| صفحات الموضوع: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | KudoZ release: discussion area and other improvements ناشر الموضوع: Enrique Cavalitto
|
|---|
Enrique Cavalitto 
الأرجنتين
Local time: 21:56
عضو (2006)
أنجليزي إلى إسباني
بادئ الموضوع | Each area has a specific function | Aug 14, 2008 |
The various areas of KudoZ have specific functions:
Request/provide clarification for exchanges with asker to better understand the question
Discussion area, for linguistic discussions on the term
Answer, to provide the answers to the question
Reference information, for those who want to provide references that are not answers to the question
These areas were implemented after members' suggestions and preliminary statistics suggest that... See more The various areas of KudoZ have specific functions:
Request/provide clarification for exchanges with asker to better understand the question
Discussion area, for linguistic discussions on the term
Answer, to provide the answers to the question
Reference information, for those who want to provide references that are not answers to the question
These areas were implemented after members' suggestions and preliminary statistics suggest that they are being used.
Feedback and usage from members will define the future evolution of these features.
Regards,
Enrique ▲ Collapse
| | | | | The old system seemed fine to me | Aug 14, 2008 |
I asked two Kudoz questions today for the first time since the changes came in, and found it annoying that I didn't seem to be able to communicate with someone who had taken the trouble to add some links I might look at. I'd like to have thanked her, at least.
The old system seemed to work well.
Can we have it back, please?
Regards,
Jenny
| | | | | discussion box (my esperience) | Aug 14, 2008 |
I used the "Discussion" box today, for the first time.
The subject was a medical term.
I received a private e-mail from the asker, asking me to clarify my comment, which I did, politely, in private.
Wheter this might be classified as an "isolated episode", and maybe I didn't express my opinion clearly, I'll make sure I won't use that function again.
This is just my experience, for what it's worth...
Kind Regards
[Edited at 2008-08-14... See more I used the "Discussion" box today, for the first time.
The subject was a medical term.
I received a private e-mail from the asker, asking me to clarify my comment, which I did, politely, in private.
Wheter this might be classified as an "isolated episode", and maybe I didn't express my opinion clearly, I'll make sure I won't use that function again.
This is just my experience, for what it's worth...
Kind Regards
[Edited at 2008-08-14 19:19] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Jack Doughty
المملكة المتحدة
Local time: 01:56
روسي إلى أنجليزي
+ ...
احياء لذكرى | How many suggestions? | Aug 14, 2008 |
Enrique, you keep repeating: "These areas were implemented after members' suggestions", but how many members suggested them, and how many members are now suggesting that they be scrapped?
| | |
|
|
|
Enrique Cavalitto
الأرجنتين
Local time: 21:56
عضو (2006)
أنجليزي إلى إسباني
بادئ الموضوع | There was a problem preventing askers to participate in discussions | Aug 14, 2008 |
There was a bug in the implementation that prevented askers from participating in the discussions. This issue has been already solved. We apologize for the inconveniences and miscommunication that this may have caused.
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | | Don't like it, too complicated / the "Ask the asker" feature was fine | Aug 14, 2008 |
I can nothing but agree 100%
efreitag wrote:
Dear colleagues and staff members,
I must say that I am quite unhappy with the changes, because the information gets spread so much.
In my opinion, the "ask the asker" function should contain all the discussion, clarification requests, references etc. I don't see why it should be necessary to distinguish between all those.
The kudoz function in its present way is unnecessarily complicated.
| | | | Enrique Cavalitto
الأرجنتين
Local time: 21:56
عضو (2006)
أنجليزي إلى إسباني
بادئ الموضوع | The reasons behind change | Aug 14, 2008 |
Jack Doughty wrote:
Enrique, you keep repeating: "These areas were implemented after members' suggestions", but how many members suggested them, and how many members are now suggesting that they be scrapped?
Hi Jack,
I don't keep statistics, I would say that there were more "suggesters" than "scrappers" so far, but this is not the central point.
When these features were suggested there were good reasons behind them. For instance the "reference" area will provide a place to post reference information that does not have the format of an answer, in particular where the poster has information to share but does not know how to translate the term in the target language.
This kind of "non-answers" were widely posted as answers. You may not have cared about this but many people complained, with good reason.
So we provided a proper place for the reference information. There it will not be confused with an answer and it will not be counted among your answers in the KudoZ statistics.
Of course all changes create reactions among people who are used to a system they find familiar. I understand that. On the other hand without change there is no progress.
Again, members' feedback and usage will determine the future of these features.
