| Σελίδες για το θέμα: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] > | Release announcement: New KudoZ features Αποστολέας σε συζήτηση: Enrique Cavalitto
|
|---|
SirReaL 
Γερμανία
Local time: 10:52
Αγγλικά σε Ρωσικά
+ ...
| Why only platinum? | May 19, 2006 |
How can you not value the peer comments from regular users? This sort of discrimination is pointless. I know many platinum members in my pairs who are poor translators (if I may so myself) and poorer Kudoz contributors still.
| | | | SirReaL
Γερμανία
Local time: 10:52
Αγγλικά σε Ρωσικά
+ ...
| Coming up with relevant criteria | May 19, 2006 |
Henry, I think you've got something there! Proven competency in a certain field has got to be worth something. However, this will discriminate heavily against newer users.
| | | | | We are talking about different things, Muriel | May 19, 2006 |
Muriel Vasconcellos wrote:
At least in my language combinations, we already have a major problem with colleagues letting their fingers do the walking before they think twice...
My request would be the opposite: that NO answers be selected for 24 hours and that the system be set to automatically prevent any earlier selections...
This is something that we still may do at some point, although probably not across the board. Experimenting with an FVA mode (that may get used 1% of the time) does not preclude such moves in the future. You should not view this as a move in any direction. It is a distinct service mode, and I don't imagine it resulting in changes to "normal" (non-FVA) KudoZ.
Also, there is no reason we can not leave FVA-generated glossary entries out of the KOG.
| | | | | I may have found the problem with Matt's question(s) | May 19, 2006 |
Muriel Vasconcellos wrote:
Matt Coler posted some questions awhile ago from a project that I have been helping him with (because I have a graduate degree in the particular field). After posting my earlier comments in this thread, I went to check in on Matt's daily questions (the only ones I'm answering these days because I have a full plate) and I was "blocked."
Did he send you the URL(s) by any chance? It looks like his questions may be in queue, since he has exceeded his daily limit.
He should have seen a notice when he posted, and should also have received an email explaining. If this is not the case, or even if it was an he missed it, we'll obviously need to make things clearer.
Let me know if that was not it, though, Muriel...
| | |
|
|
|
Oliver Walter
Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο
Local time: 09:52
Γερμανικά σε Αγγλικά
+ ...
| Or at least some criterion for selecting the "agrees" | May 19, 2006 |
henry wrote:
Instead of using membership, what if the agrees had to come from someone working in the pair and field, and native in the target? (Controversial, I know, but just as part of the experiment...)
Mikhail Kropotov wrote:
How can you not value the peer comments from regular users? This sort of discrimination is pointless. I know many platinum members in my pairs who are poor translators (if I may so myself) and poorer Kudoz contributors still.
I knew my idea of "platinum only" might be controversial, but I do think that at least there should be some criterion for selecting which of the "agrees" to include in the counting.
Henry's idea quoted above could be helpful, but I think that sometimes a native speaker of the *source* language would best understand the sense of the term in the given context and would therefore be qualified to know whether a proposed translation is suitable.
Another idea that occurs to me is to consider which of the "agrees" are from members whose KudoZ answers have been accepted as the "most helpful". This should preferably be in terms of the *proportion* of their answers that have been accepted, not the absolute number (and then they would only be considered if they have given at least N answers, where N is at least 4).
Oliver
| | | | | The information is there | May 19, 2006 |
Elena Pavan wrote:
But I think it should be better put a remind, a kind of pop-up that opens up when somebody wants to put a not-for-points question, just to inform those who don't have time to read the forums that the automatically selected answer is not necessarily the best one.
Hi Elena,
When you ask a KudoZ question you are presented with the option
[b]Choose who will close the question:
- I will choose the most helpful answer
- Send me the first validated answer (not for points)
There is also an information icon that, once clicked, opens a pop-up window with the following message:
KudoZ: First validated answer (FVA) mode
Askers now have the option of asking questions in "first validated answer" (FVA) mode. When the FVA option is selected, instead of multiple answers being submitted and the asker selecting the one that is most helpful, the goal is for one correct translation to be agreed upon by the answerer community. An FVA question is therefore considered closed as soon as one answer gets two net agrees.
