| 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
|
|---|
Henk Peelen 
Netherlands
Local time: 04:04
Member (2002)
German to Dutch
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Just reading the forums now and then | Sep 9, 2008 |
Unfortunately I don't have time to read all postings, I don't know the geographical / linguistical breakdown of the polls, of course.
Back in 2003 or so I proposed ProZ should (by developing software that does so) not accept questions with, for instance, less than 25 words and in case of a real text, at least three sentences: one before the concerning sentence, the sentence itself and the one thereafter. That, at least, could avoid a lot of fuss and buzz and make clear whether the a... See more Unfortunately I don't have time to read all postings, I don't know the geographical / linguistical breakdown of the polls, of course.
Back in 2003 or so I proposed ProZ should (by developing software that does so) not accept questions with, for instance, less than 25 words and in case of a real text, at least three sentences: one before the concerning sentence, the sentence itself and the one thereafter. That, at least, could avoid a lot of fuss and buzz and make clear whether the asker is a serious one. Askers trying to bypass this rule clearly don't take the virtual communication serious. A non disclosement agreement with the client could force the asker to choose a descriprion instead of real text.
In my part of the, mostly, Germanic world people, when complaining about detoriation in my opinion actually mean KudoZ is not so funny as it used to be, it has grown too professional whereas the glossary entries not always reflect such due to the fact the question often is an exception on the common meaning of a certain word or due to the fact the asker more rewarded the hint in the answer then the answer itself, making the glossary a great resource but more difficult to read than, for instance, Wikipedia.
I guess the comment feature is able to solve difficulties due to different opinions amongst answerers. However, moderating each question before being posted and moderating each glossary entrie probably would be too much a burden for a non-paid moderator, where a paid one might loose the imago of being independent and unbiased.
[Bijgewerkt op 2008-09-09 18:18] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | The problem is us! | Sep 9, 2008 |
Henry D wrote:
Note, however, that in surveys, users in active pairs are as likely to speak positively about KudoZ quality as those in less active pairs... it simply seems to be a matter of perspective, with newer users having a more favorable opinion, and those who have been on the site longer -- especially active forum posters -- having a less favorable view.
So the problem is in us the frequent answerers and posters. This certainly solves it. It makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the insight Henry!
Now that things are absolutely clear, can we please stop discussing Kudoz? It serves no purpose. We should discuss who is a good shrink for us the complaining bunch!
| | | | Andrea Riffo
Chile
Local time: 22:04
English to Spanish
+ ...
This HAS come up over and over again and, thus far, has fallen on deaf ears. As it will this time again, undoubtedly.
Riccardo Schiaffino wrote:
Even without going to a system without any points there are ways that KudoZ could be made more reliable. For example (as suggested over the years by several experienced colleagues), KudoZ could be changed into a system that does not emphasize points total, but rather a ratio between answer provided and answers chosen as most helpful.
Such a system would have two distinct advantages:
1) It would better reflect the reliability of the answerer (If Jane Doe has earned 400 points by answering 200 questions, she is probably a more reliable answerer than her colleague Susan Roe, who has a higher total - 600 points - but racked that up by answering 1200 questions).
and
2) A ratio/based system would encourage newer members to participate and still hope to make it to the top of the list, whereas the current system is hopeless in that regard.
My preference would still be for a more open, less contrived system without any points, but if we have to have points, then a ratio-based system would be far better.
And nº3, it would be a deterrent for kudoz answerers who try their hand at every thing under the sun, including areas they know nothing about and languages they are not familiar with.
Oh, wait!! Participation by every and anyone wherever they please is to be encouraged, not deterred, and it is FAR more important that the quality of the answers and the overall quality of the site.
Sorry, my bad. I'll go get me a shrink as well.
[Edited at 2008-09-09 18:54]
| | | | | Traffic, traffic, traffic!!! | Sep 9, 2008 |
Riccardo Schiaffino wrote:
Even without going to a system without any points there are ways that KudoZ could be made more reliable. For example (as suggested over the years by several experienced colleagues), KudoZ could be changed into a system that does not emphasize points total, but rather a ratio between answer provided and answers chosen as most helpful.
