;
-How an asker can define the best answer if he/she already asks for the help of the public.
And the second thing;
-System provides to asker to choose best answer for him/her, but he/she uses this translation only one time and then this translation goes into the database where all people benefit from those answers several times.
It is very strange for me to understand this because the asker of the specific question in KudoZ automatically can be defined as the person who has not enough information or the person who confused at the time when he/she asked the question.
So what is the point for letting the person without enough information to create a database where all translators benefit?
Also I don't know whether anybody faced the problem where majority of the peer comments provided on one answer but the asker goes against the majority and selects another answer without providing reasons. Then what is the purpose of providing peer comments if they do not make anything for the selection (with or without the asker selects what he/she wants)?
I think there should be restrictions or limitations on these issues. For example limiting the asker going against the majority if a specific answer got at least 60% of all peer comments.
Anyway, I can't see problem with providing more than one peer comments. The above mentined issuses to my opinion more important than this. ▲ Collapse
| | | | teju
Local time: 02:29
Αγγλικά σε Ισπανικά
+ ...
| One exception | May 24, 2009 |
When there's not enough context provided in the question, and there are two answers that would work well in different situations, that's when I might agree with 2 answers in the same question. But, in the agree line, I would add something like "if it pertains to X, then this would work well", to help the asker decide which answer he or she should choose.
I agree that if someone gives agrees to 2 or 3 of the answers in the same question, it becomes harder for the asker to decide which optio... See more When there's not enough context provided in the question, and there are two answers that would work well in different situations, that's when I might agree with 2 answers in the same question. But, in the agree line, I would add something like "if it pertains to X, then this would work well", to help the asker decide which answer he or she should choose.
I agree that if someone gives agrees to 2 or 3 of the answers in the same question, it becomes harder for the asker to decide which option to pick.
If, like a colleague said, more than one answer would work well, I give an agree to the one I like best. I think giving agrees left and right to several answers is of no help to the asker in those cases when the asker has no clue which answer to choose. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
teju
Local time: 02:29
Αγγλικά σε Ισπανικά
+ ...
| Partial answer to Ali | May 24, 2009 |
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote: But the only thing that I can not understand exactly is;
-How an asker can define the best answer if he/she already asks for the help of the public.
The answer to this question is that most of the times, the asker is not clueless about what the translation should be. Most of the people in ProZ who ask questions, or a great percentage of them, are professional translators who get stomped once in a while trying to find the right word. As an example, I didn't know how to say "waterboarding" in Spanish, a term you now see on the news all the time. I looked it up on the glossaries and right away I knew which term I would use if I had to translate or interpret the term. In other words, most of the times the asker knows the meaning of the word or phrase, but cannot come up on his own with a satisfactory translation.
Of course there are some beginner translators who really don't have any idea what the correct answer is, and for the sake of these people it is important that we don't give agrees to more than one person. In this case, I'd like to think that the asker will check the profiles of the people whose answers he's considering and those of the colleagues who give him agrees. It's a good system. I hope this answers your question, maybe other ProZians have a different opinion.
| | | | | That's exactly what I mentioned! | May 24, 2009 |
teju wrote:
I didn't know how to say "waterboarding" in Spanish, a term you now see on the news all the time. I looked it up on the glossaries and right away I knew which term I would use if I had to translate or interpret the term. In other words, most of the times the asker knows the meaning of the word or phrase, but cannot come up on his own with a satisfactory translation.
The person who exactly knows what is it, is 100% one of the answerers but would never be an asker.
Hmm.
In this case, the suggestion about restricting providing more than one peer comment seems useful but still there would be a problem: How can you guarantee that an asker would choose the best answer objectively?
And one more thing:
The system already trusts the peer comments. For example if an asker did not close a specific question within a period, then the system selects the best answer basing on the peer comments.
Why am I focusing on this side; because within the last year some people appeared in KudoZ whom I am calling "Just Closers". No matter your answer will be the best or not; the possibility of closing the question is about 50%. In this case I am thinking; why should I put my information and somebody play with it like a toy? That is why I am focusing on the objectivity.
| | | | | The main purpose of help KudoZ | May 25, 2009 |
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote:
-How an asker can define the best answer if he/she already asks for the help of the public.
