| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | Voters for pro/non-pro should also provide an answer or peer comment Thread poster: jacana54 (X)
|
|---|
David BUICK 
Local time: 14:28
Member (2006)
French to English
+ ...
| System does not allow votes the other way soon enough | Aug 11, 2010 |
Thank you Daniela.
I'd sort of understood that. As far as I can tell, though, there is no way of opposing a vote until the three-vote total has been achieved. In other words, you can see as soon as somebody has cast one non-pro vote (without being required to supply a reason why...), but there's no official way of reacting to that unless and until two others vote the same way.
Even if the question doesn't end up attracting three non-pro votes, just the fact that someon... See more Thank you Daniela.
I'd sort of understood that. As far as I can tell, though, there is no way of opposing a vote until the three-vote total has been achieved. In other words, you can see as soon as somebody has cast one non-pro vote (without being required to supply a reason why...), but there's no official way of reacting to that unless and until two others vote the same way.
Even if the question doesn't end up attracting three non-pro votes, just the fact that someone has voted a question non-pro isn't very pleasant, especially when there are no good grounds for doing so and there is no way of objecting.
In summary (again) in terms of the questions I see, I think certain users are far too quick to vote non-pro. The fact that users don't have to supply a reason or indeed make any other comment on the question means the system is liable to abuse. The fact that no vote to express an opposing point of view can be cast unless 2 others first vote with them makes this state of affairs worse.
Therefore I think it would be a good idea to a) require people to supply fuller grounds for voting 'non-pro' (which I think would immediately discourage abuse of this option) b) allow a contrary vote (also with supporting grounds) immediately, not after a total of three votes.
Is there somewhere else this suggestion should be raised to have any hope of being adopted? ▲ Collapse
| | | | | not always an easy decision | Aug 11, 2010 |
Eutychus wrote:
...
I think I'm about as bilingual as they come (my Kudoz stats are almost identical both ways in my language pair) and there's not a lot I would consider 'any' bilingual person would know. And more often than not, when I think I know best, others prove me wrong. It's all part of the learning process and I find following discussions on issues like these one of the great riches of KudoZ, even years on from the original question - something a simple "non-pro"label can never provide.
In summary, I think there's a good case for being required to justify a non-pro rating. It's more useful after the event and would prevent people abusing the function simply to slap down others with no justification. If the rules stand in the way of that, then perhaps changing them should be envisaged. Is there a more appropriate place to suggest that than here?
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Eutychus. I don't think labeling a question as “non-pro” is necessarily a simple task, as Enrique believes and some translators (unfortunately) consistently make it out to be. Just because the question (in the question box) consists of one or two words that can be found in a bilingual dictionary or can be easily answered by any bilingual person doesn't mean the question is or should be easily downgradable. And maybe there are a lot of bilingual people who can answer it, but that does not mean there is always just one correct answer (consider style). Why else? Because the question/answer should never just be reduced to/focusing on what you find in the question box, although many times, there is not much more to go on and it would often seem to warrant a “non-pro” rating according to proz.com guidelines. But these guidelines are IMO often used wrongly and non-pro voters focus more on what's in the (question) box than what is "outside the box!"
The guidelines state that..for it to be a non-pro question, any bilingual person should be able to
"produce a good translation of the term or phrase in question (and in the particular context shown) from the top of his/her head? If not, it is a PRO question." When context is shown, I believe it is often more difficult to find a good translation than it is easy. Thus, I am not a big believer in the "non-pro" voting habit.
Questions, especially those asked as "pro" questions by professional translators, should always be considered within the given context. And consider this: any question asked by a professional translator, but really by any person, including proper context and giving a reason why the term(s) are a problem for him/her should make professional colleagues think hard about why this question is not a pro-question in this particular context. If they come to the honest conclusion that it is indeed a simple question, so be it, state the reason for that (common term in this field, context clearly shows meaning, previously asked question, etc.) and vote it non-pro. But don't act like you just came across the most simplistic term and vote non-pro without leaving any other comment. That does not do anything for the asker's learning curve and it certainly doesn't show any courtesy towards colleagues.
On the other hand, asking a question without context or ignoring spelling rules and including typos galore should be a squashable offense. And another thing, when I see translators post 5 or 6 questions in a row, I ask myself – did they do their own research, are the abusing the KudoZ system or are they simply overwhelmed? In any case, except for context, the other reasons have IMO little to do with warranting an automatic non-pro rating but can have a lot to do with including useful terms in the glossary.
