| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] > | Glossary-building KudoZ (GBK): a new kind of KudoZ question Thread poster: Enrique Cavalitto
|
|---|
Laureana Pavon 
Uruguay
Local time: 16:17
Member (2007)
English to Spanish
+ ...
MODERATOR
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote:
I think it will be much more good for the quality of the answers if to restrict this place for those who do not meet the question criteria.
I think that this is the wrong way to go.
Please remember that whether a member meets the criteria for answering a question or not is determined by the member him/herself (when choosing specialty fields), there is no way to truly assess whether or not a member is an "expert" in any given field. In addition, as others have noted, the level of difficulty of the terms that have been chosen so far as well as the fields to which they have been assigned have raised some objections.
In my opinion, what makes the KudoZ system so great is precisely the fact that it is NOT a dictionary but a forum for discussing different terms in different contexts.
Attempting to build an authoritative dictionary (which seems to be the idea behind the GBK KudoZ) may not be such a great idea. If this is what we want, then we need to better define who qualifies as an "expert" and who doesn't. Meanwhile, I think we should all be able to comment.
My two cents.
| | | | | Entire System | May 4, 2009 |
Laureana Pavon wrote:
I think that this is the wrong way to go.
Please remember that whether a member meets the criteria for answering a question or not is determined by the member him/herself (when choosing specialty fields), there is no way to truly assess whether or not a member is an "expert" in any given field. In addition, as others have noted, the level of difficulty of the terms that have been chosen so far as well as the fields to which they have been assigned have raised some objections.
In my opinion, what makes the KudoZ system so great is precisely the fact that it is NOT a dictionary but a forum for discussing different terms in different contexts.
Attempting to build an authoritative dictionary (which seems to be the idea behind the GBK KudoZ) may not be such a great idea. If this is what we want, then we need to better define who qualifies as an "expert" and who doesn't. Meanwhile, I think we should all be able to comment.
My two cents.
You are judging the entire system.
But I don't think that site would step back from implementation of GBK.
So if there is a system which selects the possible persons who may provide the best answers then we must concentrate on it.
I think it is too late for discussing the aims, necessity and usage.
[Edited at 2009-05-04 15:52 GMT]
| | | | Laureana Pavon
Uruguay
Local time: 16:17
Member (2007)
English to Spanish
+ ...
MODERATOR | Allow comments | May 4, 2009 |
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote:
I think it is too late for discuss the aims, necessity and usage.
I don't think that it's too late to discuss these issues, but the main point of my post is that I do not agree with your proposal of disallowing comments by those who do not meet the "specialist" criteria, as they may be truly enriching and helpful.
| | |
|
|
|
juvera
Local time: 20:17
English to Hungarian
+ ...
| No, it does not select the best possible person | May 5, 2009 |
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote:
So if there is a system which selects the possible persons who may provide the best answers then we must concentrate on it.
I think it is too late for discussing the aims, necessity and usage.
I am afraid, I disagree.
Lot of the "experts" are self-appointed, and their declaration of expertise on their profile doesn't mean much. (I do not wish to insult the genuine experts, but there are few and far between.)
Luckily, as many before me pointed out, the terms are usually easy, if not, then they are idiosyncratic, of little use.
And nothing ever is too late!
| | | | | old questions in GBK | Jun 17, 2009 |
Is it somehow possible to delete old questions listed in the Kudoz overview and in links between questions?
I mean, if after 30 days there is no answer, there probably never will be one (who is here can't/won't answer, and any new member won't be allowed to, as s/he won't have the speciality selected 3 days before the question). In not top-frequented languages like my combination (i.e. less experts), we are bound to see the "unanswerable" offers permanently (?), which has no point I... See more Is it somehow possible to delete old questions listed in the Kudoz overview and in links between questions?
I mean, if after 30 days there is no answer, there probably never will be one (who is here can't/won't answer, and any new member won't be allowed to, as s/he won't have the speciality selected 3 days before the question). In not top-frequented languages like my combination (i.e. less experts), we are bound to see the "unanswerable" offers permanently (?), which has no point IMHO, it only "overloads" the KudoZ front page/navigation over time.
Also, I would second the request for the possibility to lift up the strict specialty rule after some time (in terms of "life" of the question - e. g. 3 days spec., then working). The questions are often somewhat generous or easily verifiable even for non-specialists. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Laureana Pavon
Uruguay
Local time: 16:17
Member (2007)
English to Spanish
+ ...