2) A ratio/based system would encourage newer members to participate and still hope to make it to the top of the list, whereas the current system is hopeless in that regard.
Sorry Riccardo, but this would be completely against the main goal of Kudoz: TRAFFIC! By deterring potential answerers to reply, you are killing a lot of traffic, and that is something Proz certainly does not want. For Proz, it is preferrable to have 25 bad answers to 1 good one, as experience has shown. Proz describes this as "to provide quick help". The more traffic, the more "quick help", they reckon...
| | |
|
|
|
| Separate the wheat from the chaff | Sep 9, 2008 |
Henry D wrote:
If you reread my question, you will see that it is directed at those who bemoan a "deterioration" in KudoZ quality (always without specifics.) (I don't think you are among them, Stéphanie.) I mean, I know what a bad question is, what I am wondering is what exactly is getting worse, trending down, etc.
I find it interesting that after years of complaining in the forums about quality "plummeting", under the threat of real data, no one is willing to step forward and make concrete claims as to what they mean when they say that. I am not saying there is not a deterioration... there may one of some sort. But no one seems to be able to be specific about what is "plummeting".
I can understand that as the site owner, solid evidence of plummeting quality would get your attention and might lead you to take some urgent steps. But from the perspective of pro-level KudoZ users and contributors, I'd say it is beside the point whether quality is now deteriorating or has always been suspect and in need of drastic improvement. What really counts for the people who make pro-level KudoZ possible is what the quality is now. Your pro contributors and users have been telling you for many years that urgent steps are needed to improve KudoZ quality.
Henry D wrote:
Note, however, that in surveys, users in active pairs are as likely to speak positively about KudoZ quality as those in less active pairs... it simply seems to be a matter of perspective, with newer users having a more favorable opinion, and those who have been on the site longer -- especially active forum posters -- having a less favorable view.
As Cilian (an outsourcer) recently pointed out http://www.proz.com/forum/kudoz/112987-kudoz_i_give_up.html#922772 it takes quite a while to know who can be taken seriously and who can't. Longtime pro contributors and users know who is reliable and professional and who isn't. I have a very long list of outstanding, reliable pro-level contributors, very many of whom are not longer with us for one reason or another. You have attracted a lot of cowboys – people who can ask 60 questions a week and points hunters. Longtime pro contributors can tell you who they are.
I'd suggest you conduct a survey asking people who have used KudoZ for at least one year to identify the reliable pro contributors and then ask those people to tell you how they assess the quality of KudoZ. The cowboys (British term for a person who is unscrupulous and unqualified in business) will tell you it's just great. Don't change a thing.
If you wanted to know what the quality of health care is in the US, would you include doctors who have been guilty of malpractice in your survey?
| | | | | A few suggestions to add to these definitions of the "good contributor:" | Sep 10, 2008 |
A few suggestions to add. These are good for all users, asker, answerer and commenter alike.
Thanks.
-recognise that if your comments are removed by a moderator, there was probably an infringement of Kudoz rules. If they are regularly removed, there is probably a regular infringement and you might do well to re-read them.
-recognise that the moderators are there to help all users of the site and no one should be discouraged from contacting them.
... See more A few suggestions to add. These are good for all users, asker, answerer and commenter alike.
Thanks.
-recognise that if your comments are removed by a moderator, there was probably an infringement of Kudoz rules. If they are regularly removed, there is probably a regular infringement and you might do well to re-read them.
-recognise that the moderators are there to help all users of the site and no one should be discouraged from contacting them.
-recognise the difference between askers/answerers, and moderators. There is surely a way to become a moderator if you are interested in enforcing the rules.
-recognise that if the ambiance on the kudoz question-and-answer page were allowed to come close to what is on this forum, we would never bring in any new users. Thanks moderators!
writeaway wrote: 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 ▲ Collapse
| | | | Tatty
Local time: 04:04
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Some people ask tons of questions | Sep 10, 2008 |
Some people ask tons of questions and do so on a regular basis. These askers are not usually asking questions about terminology rather because they don't really understand the text. I just think that they should go to translating school.