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | Jack Doughty
المملكة المتحدة
Local time: 01:56
روسي إلى أنجليزي
+ ...
احياء لذكرى | Debating reasons behind change | Aug 14, 2008 |
Enrique:
So how many are for and against is not the central point? But with the degree of opposition you are encountering here, perhaps it should be.
There was already a place for posting reference information that does not have the format of an answer, it was called “Ask asker”.
These were widely being posted as answers? I hardly ever see anything but the Russian-English and all-English sections, but I don’t recall seeing instances of this.
<... See more Enrique:
So how many are for and against is not the central point? But with the degree of opposition you are encountering here, perhaps it should be.
There was already a place for posting reference information that does not have the format of an answer, it was called “Ask asker”.
These were widely being posted as answers? I hardly ever see anything but the Russian-English and all-English sections, but I don’t recall seeing instances of this.
Yes, of course people react against changes in a system with which they are familiar, if they see nothing wrong with the way it was before and think the new arrangements are worse. I don’t think that “change” is necessarily a good thing in itself. Without opposition to unnecessary change, there is only progress in the wrong direction.
Thank you for modifying some features on the basis of suggestions in this column, but it seems to me that each time you do this, you are moving a little further back towards where you started. I wish I could believe that members feedback suggesting the whole project be scrapped was at least being considered as a possibility, but I doubt if it is.
Hasta luego.
Jack. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Reference section is a good idea | Aug 14, 2008 |
hazmatgerman wrote:
With Doughty and Hinds; to me this is a wee bit too much. However I do like the reference section. Regards.
I also am in full agreement with these gentlemen. When I feel I have something to contribute or I wish to ask a question, I don't want to have to think long and hard about which section is the right one, risking the wrath of the ProZ Big Brother if I make the wrong choice.
Surely, there are only two main types of entries:
1. discussion: an area where we can discuss the matter (questions or comments, linguistic or other issues)
2. answers: our proposed solution
But I quite like the addition of the reference section, although formalising what many of us already use, ie an answer marked NFG (not for grading), would work equally as well. This is useful if you want to give extensive information in support of an answer that has already been proposed.
| | | | | Keep reference, scrap ATA, keep discussion area | Aug 14, 2008 |
Sheila Wilson wrote:
But I quite like the addition of the reference section
I do to, and I have noticed that it is being used in my pair.
My three suggestions:
1) Keep the "reference" section, I think it fulfills a need and makes it possible to provide information/help/support, even when you don't have an appropriate answer.
2) Scrap the ATA box. The problem with this box before the changes was that it would get very long and take up "real estate".
3) Keep the new "discussion" area, and rename it "clarification and discussion". I like the way you can open/hide the area, and now we have two tickboxes and can get notifications (thanks!) The one time when I wrote in the discussion area (before the tickboxes) I got the impression that nobody saw my contribution at all, because you had to really look for it and click to open.
I think many people are unhappy with "all these boxes". The usual progression is that someone will ask for clarification, which leads to further discussion. I don't see any reason to split these two things into different boxes.
Actually I have a 4th suggestion - a minor change to the discussion area. The default should be "keep discussion box open" (assuming there are comments) for all users who go to that page for the first time. I think most people prefer to have it open and visible at all times. The tickbox can be used to "keep discussion box closed" for those who prefer not to see it all the time.
| | | | | A Moderator's view | Aug 15, 2008 |
I hope I can shed some light on a few things from a Moderator's point of view.
Jack Doughty wrote:
There was already a place for posting reference information that does not have the format of an answer, it was called “Ask asker”.
Dear Jack,
I think you and others mentioned this in this thread a few times, but have you considered that using the "ask the asker" for posting reference information, or as a discussion area was against the rules? So, when you say "there was already a place for that", that is actually not true. As a matter of fact, the only place to post references was inside someone's own answer, and the only way of having a discussion was using the forums. I am not saying that any of these were practical, I am just stating the facts.
Perhaps the use of the AtA field was not monitored the same way in all language pairs. I remember reading in this thread, that in certain language pairs it was heavily and strictly moderated, while in others, there was no moderator interference whatsoever. In many other language pairs it was probably between these two extremes. Given that, I imagine the users' had different experiences before the new features were introduced, so I find it perfectly normal to have different reactions to the new features. I will try explaining in more detail.
There is a very important thing here:
These were widely being posted as answers? I hardly ever see anything but the Russian-English and all-English sections, but I don’t recall seeing instances of this.