I am more comfortable with the fact that it now takes three translators to change a question from pro to non-pro instead of one moderator; I am not so sure about the opposite direction.
Although I agree with Enrique that it should be a simple issue, it certainly is not. I believe that, many times, questions are downgraded to non-pro for other reasons than the intended ones.
[Edited at 2010-08-11 18:58 GMT]
| | | | | Very simple indeed - but not PRO | Aug 11, 2010 |
The following 2 statements make it very clear how Proz defines "pro"
Enrique wrote: Non-PRO questions are those that can be answered by any bilingual person without the aid of a dictionary. In his article on this issue Henry describes a very clear way of defining this: When applying the above definitions, detach yourself from your own background/specialisation and think of a - hypothetical - randomly selected bilingual person. Is it likely that this person would be able to produce a good translation of the term or phrase in question (and in the particular context shown) from the top of his/her head? If not, it is a PRO question.
I understand this as "everybody who is NOT a randomly selected bilingual person without the aid of a dictionary is a pro".
If this image of translators is further supported, no wonder that it is a low paid job with a low reputation.
I mean - look at the news in the news section about "Korean house wifes". This is a practical application of the "randomly selected bilingual person who owns a dictionary".
Why should the Mexican, Chinese, Iraqui, etc. house wifes not follow the same business model. It just shows how our profession is perceived in the public.
NO - I do not hate women; NO - I have no problems with foreigners (have been one myself for years); and NO - I have no problem with people changing their career or starting a new one.
I just want to express a view that in my opinion is often ignored and IT SHOULD NOT
| | | | | Some history and what to do in case of abuse | Aug 11, 2010 |
Siegfried Armbruster wrote: The following 2 statements make it very clear how Proz defines "pro" Enrique wrote: Non-PRO questions are those that can be answered by any bilingual person without the aid of a dictionary. In his article on this issue Henry describes a very clear way of defining this: When applying the above definitions, detach yourself from your own background/specialisation and think of a - hypothetical - randomly selected bilingual person. Is it likely that this person would be able to produce a good translation of the term or phrase in question (and in the particular context shown) from the top of his/her head? If not, it is a PRO question. I understand this as "everybody who is NOT a randomly selected bilingual person without the aid of a dictionary is a pro".
Hi Siegfried!
I believe that you are making a wrong inference here. The FAQ includes only ProZ.com's definitions of "PRO KudoZ questions" and "non-PRO KudoZ questions".
This distinction was introduce many year ago when many user complained about KudoZ questions like "I love you" and the fact that other users were earning KudoZ points by answering them.
The request of having these questions squashed was not in line with the main objective of KudoZ: providing term help. The PRO / non-PRO definition allowed these questions to stay, but associated to points that were not used for ranking purposes.
Most questions asked in the site should be PRO questions, as only those that could be answer by a randomly selected bilingual person without the aid of a dictionary should be labelled non-PRO.
"Can be found in any dictionary" or "any translator claiming to be a specialist should know this" are two examples of improper reasons for labelling a question non-PRO (and, if posted, would be out of line with KudoZ rule http://www.proz.com/siterules/kudoz_answ/3.7#3.7 ).
If you consider that a question has been improperly voted non-PRO you can let staff know by means of a support request (there is a Support link at the bottom of each KudoZ question). Voters who systematically abuse of this feature may find their access to it limited or revoked.
Regards,
Enrique
| | |
|
|
|
David BUICK
Local time: 14:28
Member (2006)
French to English
+ ...
| Does that mean there is no opportunity to change things? | Aug 11, 2010 |
Enrique,
I and others have already argued here that it is too difficult to overturn a non-pro vote once just one person has voted that way:
- once one user has voted, without having to supply grounds, for a question to be non-pro, this cannot be objected to in any way unless two other users first vote non-pro. While just one vote will not result in the question being rated non-pro for stats, it will show up as having had a vote in that direction in KudoZ archives. I thi... See more Enrique,
I and others have already argued here that it is too difficult to overturn a non-pro vote once just one person has voted that way:
- once one user has voted, without having to supply grounds, for a question to be non-pro, this cannot be objected to in any way unless two other users first vote non-pro. While just one vote will not result in the question being rated non-pro for stats, it will show up as having had a vote in that direction in KudoZ archives. I think this is unrepresentative and unfair. It may also discourage others from contributing to a question which is perfectly valid and intimidate newer users. It has already been admitted on this thread that some people use a non-pro vote as a put-down, out of line with the rules, and I think there are plenty of others who don't admit as much but who seem to use it that way.