I've asked a couple of questions recently on the Spanish to English forum and the help I received was fantastic.
| | | | | Not fair to include frequent answerers in your group | Sep 15, 2008 |
Tomás Cano Binder wrote:
So the problem is in us the frequent answerers and posters.
Frequent answerers and frequent posters are two separate groups, Tomás. It is not safe to assume that most frequent answerers share the negative feelings often expressed about KudoZ in the forums.
| | |
|
|
|
Kim Metzger wrote:
I can understand that as the site owner, solid evidence of plummeting quality would get your attention and might lead you to take some urgent steps. But from the perspective of pro-level KudoZ users and contributors, I'd say it is beside the point whether quality is now deteriorating or has always been suspect and in need of drastic improvement.
I agree, it is beside the point. Our focus is in fact on improving quality overall, that is where the changes we have made this year have come from. But the "deterioration" complaints keep coming up, and to be thorough, if it is really happening, we also need to know about that.
Definitely. We are working on that one, too. Things like WWA (up 2x or 3x this year) are focused in that direction.
Longtime pro contributors and users know who is reliable and professional and who isn't.
Yes! This is valuable.
I'd suggest you conduct a survey asking people who have used KudoZ for at least one year to identify the reliable pro contributors and then ask those people to tell you how they assess the quality of KudoZ.
We did that in that review I told you about.
Thanks!
| | | | | Traffic costs us money, it does not make it. | Sep 15, 2008 |
Tomás Cano Binder wrote: Sorry Riccardo, but this would be completely against the main goal of Kudoz: TRAFFIC! By deterring potential answerers to reply, you are killing a lot of traffic, and that is something Proz certainly does not want. For Proz, it is preferrable to have 25 bad answers to 1 good one, as experience has shown. Proz describes this as "to provide quick help". The more traffic, the more "quick help", they reckon...
Nonsense, Tomás. ProZ.com is supporting by membership fees. Traffic costs us money, it does not make it.
| | | |
Henry D wrote: I'd suggest you conduct a survey asking people who have used KudoZ for at least one year to identify the reliable pro contributors and then ask those people to tell you how they assess the quality of KudoZ. We did that in that review I told you about.
What is the conclusion/details of it, what is the next step ?
Stéphanie
| | | | | Are ads in Proz free? I want one! | Sep 15, 2008 |
Henry D wrote: Tomás Cano Binder wrote: Sorry Riccardo, but this would be completely against the main goal of Kudoz: TRAFFIC! By deterring potential answerers to reply, you are killing a lot of traffic, and that is something Proz certainly does not want. For Proz, it is preferrable to have 25 bad answers to 1 good one, as experience has shown. Proz describes this as "to provide quick help". The more traffic, the more "quick help", they reckon... Nonsense, Tomás. ProZ.com is supporting by membership fees. Traffic costs us money, it does not make it.
Henry, I thought you made a bit of money with the banners we see in the site! If you are offering them for free, please let me know! I'd like to join the queue.
And of course, an apparently lively Kudoz is a plus for your site? You surely would dislike "stagnation" of Kudoz because some people would prefer to see some checks in order to improve quality. History shows that you want to keep it completely open for askers at all costs. If your main goal is not a good, reliable Kudoz, the only thing we can reasonably believe is that you want as many people asking as possible; people who would feel inclined to pay a membership fee at a certain point in time.
So it appears to me that traffic is important. No nonsense I fathom...
| | |
|
|
|
| Standstill ? | Sep 24, 2008 |
So, is this another thread ending up nowhere until someone opens (again) a new thread about quite the same subject ? What about all the suggestions/comments that we made ? All rejected ? Is anything going to change ?
[Edited at 2008-09-24 07:42]
| | | | moken
Local time: 03:04
English to Spanish
+ ...
| Were those really the days? It's quite logical to 'sense' that quality has gone down | Oct 9, 2008 |
Dear oh-those were-the-days-translators:
Has quality gone down as much as you think, or is it possible that your own perspective has changed?
Hopefully, most of the people who've been using the site for the past 8 years are now better translators than they were way back when.