Yes, this illustrates a very good point. Individual translators are usually active only in a few language pairs, so they only see what is going on in that particular KudoZ community. Whatever we experience, forms our views about the practicality/necessity of the various KudoZ rules and functions.
Moderators, on the other hand, have a bit wider view, we monitor multiple pairs, KudoZ and forums, we handle complaints, receive suggestions from users and because we work as a team and discuss behavior patterns/problems/user needs all the time with each other and staff, we can see a lot more than a regular member/user would. Site staff has an ability to view things with an even wider lens, plus they have a whole range of automated tools to look at statistics and usage patterns.
What I wanted to say is that even if you, Jack - and many others in this thread - have never seen any problems in your particular pairs arising from using the Ask the Asker field that way (which is again, according to the rules, is misuse), and never felt the need for changes, there were many language pairs where this caused serious and/or regular problems, and triggered the users to make several suggestions for modifications for new options/features. So, while you may be perfectly correct when you state you have never seen any problems, I hope you would consider that perhaps you only saw part of the picture.
I saw one or more of the following "misuses" almost every day:
1. Ask the Asker was used by one of the answerers to comment in length on another person's answer (should have used Peer comment)
2. Ask the Asker was used by one of the answerers to submit additional info (should have used the Add Note button at his/her own answer, did not use it, because that would have put it to the bottom of the list)
3. Ask the Asker was used by somebody to post a suggestion (should have posted as an answer, but did not want as he/she did not have enough confidence or he/she disliked the points system)
4. Ask the Asker was used by somebody, that did not post an answer to comment on somebody else's answer (should have used the peer comment)
5. Ask the Asker was used by somebody that did not post an answer to post reference information, often times in multiple postings due to the length restriction)
6. Ask the Asker was used for personal comments (against the site rules, period)
7. Ask the Asker discussion turned into a heated fight (against the site rules, period)
8. Ask the Asker evolved into a civilized discussion, that helped finding the answer.
Some of the items on this list are pretty clearly against the rules, and I am sure nobody would argue if the Mod removed them (particularly 6 and 7).
For the other items, I can imagine that those could be viewed differently depending on the general atmosphere of the KudoZ community in that language pair, and the individual judgment of the Mod. (Please note my comment about practicality above.)
While the last item on the list (8) is a desirable outcome in my opinion, the problem was that in many cases, when 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 were allowed, the result was often 7 (with 6, to make it more "interesting"), and not 8.
So, when I saw 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 happening, I had to decide whether to allow it (in light of the possible consequences). If I allowed it (which means I ignored the rule about the use of the AtA), I risked having to deal with 6 and/or 7 later. If I did not allow it, I risked offending the person who misused the field (misused, but perhaps with the best intentions), and in some cases, risked getting a series of insulting emails. (These are real life examples.)
Meanwhile, as a Mod, I had to try to be consistent and fair.
With the increasing number of KudoZ questions, and new members/users joining every day, it became increasingly difficult to predict the outcome of this decision, and it became riskier and riskier NOT to enforce the rule.
Somebody in this thread said he/she observed increased moderator interference lately (before the new features were introduced). I do not remember having a concentrated campaign among ModZ to do anything like that, but I do remember talking about the increasing number of such problems (I am talking about this across languages). So, perhaps one explanation is that the situation got over the "risk threshold" in language pairs where moderation use to be done to a lesser extent, and the only fair way to deal with it was to go back and enforce the rules (even if they were not applied too strictly before). Anyway, this is really not the point here.
As you see, #5 on the list is a positive contribution that did not have its own space. You couldn't post it as an answer, that was against the rules. You could not post it in the AtA, that was against the rules, and again, if the Mod allowed that in the AtA, and not others, the consistency and fairness was gone.
Therefore, both as a Mod, and a KudoZ user, I welcome the addition of the Reference option, as it would ensure that such help can be given, within the rules, in its proper place and with adequate format and length. I am sure the details of the function will be ironed out with everybody's input.
Furthermore, I am happy that now #8 is possible (I personally always thought that civilized discussion could enhance the outcome of KudoZ) with the introduction of a separate area, that has a set of functions specific for quick, forum-type interactions, without the technical limitations of the AtA. Again, I am sure the specific formatting/technical issues will be ironed out with everybody's input.
Somebody asked why these have to be separated, and why don't we just have one large box to dump all of these (perhaps in chronological order)?
Here is what I think: having one combined area may not be a problem while the question is open and participants are actively "working" on the question, but I can see this causing a problem later, when the KudoZ entry starts its second life as a reference for people searching for terminology.
