| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | KudoZ is not a shadow of what it used to be. Thread poster: Teresa Duran-Sanchez
|
|---|
| If it looks like an apple, smells like an apple and tastes like an apple, it IS an apple | Sep 5, 2008 |
Henry D wrote: Teresa Duran-Sanchez wrote:
Henry has told me that my thread was not interesting because it is about KudoZ. I never said anything of the sort. KudoZ is arguably the most important service on the site.
This discussion is beginning to be rather absurd. You told me:
Henry D wrote: In light of the post that followed yours -- and I link to it again: http://www.proz.com/topic/114448 -- your post was not deemed to be home page material.
If my post was about KudoZ and my post was not deemed to be home page material, that means that any post about KudoZ is not deemed to home page material. If you don´t want any post about KudoZ in the home page, that means that you´re not interested in people discussing about KudoZ, because posts which don´t appear on the home page are less likely to be seen.
Good luck with your site!
You´re losing your best contributors but it doesn´t matter, uh? There are plenty of fishes in the sea.
| | | | Nicole Schnell 
United States
Local time: 13:38
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | What makes a good contributor? | Sep 6, 2008 |
Just curious.
| | | | | What makes a good contributor? | Sep 6, 2008 |
Nicole Schnell wrote: What makes a good contributor? Just curious.
You´ll have to find out yourself
[Editado a las 2008-09-06 10:16]
| | | | | Good contributors | Sep 6, 2008 |
Nicole Schnell wrote: Just curious.
Hi Nicole. Here's my 2 cents for what it is or isn't worth:
Good contributor (Asker):
-Only asks questions after doing the initial groundwork him/herself.
-Asks questions in fields and/or languages he/she actually knows (has not taken on the job just to post it for colleagues to do for him/her).
-Asks questions with sufficient context, because as a genuine pro translator is aware that anything else is sheer nonsense and a waste of colleagues' time.
-Explains his/her own research already done, so colleagues don't waste their time presenting solutions that have already been rejected.
-Doesn't take immediate offence at colleagues' questions. Answers them without running to Mods or Site Staff to complain about alleged condescending/haughty remarks. Is pro enough and sure enough of their skills to understand that the questions aren't being asked for 'evil' purposes.
Good contributor (Answerer):
-Only answers questions in languages and fields he/she actually knows. Refrains from answering if this isn't the case. Does not waste Asker's time with wild guesses taken from knowledge of a 'cousin' language.
-Provides sufficient back-up and references to all questions, even obvious ones. Asker needs to see why that answer was given. Provides specific refs, not just a Google page containing the term.
-Is truthful when answering. Native language is the one actually stated and professional qualifications (MD, practising lawyer, etc.) are genuine-on their profile page, it's clear they were registered, admitted to the bar, etc.
-Is willing and able to provide additional back-up to their answer when a peer asks. Backs 'personal knowledge' with valid references.
-Doesn't use * or . as their main explanation.
-Doesn't steal answers. If an answer is misspelled, needs change to singular/plural or just one word can be changed as alternative, offers that information in a peer comment, not as a wholly 'new' answer.
Good contributor (Peer commenter):
-Only makes peer comments in languages and fields he/she actually knows. Refrains from making peer comments if he/she has insufficient knowledge of subject matter and/or language(s).
-Makes knowledgeable, honest peer comments. Doesn't simply agree with pals and automatically dis people he/she doesn't like. Judges the actual answer, not the person making it.
-Can explain why they do or don't agree
| | |
|
|
|
Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 13:38
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | Exactly, writeaway. | Sep 6, 2008 |
But as long as such statements are neatly tucked away in "About" > "Site Rules", nobody can expect any improvement.
| | | | | No decline in quality | Sep 6, 2008 |
Henry D wrote:
This may be your experience. We certainly hear it from others as well. We take it seriously. As suggested by one member - Ford Prefect, I think -- we organized a structured review of KudoZ quality, in terms of questions and answers, in the Spanish subcommunity (where such complaints were common). The reviewers selected were those who are very highly regarded participants in the KudoZ network. Based on what the reviewers reported, it appears that quality has not been declining overall, but has been consistent over a three year period. And the number of participants - both askers and answers -- has increased, not decreased.
