Forums about proz.com » KudoZ »
Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3]
KudoZ Bad, Kudos Good
Thread poster: TonyTK
Andrea Riffo
Andrea Riffo  Identity Verified
Chile
Local time: 15:08
English to Spanish
+ ...
Observations Dec 3, 2006

Kim Metzger wrote:

2. Allow answers to pro-level questions only from members who have established a respectable reliability ratio. The site has all the stats on the reliability of members - questions answered vs. answers selected. This information does not have to be published. A member with a low reliability rating would simply not be able to enter an answer until he has improved his reliability by answering non-pro questions.


Hi Kim,

While I think that this could be a good thing, I see two problems with it:

1.- Like Virgile pointed out, sometimes the chosen answer is not the correct one, so the reliability ratio isn't all that reliable after all. Jason said it perfectly: "The first 3 hits were KudoZ answers, and after a little cross checking one of them happened to be correct. The important point being, only ONE of them were correct".

2.- Many times, the questions asked are not a matter of specific terminology but rather, style. I see lots of questions for which there are not correct answers but rather preferences, so choosing one answer does not mean that the other ones are wrong, but it still affects answerers' reliability ratios.

Greetings!

Andrea
 
Kim Metzger
Kim Metzger  Identity Verified
Mexico
Local time: 13:08
German to English
The ratio affects everybody in the same way Dec 3, 2006

Andrea Riffo wrote:

While I think that this could be a good thing, I see two problems with it:

1.- Like Virgile pointed out, sometimes the chosen answer is not the correct one, so the reliability ratio isn't all that reliable after all. Jason said it perfectly: "The first 3 hits were KudoZ answers, and after a little cross checking one of them happened to be correct. The important point being, only ONE of them were correct".

2.- Many times, the questions asked are not a matter of specific terminology but rather, style. I see lots of questions for which there are not correct answers but rather preferences, so choosing one answer does not mean that the other ones are wrong, but it still affects answerers' reliability ratios.



Hi Andrea - the reliability ratio is established over a long period of time and is based on large numbers of questions answered. Everybody who participates is subject to the same conditions. We have all submitted good answers that were not chosen. So everybody's ratio is affected in the same way, basically.

See our expert Kirill's ideas on the subject:

http://www.proz.com/post/203255#203255
 
Kirill Semenov
Kirill Semenov  Identity Verified
Ukraine
Local time: 22:08
Member (2004)
English to Russian
+ ...
Sorry, Kim, can't agree Dec 5, 2006

Kim Metzger wrote:
1. Give our professional translators the right to vote to downgrade a poorly phrased pro-level question (inadequate context, etc.) to non-pro or to squash them with the asker receiving a note telling him/her to try again with sufficient context and to read the rules if s/he doesn't know what context is.


As far as I know the option alread exists. For example, I have the right to squash questions, and the squash option contains enough reasons to squash almost any question

But this is not so important, the main lies below.


2. Allow answers to pro-level questions only from members who have established a respectable reliability ratio. The site has all the stats on the reliability of members - questions answered vs. answers selected. This information does not have to be published. A member with a low reliability rating would simply not be able to enter an answer until he has improved his reliability by answering non-pro questions.


Thank you very much for calling me `an expert' in your other posting, but as `an expert', I can't agree with the idea. However good it may look from the first glance, it won't work. As I had shown in the previous threads, the reliability ratio changes very little when it comes to people who gave a lot of answers. If someone's ratio is small, he/she doesn't probably have any chance to make it to the `premium league'. As for the newcomers, in the beginning they often make many mistakes - like repeating others' answers, answering beyond their scope of knowledge, etc. - so they may not make it to the `premium league', too. Especially now when `not-PRO' questions are quite rare, in fact (luckily!).

Showing the reliability ratio explicitly, loud and clear, after them giving 100 answers, seems to me the most simple and sure way to enhance the quality of the answers given by proZians.

If anyone answered 100+ questions, please show us how often he/she was the most useful (not hit the target, not gave the correct answer, but WAS MOST USEFUL to the answerer). Just make the number visible, nothing more.

[Edited at 2006-12-05 12:22]
 
Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3]


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:

Moderator(s) of this forum
Jared Tabor[Call to this topic]
Lucia Leszinsky[Call to this topic]

You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

KudoZ Bad, Kudos Good






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 Studio 2022 Freelance
The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.

Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.

More info »