I regularly use the KOG for terminology search, and I think I would be frustrated, if I had to plow through a pile of information (references, comments about possible translations, etc), while all I need is a clean view of the suggested answers and the selected one. I think having the contributions "categorized" as they are entered, makes it much easier to use the KOG as a glossary, and also help the asker to choose the most helpful answer. For example, for glossary use I would imagine having the discussion and reference areas hidden/shrunk would be practical. I can also imagine the asker not having interest in the additional references, only in the suggested answers and perhaps to take a peek at the discussion, at his/her will. So, I think having these different types of contributions in separate areas helps in both cases.
As to scrapping the "Request clarification" field - that seems like a reasonable idea, as the asker can participate in the discussion, EXCEPT, that the additional context info that is requested/provided there is really best be displayed right there, under the question, not buried somewhere in the discussion. (In most cases, it is something that should have been posted as part of the question.)
Context is essential info for answering the question, and it is also important when the glossary entry is searched by someone, after the question was closed.
I am sorry for this lengthy post, I did not think it will end up this long - I just tried to describe the issue from a slightly different point of view. (This is my view, I can't speak for anybody else.)
[Módosítva: 2008-08-15 04:35]
| | | | | too many boxes | Aug 15, 2008 |
Lori Cirefice wrote:
3) Keep the new "discussion" area, and rename it "clarification and discussion".
I think many people are unhappy with "all these boxes". The usual progression is that someone will ask for clarification, which leads to further discussion. I don't see any reason to split these two things into different boxes.
[/quote]
I think it is a good compromise.
Stéphanie
| | |
|
|
|
Erik Freitag
ألمانيا
Local time: 02:56
عضو (2006)
هولندي إلى ألماني
+ ...
Dear Katalin,
Thanks for giving insight in your mod's view.
Katalin Horvath McClure wrote:
As you see, #5 on the list is a positive contribution that did not have its own space. You couldn't post it as an answer, that was against the rules. You could not post it in the AtA, that was against the rules, and again, if the Mod allowed that in the AtA, and not others, the consistency and fairness was gone.
(Emphasis added by me)
This is a nice illustration of what I perceive as the real problem: The rules. Could you explain why the rules are set in a manner that they prohibit posting #5? And why the rules couldn't be amended accordingly?
Katalin Horvath McClure wrote:
I am not saying that any of these were practical, I am just stating the facts.
I think many of us would find these rules impractical. Are they really unamendable "facts"?
Kind regards,
Erik
| | | | Nikki Graham
المملكة المتحدة
Local time: 01:56
إسباني إلى أنجليزي
| Many thanks Katalin for your explanations | Aug 15, 2008 |
I support the changes made in KudoZ and think that Katalin has explained the reasons for them very well.
Katalin Horvath McClure wrote:
5. Ask the Asker was used by somebody that did not post an answer to post reference information, often times in multiple postings due to the length restriction)
Posting reference info in the AtA box was obviously not satisfactory as there was not enough space. I now welcome the fact that I can copy and paste as much info as I like and that it won't be in such a prominent place at the top of the question and above all the answers.
As to scrapping the "Request clarification" field - that seems like a reasonable idea, as the asker can participate in the discussion, EXCEPT, that the additional context info that is requested/provided there is really best be displayed right there, under the question, not buried somewhere in the discussion. (In most cases, it is something that should have been posted as part of the question.)
Context is essential info for answering the question, and it is also important when the glossary entry is searched by someone, after the question was closed.
I fully agree with this. The new "request clarification" box should be kept so that all the context for the term is in one place and can be read at a later date at the same time without having to sift through other comments/references.
I am sure it won't take us long to get used to these new features, use them properly and benefit from them.
[Edited at 2008-08-15 08:59]
| | | | Caroline Devitt (X)
Local time: 02:56
روسي إلى أنجليزي
+ ...
| The recent changes are too complicated | Aug 15, 2008 |
I agree with Jack Doughty and others. These changes make the system much too complicated and difficult to use.
preliminary statistics suggest that they are being used.
But that in itself doesn't necessarily mean that they are popular - we have to use the new options because the old ones aren't available any more.
I think many people are unhappy with "all these boxes". The usual progression is that someone will ask for clarification, which leads to further discussion. I don't see any reason to split these two things into different boxes.
I absolutely agree. Splitting clarification from discussion seems illogical.
[Edited at 2008-08-15 09:31]
| | | | | صفحات الموضوع: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » KudoZ release: discussion area and other improvements | 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! » |
| | 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 
