| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14] > | Proposal that people who post questions via the Kudoz system be obliged to provide context Thread poster: Helen Shiner
|
|---|
Cetacea 
Switzerland
Local time: 07:06
English to German
+ ...
| For what it's worth... | Dec 6, 2010 |
Helen Shiner wrote:
At present, if an asker posts a questions with a term of more than 10 words, the question is unilaterally suppressed by moderators. My suggestion in relation to suspending Kudoz questions (I am not sure quite what Phil has in mind) would not result in the question being lost for all time, but would remove it temporarily until context has been provided. This would act as a prompt to assist all users of the Kudoz section of this web-site and would result in a weeding-out of those who continue to persist in posting junk, aberrant questions, but also in allowing askers to improve matters by providing context. How does this run counter to Kudoz's aim to assist people with difficult terminology? For the life of me, I cannot see how it gets in the way.
Please note that my suggestion was that this would only take place AFTER three peers had requested context to no avail. It is hardly draconian.
I can't see how such a measure could possibly run counter to KudoZ's aim to assist people in need of terminology help, either, quite the contrary. It really does look like, as Phil points out, ProZ is stonewalling. Maybe because the measure might decrease site traffic...?
I had renewed my membership already (which will expire in 8 days), but in view of recent developments, including this Forum discussion, I decided to ask for a full refund, which has been issued promptly. Unless things change for the better, and noticeably so, I shall not renew my membership any more.
[Edited at 2010-12-07 12:54 GMT]
[Edited at 2010-12-07 12:55 GMT]
| | | |
Cetacea wrote:
I can't see how such a measure could possibly run counter to KudoZ's aim to assist people in need of terminology help, either, quite the contrary. It really does look like, as Phil points out, ProZ is stonewalling. Maybe because the measure might decrease site traffic...?
Sad to say that we as answerers don't seem to count enough. I have myself asked 183 questions in nearly 9 years. Maybe if I had asked thousands of them, Proz would take me more into consideration even if I were not a member? So why should we continue to pay our membership if not even the opinion of valuable members is appreciated here? I will seriously evaluate whether renew my membership under these circumstances.
[Bearbeitet am 2010-12-06 20:04 GMT]
| | | | | Jared, what did you say about filtering? | Dec 6, 2010 |
As I mention above, one has the option of showing in the KudoZ question list the content of the explanation/context field.
First I did not know what you were talking about, but after looking at the Advanced setting on the KudoZ list page, now I see there is a Display option with the default setting "Concise", and setting it to "Detailed" would display the content of the context field. I must admit I did not know about this until now. (Not that it changes anything about the crux of the matter here.)
For those who dislike having to see context-less questions, perhaps a filter in the search criteria would help. This would cause those questions to not be visible to those who choose not to see them, while leaving the option to view them to those who wish to.
This is not a bad idea, it would be similar to filtering out Non-Pro questions.
The only thing is how would this filter work, in other words: how do you define what is a "context-less" question?
If the criteria is whether there is anything typed into the context field, than it would not help much, I think. It could be circumvented the same way as a hard-coded input validation, just by typing ... or a smiley or something.
However, if the decision could be passed onto the community the same way as it is with deciding Pro vs. Non-Pro category, this idea has some potential to improve things.
Filtering it out of view is not exactly the same as de-vetting it, but it may be better than nothing, if many potential answerers would filter out these questions.
What do you think?
Katalin
[Edited at 2010-12-06 22:29 GMT]
| | | | Helen Shiner
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:06
German to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
I would be very grateful if you would let us know whether you now plan to survey members/users of the site on the subject of the Kudoz system following our discussions. I would also like to know Proz.com's views on my (and Katalin's) proposals to suspend (not remove) questions where askers continue to refuse to provide context. I know a lot of people are waiting for your answer.
| | |
|
|
|
S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 07:06
Italian to English
| In fact, in the current system, the asker is NOT always the one who sets the parameters | Dec 7, 2010 |
As has already been pointed out by myself and others, there are several areas in which the asker does not set the parameters.