The effect for askers is that they can ask a question, and some time later be sent an answer that has been validated. It is considered that this option to "leave the decision to the pros" may appeal to some askers, particularly those who do not speak the target language. Various other possibilities may also be presented by this new approach.
Note that FVA questions are always not-for-points, and that they are targeted at those who work in the language pair, have expressed at least an interest in the selected field, and are native in the target language. (However, others are not prevented from answering.)
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | PRen (X)
Local time: 04:52
Γαλλικά σε Αγγλικά
+ ...
| Are you kidding? | May 19, 2006 |
Oliver Walter wrote:
In a similar spirit to most of the others here, I don't think an "agree" should necessarily count as a validation. Looking at Henry's example, one of the two agrees is only a "basic" member.
I think that if you insist that 2 "validations" should be acceptable, (while Henry is "seeing how it goes") only "agrees" from Platinum members should count in this.
Oliver
Based on the logic that someone who pays $100 is a better translator? Come on! There are plenty of "basic" members with far superior qualifications, experience and downright talent that many, many Platinum members. Just go through Kudoz answers for ample demonstration.
| | | | | No correlation with quality | May 19, 2006 |
henry wrote:
Instead of using membership, what if the agrees had to come from someone working in the pair and field, and native in the target? (Controversial, I know, but just as part of the experiment...)
I don't think experiment is necessary to show that there's no relationship between quality and membership, and often little to none between the supposed field marked for the question and an answerer's recorded fields. As for native in the target, there's some value there, but on plenty of queries it's a native or native-like understanding of the source that's required to unravel the puzzle---it depends on the query.
To reiterate, experiment won't do anything to prove what we already know; the evidence is in the KudoZ archives.
On this issue, there's a logical disconnect that I haven't seen addressed. Supposedly quick closing allows the answer to use the question immediately. It's the same fallacy that premature closers have been using all along. ("Sorry I didn't wait the 24 hours, but I needed to deliver this translation right away.") Why? There is no physical or technical need for the asker to close the question in KudoZ before taking the best answer available at the moment and using it in his/her translation.
[Edited at 2006-05-19 21:53]
| | |
|
|
|
Oliver Walter
Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο
Local time: 09:52
Γερμανικά σε Αγγλικά
+ ...
| For an objective measure of quality... | May 19, 2006 |
GoodWords wrote:
I don't think experiment is necessary to show that there's no relationship between quality and membership, and often little to none between the supposed field marked for the question and an answerer's recorded fields. As for native in the target, there's some value there, but on plenty of queries it's a native or native-like understanding of the source that's required to unravel the puzzle---it depends on the query.
The quality question is why I finally proposed: 'to consider which of the "agrees" are from members whose KudoZ answers have been accepted as the "most helpful".' Of all the selection criteria so far proposed this seems to me to be the only one that contains some objective measure of quality.
Oliver
| | | | Muriel Vasconcellos (X)
Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες Αμερικής
Local time: 01:52
Ισπανικά σε Αγγλικά
+ ...
| I'm not sure what happened, but the questions are now freed up | May 20, 2006 |
[quote]henry wrote:
Muriel Vasconcellos wrote:
It looks like his questions may be in queue, since he has exceeded his daily limit.
He should have seen a notice when he posted, and should also have received an email explaining. If this is not the case, or even if it was an he missed it, we'll obviously need to make things clearer.
Let me know if that was not it, though, Muriel...
Yesterday I was getting a message saying ""You are not authorized to view this question." However, the questions did get freed up.
Today I am getting a message saying that other questions of Matt's are in the queue. This, of course, is related to a different update.
| | | | Muriel Vasconcellos (X)
Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες Αμερικής
Local time: 01:52
Ισπανικά σε Αγγλικά
+ ...
| In studying this experiment, I hope the response times are compared | May 20, 2006 |
henry wrote:
You missed my point. If you are an interpreter, you know that often, you have a limited amount of time to select your best "translation" of a term and just go with it. The new KudoZ mode is similar in that respect.
I can't imagine anything quicker than the system we have had all along. Colleagues RACE to get there first. If the answerers are not motivated by points, I don't think you will get answers any faster or as high a level of participation.