MODERATOR | Adele Oliveri
Italy
Local time: 21:17
Member (2007)
English to Italian
+ ...
Ask EN>IT translators, and you'll get ten different answers (JUST KIDDING!).
On a more serious note, I've given up participating to GBK for the very reason you are mentioning, and I know many other colleagues have done the same.
| | |
|
|
|
| | juvera
Local time: 20:17
English to Hungarian
+ ...
| You had to ADD a letter! Sacrilege. | Jun 29, 2009 |
Laureana Pavon wrote: http://www.proz.com/kudoz/english_to_spanish/art_arts_craft s_painting/3328268-minimalism.html You have got to be kidding: minimalism? If there is one single English-Spanish translator who does not know how to translate this term say "aye". Apparently no one has been listening to our complaints about the level of difficulty of GBK questions.
Apparently no one has been listening to our complaints about the futility of the whole excercise.
In the English-Hungarian pair we had half a dozen or so questions, where the word is EXACTLY the same, like: linoleum, donor, etc.
Another thirty something words where the spelling is slightly different: glycerin - glicerin, and nearly forty where the translation is the exact equivalent, for example: "hard water”.
Out of the 184 questions in total (in about 8 month, since the GBK is running) that gives you a glossary in which about 44% of the words are instantly familiar, even for those who are just beginning to learn the other language.
At this rate the GBK glossary acquires about 120 supposedly useful words per year, much lower that I estimated some time ago. And I dare say (I did not check) at least half of those, perhaps more, are easily found in a decent dictionary.
| | | | Anja C.
Switzerland
Local time: 21:17
German
| laugh or cry about it | Jun 29, 2009 |
juvera wrote:
Apparently no one has been listening to our complaints about the futility of the whole excercise.
Indeed, it's a slap in the face to professional translators. You can either laugh or cry about it. No one cares .
| | | | Mara Ballarini
Australia
Local time: 05:17
Member (2006)
English to Italian
+ ...
| meeting (or not) the criteria to answer KGB questions | Sep 24, 2009 |
Adele Oliveri wrote: M. Ali Bayraktar wrote:
I think it will be much more good for the quality of the answers if to restrict this place for those who do not meet the question criteria.
This is reasonable in principle, however, given the extremely low difficulty of GBK questions so far, there seems to be no compelling reasons for excluding people who do not meet the criteria for answering, since many of them (if not most) are competent enough to say what they think. If anything, there ought to be some kind of moderation, but moderators appear to be a thing of the past (what a pity!). Adele [Edited at 2009-05-04 15:00 GMT]
Apart from what Adele said here, ie that seen the generally low difficulty of GBK questions, many people would actually be competent enough to give an answer, I don't see why there have to be restrictions in regards to our specialty fields - I understand that if I specialise in something, I should have more possibilities of knowing something about it, nevertheless, I do not specialise in every topic, but I read the paper every day and often work in some other areas than my specialty areas, not to mention the fact that I might be interested in something and could know something in particular about the question being asked, however, I 'm not allowed to answer because the topic given is not within my specialties. Am I the only one who feels I could sometimes give a competent answer to a question but I'm not allowed to? Nor am I allowed to agree with someone else's answer if I don't specialise in the field specified. I think that if someone doesn't feel competent enough to give an answer, won't give it, regardless of their specialty areas. And if they do, well hopefully there are other ways to disagree with that answer and not have it chosen. That's the risk with all other kudoz questions, isn't it?
A good moderation system would certainly be at least a partial solution - I agree with Adele on this too.
Cheers,
Mara
| | |
|
|
|
| just let it die | Sep 24, 2009 |
The whole thing was dead in the water, just forget about it already.
Somebody ran the numbers on it when it started and found that even if by some miracle people managed to propose relevant terms AND get decent quality answers, the whole thing is a still pointless excercise because it will take years and years to grow to a size that would make it remotely useful.
Proz should just make the existing terminology data more usable by offering KOG downloads in tab separated t... See more The whole thing was dead in the water, just forget about it already.
Somebody ran the numbers on it when it started and found that even if by some miracle people managed to propose relevant terms AND get decent quality answers, the whole thing is a still pointless excercise because it will take years and years to grow to a size that would make it remotely useful.