- it seems to me that requiring non-pro voters to supply their arguments would be a much more effective way of keeping pro/non-pro voters on track rather than having a moderator come in and make a unilateral decision later.
You have made the current position clear but I would like to know whether your view represents that of ProZ and if so whether this is set in concrete or whether there is any possibility of this changing - and if so, whether there is a better forum than this to request such a change. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Requiring non-pro voters to supply their arguments? | Aug 11, 2010 |
Eutychus wrote:
- it seems to me that requiring non-pro voters to supply their arguments would be a much more effective way of keeping pro/non-pro voters on track rather than having a moderator come in and make a unilateral decision later.
@Eutychus
With some exceptions, the Pro/non-Pro system works pretty well in most cases. For the rare exception, moderator action should be sufficient.
We are busy people. We may take the time to answer KudoZ questions, but I don't think going into explanations about terms that any bilingual person should know would be anyone's priority.
IOW, nobody would bother.
| | | | | I am not the proz.com police | Aug 11, 2010 |
Enrique wrote:
Most questions asked in the site should be PRO questions, as only those that could be answer by a randomly selected bilingual person without the aid of a dictionary should be labelled non-PRO.
I agree. And most questions are. They are not like "I love you." Especially those asked by a professional translator. And maybe the problem is not as big as I thought it is. However, in my experience, many questions asked by professional translators have been downgraded to non-pro, telling these translators that they are "less knowledgable" than any bilingual person without a dictionary.
Thank you.
I don't believe it is a simple issue, because it can be abused. Nothing is really ever a simple issue. I know what you mean, it should be a simple issue (according to the definition) to decide what can be classified as non-pro. But that's not why things are often classified as non-pro.
Enrique wrote:
If you consider that a question has been improperly voted non-PRO you can let staff know by means of a support request (there is a Support link at the bottom of each KudoZ question). Voters who systematically abuse of this feature may find their access to it limited or revoked.
I don't think this is my job, especially when it is my own question.
Sincerely,
Bernhard
[Edited at 2010-08-12 00:10 GMT]
| | | | David BUICK
Local time: 14:28
Member (2006)
French to English
+ ...
| Voting "non pro" should take that little extra time | Aug 11, 2010 |
Sangro wrote (emphasis mine):
We are busy people. We may take the time to answer KudoZ questions, but I don't think going into explanations about terms that any bilingual person should know would be anyone's priority.
As we have seen on this thread, not everyone agrees on what "any bilingual person should know" means, let alone whether it's a good criterion. But I don't really want to pursue that line of argument here.
My point is precisely that the time taken to vote a question "non-pro" should be at least equal to the time taken to answer the question: if people have time to do the latter, they should have time to supply an explanation for the former.
As things stand, as you say answerers often spend time making valuable contributions to a discussion. But then in a few mouseclicks, somebody who thinks they know better advertises their opinion that this question is basically not worthy of their or anyone else's attention, by voting it "non-pro". What's more, the means to overturn this is cumbersome as I have explained above.
If people genuinely feel a question is so non-professional as to be detrimental to the quality of KudoZ, then they should be willing to put in the effort to explain why, in much the same way that answerers are required to supply the reasons for their answers. If non-pro voters can't be bothered to do this, one has to wonder why they can't simply ignore the question.
I would still like to know if there is any way of requesting such a change more formally.
[Edited at 2010-08-11 20:18 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Concurrent voting for PRO and non-PRO could be a good idea. | Aug 12, 2010 |
Eutychus wrote:
Enrique,
I and others have already argued here that it is too difficult to overturn a non-pro vote once just one person has voted that way:
- once one user has voted, without having to supply grounds, for a question to be non-pro, this cannot be objected to in any way unless two other users first vote non-pro. While just one vote will not result in the question being rated non-pro for stats, it will show up as having had a vote in that direction in KudoZ archives. I think this is unrepresentative and unfair. It may also discourage others from contributing to a question which is perfectly valid and intimidate newer users. It has already been admitted on this thread that some people use a non-pro vote as a put-down, out of line with the rules, and I think there are plenty of others who don't admit as much but who seem to use it that way.
- it seems to me that requiring non-pro voters to supply their arguments would be a much more effective way of keeping pro/non-pro voters on track rather than having a moderator come in and make a unilateral decision later.
You have made the current position clear but I would like to know whether your view represents that of ProZ and if so whether this is set in concrete or whether there is any possibility of this changing - and if so, whether there is a better forum than this to request such a change.