If you've developed your skills, by pure logic the same question that seemed testing in 2001 might now seem to you to be amateurish. You simply can't assume that every other translato... See more Dear oh-those were-the-days-translators:
Has quality gone down as much as you think, or is it possible that your own perspective has changed?
Hopefully, most of the people who've been using the site for the past 8 years are now better translators than they were way back when.
If you've developed your skills, by pure logic the same question that seemed testing in 2001 might now seem to you to be amateurish. You simply can't assume that every other translator on the site has travelled the same distance.
As far back as I can remember KudoZ always had more than its fair share of claptrap questions and answers. Just stop and think of all those 'I love you' questions that have virtually disappeared (I'd say that there's roughly one of them now for every 10 that used to be asked).
Three, four, five years ago, a vast number of questions would be supported by a full copy-pasted page of Google results - it is by no means a new trend and, if anything, I'd say that there is much less of it now than, say, 2004. Yes, it still happens, but now I also see a good number of answers with only selected, to-the-point references.
New features have been added to aid linguistic discussion; people can now post references if they have some interesting insight but still feel they can't provide an adequate answer.
Three, four, five years ago, I'd have to ask for better context just as much as I do now (in fact, now I hardly bother).
Three, four, five years ago, I'd plead time and again for people to check the glossaries first.
As for ill-reasoned, misleading answers, they've always been there too; just delve into the KudoZ glossaries a bit. You'd be surprised.
At any point in its history, KudoZ has always had a host of new users, unfamiliar with 'good practices' and eager to earn their wings - the names have changed certainly, but they've always been there.
Question abuse? I can remember reporting barrages of whole sentences from multiple-identity users a looong time ago. That too seems to me to have improved over time.
Like many others, I have my own 'KudoZ cycle' and I can't honestly say that each time I come back after a 3-6 month break the quality seems to be noticeably lower than before. ▲ Collapse
| | | | moken
Local time: 03:04
English to Spanish
+ ...
| Why not both? | Oct 13, 2008 |
Jack Doughty wrote:
I've been a member since 2000, and I agree that there has been a deterioration in Kudoz since then. There have been several forum threads on the subject, and there seem to be two main points of view: one is that more regulation is necessary, of both askers and answerers, but more particularly of answerers, to try to improve the situation. The other is that regulation imposed from above should be reduced to restore the more informal atmosphere that once prevailed, and that individual responses to the situation are more likely to improve it. I favor the second view, but there is something to be said on both sides of the argument and I respect those with whom I disagree on the subject.
Hi Jack,
I began contributing to KudoZ in 2002, and I'm not sure that I share the seemingly widespread opinion that it's deteriorated since then. We often consider this to be a given, but upon reflection I see several features (discussed earlier) that seem to me to have improved the system.
What I don't have a shadow of doubt about is that there's still great room for improvement. I agree that the discussion often seems worn, but it's an ongoing process that needs our feedback.
As you very rightly stated, "there is something to be said on both sides of the argument" What I don't believe is that one approach necessarily preempts other. Since quality in terms of glossary entries, questions and answers on the one hand and site abuse on the other are entirely separate matters, I'll try to avoid rolling two different discussions into one and focus on the latter:
As much as I'd love to think the opposite, I seriously believe informal approaches alone aren't enough to keep site abuse at bay.
On the other hand, even though site abuse is a clear sign of disrespect for the rest of the community, current regulations seriously restrict 'common' users from acting against it on their own initiative. I understand that we each have our own yardstick and that it would be impossible to reach a consensus on what is and isn't misuse of KudoZ.
It's down to ProZ to set those standards and for us to say what we think about them.
Neverthless, current systems that require reporting to voluntary, part-time moderators who might take hours to be able to address issues are like putting Band-Aid on open-limb fractures. They're clearly inappropriate and insufficient (is that redundant?).
So why not a two-pronged approach?
Firstly - analyse the pros and cons of the current system.
Then, with the pros and cons of the system properly exposed, act to improve regulation in the areas where it's most needed and deregulate others that are found to work better if deregulated.
Regarding this last part, I fully agree with you: ProZ needs to review some of its current regulations and not only look towards imposing new ones.
| | | | | 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. | 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! » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