Proz should just make the existing terminology data more usable by offering KOG downloads in tab separated txt files and forget about GBK. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Mirra_ wrote: Hello Gad (and all the others criticizing this project), I do not dare to explain it better and more in detail that Enrique already did BUT as a Kudoz frequent answerer I would like to speak about my humble experience: KudoZ are designed to give answers the precisely fit the context of that peculiar text they come from. Also, the answers can be arbitrarily chosen by the Asker, despite the peer agreement, despite any logic reasoning, and despite any evidence stating these answers are wrong. Me, and I am very fond of words and languages, I often have suffered for the lack rationality behind some of these choices... But this is the KudoZ rule, and you can disregard it, or, accept it but you cannot change it. In any case, the KudoZ glossary so far compiled can not be considered really reliable since there is a too big bias due to the partiality (and sometimes to the "naivité" of some of the Askers). Instead, as far as I understood this project, the GBK is thought and constructed to yeld *the definitions* (I would say the 'absolute definitions' but it would sound too enthusiastic and idealistic  ) of selectioned and currently used specific words. The answer spaces are made to push the Answerers to give the better up-to-date (the links MUST be working links, a very good specification) evidence/explanation of the translation they offer. I think that, if the community responds and shares ideas with the aim of building a 'certified' bulk of definitions, the GBK can be very useful for everyone. Thanks to ProZ for this very good idea!  [Edited at 2008-11-27 12:47 GMT]
| | | | Per Bergvall
Norway
Local time: 21:17
Member (2002)
English to Norwegian
+ ...
MODERATOR | GBK - much ado about nothing | Jun 15, 2010 |
I have previously given extensive feedback on how I feel about the GBK questions, on how they arise, and on the time-consuming procedure to answer them, as well as the eligibility to answer them. Particularly, when someone throws up tennis ball as a term, any dork knows that tennisball is the Norwegian term - but you need a reported interest in sports and a specialisation in tennis to answer. So why does terms like this cop up in GBK?
Presently, my concern is the email noise - as in "GBK... See more I have previously given extensive feedback on how I feel about the GBK questions, on how they arise, and on the time-consuming procedure to answer them, as well as the eligibility to answer them. Particularly, when someone throws up tennis ball as a term, any dork knows that tennisball is the Norwegian term - but you need a reported interest in sports and a specialisation in tennis to answer. So why does terms like this cop up in GBK?
Presently, my concern is the email noise - as in "GBK question so-and-so remains open". I get these even though I have myself provided an answer, with perhaps only one Agree so far. Why send me the reminder? Am I expected to round up more Agrees to achieve some quiet?
The EN-NO GBK glossary contains 124 entries.
7 could have been answered by any 12-year old Norwegian speaker. Whoever admitted these as GBK questions should have a major objective readjustment.
17 of the answers are exactly or virtually the same as the q, in some cases with Norwegian spelling (erotion=>erosjon)
1 is an exact duplicate of another, so there is only 123 altogether.
1 provides 3 alternative answers, and is therefore useless.
3 are wrong.
48 have been answered in a word-for-word fashion, and could have been done so by anybody equipped with just a basic dictionary. Whether these answers are valid is rather uncertain. I have provided many of these answers myself, and stand by them - but the time spent is in no way proportionate to the value created.
47 entries have aswers that may actually be of value to translators seeking a specialised term. An example is "pervious surface => drenerende dekke", which would not appear in a general dictionary. To anyone with a specialisation in the stated field of Architecture, it would be child's play.
The fact is, of all the 124 (123) terms, the only ones that add value as in providing answers not found easier and better in the nearest dictionary or the 'net, are probably two:
Forestry / Wood / Timber; shelterbelt=>leplanting
Printing & Publishing; gutter=>innermarg
These are terms that without a specialised glossary would be hard to find - although most specialised translators within the fields would know them off the top of their head. Regular people associate gutter with something else entirely, and it's valuable to know that in this context, it has an alternative meaning.
So, the GBK push has been going on for coming up to 2 years, and has resulted in 2 valid entries as far as EN-NO is concerned. Assuming 10.000 entries is the breakover point for a glossary to be useful (and forgetting that this glossary is supposed to cover dozens of specialisations), we will reach that threshold in March 12011. This is rather too late to be of use for most of today's users.
Time to lay GBK dead and perhaps apply some of the more stringent methodology to regular Kudoz answers, perhaps? Ths would have the added benefit of reducing the number of answerers to a fraction, and easing the pressure on all our inboxes.
Kind regards
Per Morten ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Glossary-building KudoZ (GBK): a new kind of KudoZ question | 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 