The most important, and relevant to this discussion, is that of pro vs. non-pro. When an asker posts a question as pro, the community has the option of demoting it to non-pro. This does not put the "parameters" in the hands of the asker, but rather in those of the community.
And why? Because if non-pro questions were to be posed as pro, it would ... See more As has already been pointed out by myself and others, there are several areas in which the asker does not set the parameters.
The most important, and relevant to this discussion, is that of pro vs. non-pro. When an asker posts a question as pro, the community has the option of demoting it to non-pro. This does not put the "parameters" in the hands of the asker, but rather in those of the community.
And why? Because if non-pro questions were to be posed as pro, it would degrade the quality of kudoz, and hence proz.com.
As noted by Katalin Horvath McClure and Helen Shiner, other areas in which the asker does not set the parameters are those of question length and number of terms per question.
Clearly, the asker does not always set the parameters.
What is being asked for in this discussion, I believe, is an expectation of quality with respect to context similar to that ensured by the pro/non-pro function.
It makes zero sense to tout kudoz as a jewel in the crown and expect high quality answers without imposing a similar expectation of quality on questions. ▲ Collapse
| | | | S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 07:06
Italian to English
| membership cancellation on grounds of kudoz double standard | Dec 7, 2010 |
As have Cetacea and philgoddard, I have just cancelled my proz.com membership.
I was happy to support the many, many excellent aspects of the proz.com.
But I find the kudoz double standard (high expectations for answerers, low expectations for askers) to be professionally degrading.
I hope to renew my membership in the future in support of an organization that is consistent in its call for professionalism in the translation community.
| | | | | Agree with Helen. | Dec 7, 2010 |
I've had a lot of private feedback from people, most of them paying members, who are unhappy with the high-handed way in which this issue is being dealt with.
Holding a survey would be a way of restoring people's faith that there is some democracy on ProZ, and we're not just being told: "Give us your money, and if you don't like the way the site works, get lost."
| | | | | Surveys and discussions used to be the norm | Dec 7, 2010 |
philgoddard wrote:
I've had a lot of private feedback from people, most of them paying members, who are unhappy with the high-handed way in which this issue is being dealt with.
Holding a survey would be a way of restoring people's faith that there is some democracy on ProZ, and we're not just being told: "Give us your money, and if you don't like the way the site works, get lost."
Lots of things have changed since 2006. No more surveys, at least not on the part of the Proz site open and visible to all. In bygone days, before major changes were introduced, we were asked to give our opinions. It made people feel they mattered and belonged to some sort of community. Nowadays, everything from rules to format is changed at will and it's just put up or shut up. Times they are a-changing.
[Edited at 2010-12-07 16:02 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| membership renewal | Dec 7, 2010 |
I'm being reminded every day that my membership renewal is due soon.
In light of this discussion, however, I'm seriously wondering whether it's worth it!
Why are these very practical, helpful suggestions being ignored, when they would so obviously bring about an enormous improvement in Kudoz, potentially one of the best resources available to us?
| | | | Helen Shiner
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:06
German to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
I trust that the deafening silence bespeaks the preparation of a measured, positive response to our queries and suggestions. Were it otherwise and instead a cynical ploy to make us go away, I, for one, would be staggered by the rudeness and unprofessionalism. I thought I was making a positive contribution to the community. This is making me feel like an anarchist.
| | | | | Welcome to the club! | Dec 7, 2010 |
Helen Shiner wrote:
I thought I was making a positive contribution to the community. This is making me feel like an anarchist.
If it makes you feel any better: trust me, you are not alone.
| | | | | I too agree with the colleagues | Dec 7, 2010 |
Sarah Elizabeth Cree, PhD wrote:
But I find the kudoz double standard (high expectations for answerers, low expectations for askers) to be professionally degrading.