That's fascinating, Henry. Would you care to share with us what parameters your reviewers used to evaluate quality? Also, I would be very interested in understanding what "quality has not been declining" and "has been consistent" means. I guess it means that the quality is uneven. Some questions received good answers and some didn't. Did your reviewers make any recommendations for improvement?
[Edited at 2008-09-06 17:06]
[Edited at 2008-09-06 17:06]
| | | |
The fact that a particular thread on an issue was not deemed to be home page material does not imply that ALL threads on that issue will not be home page material, or that the issue is irrelevant.
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | Nikki Graham
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:38
Spanish to English
| Logic? What logic? | Sep 6, 2008 |
Enrique wrote:
The fact that a particular thread on an issue was not deemed to be home page material does not imply that ALL threads on that issue will not be home page material, or that the issue is irrelevant.
I'm sorry to harp on about this, but I still fail to see the logic. Could you please explain to us all why a thread is not home page material (apart from "because I say so", which even my five-year-old daughter doesn't accept as a valid argument) when users can customise the home page to display the threads they are interested in and not see the rest?
| | |
|
|
|
Nikki Graham
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:38
Spanish to English
| They don't nitpick excessively | Sep 6, 2008 |
Nicole Schnell wrote: What makes a good contributor? Just curious.
Since you ask, peer commenters should not, for example, agree with another (2nd) answer because it has a capital letter and the first doesn't. In this case, I agree with writeaway (on the whole, actually!)
Doesn't steal answers. If an answer is misspelled, needs change to singular/plural or just one word can be changed as alternative, offers that information in a peer comment, not as a wholly 'new' answer.
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 13:38
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | Thanks, Nikki! | Sep 7, 2008 |
You realize that I didn't ask this question because I am helplessly clueless - I just don't see any of those perfect statements stated anywhere besides in our relatively sketchy site rules at the very end of the menu bar between a glossary and advertising ops.
I am rather into educating newcomers than ranting over and over about how cr...y everything is these days. Current members (hey! they may be good contributors!) may take it personally and be put off by the overall tone of suc... See more You realize that I didn't ask this question because I am helplessly clueless - I just don't see any of those perfect statements stated anywhere besides in our relatively sketchy site rules at the very end of the menu bar between a glossary and advertising ops.
I am rather into educating newcomers than ranting over and over about how cr...y everything is these days. Current members (hey! they may be good contributors!) may take it personally and be put off by the overall tone of such complaints.
Addendum:
My pet peeve is egomania, but that's a different story..
[Edited at 2008-09-07 00:08] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | How would you do it, Kim? | Sep 7, 2008 |
Kim Metzger wrote: Henry D wrote:
This may be your experience. We certainly hear it from others as well. We take it seriously. As suggested by one member - Ford Prefect, I think -- we organized a structured review of KudoZ quality, in terms of questions and answers, in the Spanish subcommunity (where such complaints were common). The reviewers selected were those who are very highly regarded participants in the KudoZ network. Based on what the reviewers reported, it appears that quality has not been declining overall, but has been consistent over a three year period. And the number of participants - both askers and answers -- has increased, not decreased. That's fascinating, Henry. Would you care to share with us what parameters your reviewers used to evaluate quality? Also, I would be very interested in understanding what "quality has not been declining" and "has been consistent" means. I guess it means that the quality is uneven. Some questions received good answers and some didn't. Did your reviewers make any recommendations for improvement?
Thanks, Kim, glad you are asking. After all, if there is one thing these discussion on KudoZ quality lack, it is specifics.
Let me ask you first, though, as someone who has been commenting on KudoZ quality for years: if you were to lead a "scientific" review of KudoZ quality, how would you do it?