Hi Eutychus,
You should not expect a change in the definition of "non-PRO questions".
Based on this definition, there is only one valid reason for voting non-PRO.
Therefore, no field for entering reasons seems to be needed or advisable, as reasons outside this only valid reason would be likely to be out of line with site rules.
Moderators can't make unilateral decisions, as they have a vote as any other user with over 20 KudoZ points.
Staff can take actions when misuse is reported by means of a support request.
A modification of the voting mechanism in order to allow simultaneous votes for PRO and non-PRO classification could be a good idea. I have recorded it for further evaluation and eventual implementation. Thanks!
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | David BUICK
Local time: 14:28
Member (2006)
French to English
+ ...
I await developments and look forward to submitting lots of support requests as appropriate...
| | | | Neil Coffey
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:28
French to English
+ ...
| Why not treat members' questions as automatically PRO? | Aug 12, 2010 |
One measure that springs to mind to stop some of the backbiting might be to just assume that if a paid member posts a question, that questions is automatically PRO and cannot be voted as non-PRO.
Or are people really paying a hundred dollars a year to find out how to say "I love you" in another language...?
| | | | | Another idea worth considering | Aug 12, 2010 |
Neil Coffey wrote:
One measure that springs to mind to stop some of the backbiting might be to just assume that if a paid member posts a question, that questions is automatically PRO and cannot be voted as non-PRO.
Or are people really paying a hundred dollars a year to find out how to say "I love you" in another language...?
Thanks Neil,
I would still allow members to post non-PRO questions, but to prevent the reclassification as non-PRO of a question posted as PRO by a site member is another idea worth considering.
Regards,
Enrique
| | |
|
|
|
| No questions should be "automatically" classified, IMO. | Aug 12, 2010 |
Neil Coffey wrote:
One measure that springs to mind to stop some of the backbiting might be to just assume that if a paid member posts a question, that questions is automatically PRO and cannot be voted as non-PRO.
Or are people really paying a hundred dollars a year to find out how to say "I love you" in another language...?
Neil, I'm a paying member and I consider myself a "pro," but I'm not totally bilingual and certainly not multilingual. Occasionally I ask a non-pro question. For instance:
1) I may ask about some colloquial or regional expression in my second language. The answerer(s) may consider it an easy question, but unless my dictionaries happen to list it, I'm sunk. Of course I have native Spanish speakers to consult by phone, but I don't phone my friends after 9:30 pm. A quick non-pro question can get me unstuck at 2 am.
2) I may ask a non-pro question outside of my pairs; sometimes a German, French, or even Russian or Greek phrase may pop up in a text, and I would want to know what it means, even if I decide to reproduce the foreign words in my translation. This happened a couple of years ago when I was translating an article for an academic journal, and the author made a word play using the Spanish title of a work he cited. The word play didn't fit the English version of the book, and I had to go back to the original German title. I asked a non-pro German-to-English question to make sure of the meaning of the original title.
So, to Enrique:
1) I agree; please don't make any questions automatically anything.
2) You (Ustedes) will make me very happy if you institute concurrent pro and non-pro voting. I had to submit a support ticket once when others apparently voted just before I did, and my vote was recorded in a way that was opposite to my intentions.
Jane
| | | |
Enrique wrote: Neil Coffey wrote:
One measure that springs to mind to stop some of the backbiting might be to just assume that if a paid member posts a question, that questions is automatically PRO and cannot be voted as non-PRO.
Or are people really paying a hundred dollars a year to find out how to say "I love you" in another language...?
Thanks Neil, I would still allow members to post non-PRO questions, but to prevent the reclassification as non-PRO of a question posted as PRO by a site member is another idea worth considering. Regards, Enrique
I support Neil's idea and applaud your willingness to do something about the situation.
Bernhard
| | | | David BUICK
Local time: 14:28
Member (2006)
French to English
+ ...
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Enrique wrote: Neil Coffey wrote:
One measure that springs to mind to stop some of the backbiting might be to just assume that if a paid member posts a question, that questions is automatically PRO and cannot be voted as non-PRO.
Or are people really paying a hundred dollars a year to find out how to say "I love you" in another language...?
Thanks Neil, I would still allow members to post non-PRO questions, but to prevent the reclassification as non-PRO of a question posted as PRO by a site member is another idea worth considering. Regards, Enrique I support Neil's idea and applaud your willingness to do something about the situation. Bernhard
Thirded!
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Voters for pro/non-pro should also provide an answer or peer comment | 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 » |
| | 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 