I hope to renew my membership in the future in support of an organization that is consistent in its call for professionalism in the translation community.
I see these abuses in my language pairs too - some askers post questions that are simply shameful for an alleged professional translator to ask (even posting them as Pro questions, and then marking other, really hard technical terms as Non-pro), others consistently post questions by adding the same term in the explanation field, and don't even bother when answerers ask for more context. Even though nobody is forced to answer these questions, some answerers are just so keen on getting points that they post similarly unwise answers and then these are entered into the glossary. Now who benefits? Nobody.
I too wonder if it's worth renewing my membership if this issue is not solved to the satisfaction of so many truly professional members participating in this thread....
| | |
|
|
|
Hi Katalin,
Katalin Horvath McClure wrote: As I mention above, one has the option of showing in the KudoZ question list the content of the explanation/context field. First I did not know what you were talking about, but after looking at the Advanced setting on the KudoZ list page, now I see there is a Display option with the default setting "Concise", and setting it to "Detailed" would display the content of the context field. I must admit I did not know about this until now. (Not that it changes anything about the crux of the matter here.) For those who dislike having to see context-less questions, perhaps a filter in the search criteria would help. This would cause those questions to not be visible to those who choose not to see them, while leaving the option to view them to those who wish to. This is not a bad idea, it would be similar to filtering out Non-Pro questions. The only thing is how would this filter work, in other words: how do you define what is a "context-less" question? If the criteria is whether there is anything typed into the context field, than it would not help much, I think. It could be circumvented the same way as a hard-coded input validation, just by typing ... or a smiley or something. However, if the decision could be passed onto the community the same way as it is with deciding Pro vs. Non-Pro category, this idea has some potential to improve things. Filtering it out of view is not exactly the same as de-vetting it, but it may be better than nothing, if many potential answerers would filter out these questions. What do you think? Katalin [Edited at 2010-12-06 22:29 GMT]
Defining a "context-less" question would be problematic, as would defining when "enough context" or "not enough context" has been entered (cases where no context is entered aside). I was using the Concise view to browse questions and, at a glance, see questions where a certain amount of context had been entered (or not), as opposed to visiting each question separately to see this. I imagine a filter could be based on a certain amount of text entry in the context field. While there is no way to ensure that a filter like that would exclude all "context-less" questions, it might do so for the majority.
Another way of helping this along might be to adjust the context field to detect when such entries as "..." or a smiley are entered in lieu of a sentence, reference, etc and require additional information. This way the field would still be required as it is now, and also help avoid "tricking" the field.
Jared
| | | | | On the relation of PRO/Non-PRO voting and hiding questions without context | Dec 7, 2010 |
Questions can be voted PRO or Non-PRO by KudoZ participants. This in no point of the process removes the question from potential term help providers, except, for example, when one is filtering Non-PRO questions out. My understanding of one of the proposals made here (that of removing temporarily or "suspending" a question when no context has been entered) would, however. Allowing "context-less" questions to be filtered by those who wish to filter them would be more in line with this example.
... See more Questions can be voted PRO or Non-PRO by KudoZ participants. This in no point of the process removes the question from potential term help providers, except, for example, when one is filtering Non-PRO questions out. My understanding of one of the proposals made here (that of removing temporarily or "suspending" a question when no context has been entered) would, however. Allowing "context-less" questions to be filtered by those who wish to filter them would be more in line with this example.
Jared ▲ Collapse
| | | | | On surveying members | Dec 7, 2010 |
As I stated earlier, the surveying of or feedback collection from members is on-going. By on-going, I mean it doesn't really ever stop. This can at times, but not always, take the form of a structured survey. These surveys will usually be posted on the home page. To say that this does not happen, or doesn't happen anymore, is incorrect.
As for a structured survey on the KudoZ system, I see no reason not to, and I hope I haven't given that impression.
Jared
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Proposal that people who post questions via the Kudoz system be obliged to provide context | 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! » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