Or, to ask a slightly different question, Kim, when you characterize "quality" in KudoZ -- as you often have -- on what factual basis do you do so? How about you others who make reference to"deterioration" -- for example Viktoria or Jack? Share your specific data, folks, and I will share ours!
| | | | | More interested in Proz's reply for now... | Sep 7, 2008 |
Henry D wrote: Kim Metzger wrote:
Would you care to share with us what parameters your reviewers used to evaluate quality? Also, I would be very interested in understanding what "quality has not been declining" and "has been consistent" means. I guess it means that the quality is uneven. Some questions received good answers and some didn't. Did your reviewers make any recommendations for improvement? Let me ask you first, though, as someone who has been commenting on KudoZ quality for years: if you were to lead a "scientific" review of KudoZ quality, how would you do it?
I am also very interested in knowing how the survey was done, on what parameters, and whether any recommendations were done. Before adding more questions, would it be possible to have a reply to Kim's very relevant question?
| | |
|
|
|
Henry D wrote:
[Let me ask you first, though, as someone who has been commenting on KudoZ quality for years: if you were to lead a "scientific" review of KudoZ quality, how would you do it?
I would do a survey. And make results public.
Will you please post my opinions, Henry? It´s the third time I try to post something.
| | | | Andy Watkinson
Spain
Local time: 22:38
Member
Catalan to English
+ ...
| Back to the playground..... | Sep 7, 2008 |
Henry D wrote:
Share your specific data, folks, and I will share ours!
Mr. Dotterer,
Kim Metzger is not a child in the school playground and neither are you.
In the absence of any "smiley" to indicate you're joking, I find this rather childish retort ("I'll show you mine if you show me yours first") when asked a serious, specific question to be not only disappointing but rude.
Neither do I think it makes good business sense to talk down to the very people who are responsible for your income. (You mentioned elsewhere that ProZ main funding comes from membership fees, not advertising).
More replies from you in a similar vein will only lead people to leave, rather than pay to have their intelligence insulted.
Andy
| | | | | Putting the cart before the horse? | Sep 7, 2008 |
Henry D wrote:
Share your specific data, folks, and I will share ours!
If it only was that simple...
In order for any of the users and members of the site to be able to come up with a way to review the quality of KudoZ entries, we would need to have an idea of where the deterioration comes from. We may quote examples, but that wouldn't be the whole picture - we don't have access to ProZ's database. This is why, before any user or member can even pretend having an idea on how to do this, you, Henry, would need to share some information - not necessarily publicly, but you still would need to share some of your data in some way.
If you have already conducted a review, then you already know things we don't. What's the point then in asking us how to conduct such a review? You have done it and we haven't. Would you mind members and users tapping into your experience to improve something people are generally unsatisfied with?
As you say, many of us have been criticizing KudoZ quality for years. How come none of these critics (to my knowledge) were invited onto the review panel?
At the risk of sounding sarcastic (not my intention), my reply to you is: share your specific data, ProZ, and we will share ours. It's not a question of defying each other. But if you are really interested in what users and members would do to figure out whether KudoZ quality is satisfactory, you need to give them the means to do it. If you already concluded that KudoZ is of satisfactory quality, then I would at least like to know why you are still interested in answering that question. Could it be that you are not satisfied with the results of that review?
If you concluded that KudoZ is satisfactory, surely you wouldn't mind letting us know how you came to that conclusion. Then, we, users and members, can determine if there were any key criteria missing from your review and what can be done to help it.
I would be happy to help review and improve KudoZ. When people express their insatisfaction with KudoZ, either they don't get a reply, or they get a reply from you saying you have checked KudoZ and it's satisfactory (without any further details) or their thread is dropped off the home page. I don't feel you are giving users and members any means to help make KudoZ better, or even inform you of their observations without being afraid of being censored.
I find it odd that you mention said review without giving us any details on it.
He said, she said... A judge can only go so far in judging a case he has no facts on.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [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 is not a shadow of what it used to be. | 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 » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