The asker is requested to select the question that was most helpful for him/her, not the "best" answer.
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote:
-System provides to asker to choose best answer for him/her, but he/she uses this translation only one time and then this translation goes into the database where all people benefit from those answers several times.
It is very strange for me to understand this because the asker of the specific question in KudoZ automatically can be defined as the person who has not enough information or the person who confused at the time when he/she asked the question.
So what is the point for letting the person without enough information to create a database where all translators benefit?
The glossary is a valuable result of help KudoZ, but the main purpose of this feature is to help the asker.
Anyway, translators who use the glossary proficiently usually open the question and read all answers and peer comments.
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote:
Also I don't know whether anybody faced the problem where majority of the peer comments provided on one answer but the asker goes against the majority and selects another answer without providing reasons. Then what is the purpose of providing peer comments if they do not make anything for the selection (with or without the asker selects what he/she wants)?
I think there should be restrictions or limitations on these issues. For example limiting the asker going against the majority if a specific answer got at least 60% of all peer comments.
Peer comments are provided to help the asker and to enrich the process by allowing peers to add linguistic considerations on the answers given.
The main objective is still to help the asker, and the asker has the right to decide what answer was more helpful to him/her.
Regards,
Enrique
| | | |
Enrique wrote:
The main objective is still to help the asker, and the asker has the right to decide what answer was more helpful to him/her.
can we interpret "Kudoz points" as "Helping points"?
But what about the note which says:
"xyz has earned KudoZ points by translating tough terms for fellow translators."
?
In this phrase you used the term "translation" which means according to the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation
Translation is the interpreting of the meaning of a text and the subsequent production of an equivalent text, likewise called a translation, that communicates the same message in another language.
This phrase talks about an absolute translation but not about a "help" as you said.
And also disputability of the provided translation is not attracted in this message.
In other words it says "This person has earned points by providing true meanings of the tough terms for other translators"
And another important thing here that site adobts those points and turns them into distincntiveness among other translators. That means on one hand you are saying that it is just a "help" on the other hand those points become the most "important function" in this site. But they are given by those who have not enough information about the subject they are asking.
So if it is as you say "just helping the asker" then why site uses especially this parameter in order to sort the translators in specific pair and why after the question closed those points becomes some kind of reputability if they are given just for the asker's sake?
| | |
|
|
|
Paul Dixon
Βραζιλία
Local time: 06:29
Πορτογαλικά σε Αγγλικά
+ ...
Εις μνήμην | Leave the Agree feature as it is | May 25, 2009 |
Ilona suggests restricting the use of the Agree function so that people can only agree with one answer. I do not agree, as there can be more than one way of saying the same thing.
For example, if someone asks how to say "talvez" (in Portuguese) in English, and one person answers "maybe" and another "perhaps", I would have to agree with both answers, as they are the same.
| | | | Yaotl Altan
Μεξικό
Local time: 03:29
Μέλος από 2006
Αγγλικά σε Ισπανικά
+ ...
Paul Dixon wrote:
Ilona suggests restricting the use of the Agree function so that people can only agree with one answer. I do not agree, as there can be more than one way of saying the same thing.
For example, if someone asks how to say "talvez" (in Portuguese) in English, and one person answers "maybe" and another "perhaps", I would have to agree with both answers, as they are the same.
I support, Paul.
| | | | Jessica Noyes
Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες Αμερικής
Local time: 04:29
Μέλος
Ισπανικά σε Αγγλικά
+ ...
| Another vote for more than one "agree". | May 25, 2009 |
I have only once "agreed" with two different answers, but they were both excellent -- I wanted to distinguish the two graceful ones from the others, which were clunky and artificial sounding, but not wrong enough to "disagree" with.
| | | | | Σελίδες για το θέμα: [1 2] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Voting for answers | Pastey | Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
| | 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 