As you assess the experiment, will there be some way of measuring (1) the response time for the first answer, and (2) the time it takes for two agrees to pop up? And then comparing these figures against similar ones for the regular system?
| | | |
Muriel Vasconcellos wrote:
henry wrote:
You missed my point. If you are an interpreter, you know that often, you have a limited amount of time to select your best "translation" of a term and just go with it. The new KudoZ mode is similar in that respect.
I can't imagine anything quicker than the system we have had all along. Colleagues RACE to get there first. If the answerers are not motivated by points, I don't think you will get answers any faster or as high a level of participation.
As you assess the experiment, will there be some way of measuring (1) the response time for the first answer, and (2) the time it takes for two agrees to pop up? And then comparing these figures against similar ones for the regular system?
Yes, that is one of the things we'll be looking at, and as we obtain data I would be happy to share it. But bear in mind that speed is not the main point here--I was responding to others' concerns when I made the interpreter remark. The main thing about this alternative model is that the asker does not make the decision, but leaves it to the answerers. This is a client-oriented approach and, in the case of clients who do not speak the target language, a quality-oriented approach. Even if it were slower (and so far it looks like it may be), there might be new possibilities opened up by this approach.
I must say, I like the fact that this experiment is giving rise to a discussion on speed and quality. These are two of the three things we need to concern ourselves with as service providers!
| | |
|
|
|
A Hayes (X)
Αυστραλία
Local time: 19:52
| echoing other colleagues' misgivings | May 22, 2006 |
Deborah do Carmo wrote:
As a former member of the site once said, this site is increasingly playing to the lowest common denominator.
I really have to agree tonight - this is possibly one of the strongest indications to date that it's the case.
Yet one more ploy to draw the crowds, keep traffic numbers up and keep the trigger-happy sufferers of KudoZ-itis (who are either obviously not working at all or paying scant attention to the little work they do have) content, firing away with yet more inane answers to (often inane) questions......and now getting credit for it!
I can only echo other colleagues' misgivings. The "wait and see" approach is very tired with all due respect.
But then again who really cares as long as the cyber highway remains congested and pulls in the punters.....
I agree 100%.
Deborah do Carmo wrote:
Credit not in the sense of points but in the sense of recognition being given to people who provide what are often asinine answers off the top of their heads in that ego-inflated rush to be first to the finish line - there are so many cliques in some of the language pairs that getting two (three or four) peer agrees will not prove an obstacle. Birds of a feather and the like .....
Fear doesn't enter into the equation - I think if you read the thrust of what most people are saying tonight, it varies between slight irritation to outright disgust. I don't think any serious translator would "fear" this change, find it ridiculous certainly ....
Outright disgust on this side of the planet. No ‘fear,’ of course.
Deborah do Carmo wrote:
KudoZ works?
Nope.
No-one missed your point about interpreters, Henry. And you reinforced my original views when you tried to clarify it.
With all due respect, Henry, what is your objective? What exactly are you aiming at? As has been the case lately, you (or the moderators) ask for feedback and then go ahead with the original idea pretty much unchanged.
Do you really want a site full of amateurs, because that's clearly what's happening. The site is becoming increasingly cluttered and unprofessional.
If ProZ is truly concerned with quality, why does ProZ not listen to the comments and suggestions made by experienced professionals? Do you realise many professional translators have chosen not to say anything anymore, while others won’t renew their memberships, and others will simply leave?
It’s a shame. ProZ was a good idea originally. But over the last year or so it’s been ‘improving’ in the wrong direction.
[Edited at 2006-05-22 13:46]
| | | | Ralf Lemster
Γερμανία
Local time: 10:52
Αγγλικά σε Γερμανικά
+ ...
| What happened to Team questions? | May 22, 2006 |
Henry, Enrique,
I notice that the new layout of the asking form no longer provides for an option to ask questions directed at a team - what happened there? If it was removed - why?
As we are relying on the availability of this function, I would appreciate a quick response.
Best regards,
Ralf
| | | |
Ralf Lemster wrote:
Henry, Enrique,
I notice that the new layout of the asking form no longer provides for an option to ask questions directed at a team - what happened there? If it was removed - why?
As we are relying on the availability of this function, I would appreciate a quick response.
Hi Ralf,
The "Private questions" option is still available, it is in the second page of the question-asking process.
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | | Σελίδες για το θέμα: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Release announcement: New KudoZ features | 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! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
