| صفحات الموضوع: < [1 2 3 4] | KudoZ... illness or addiction? ناشر الموضوع: Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL
|
|---|
Werner George Patels, M.A., C.Tran.(ATIO) (X)
Local time: 12:45
ألماني إلى أنجليزي
+ ...
| I was not taking sides, Mats | May 6, 2002 |
Quote:
On 2002-05-06 06:09, MatsWiman wrote:
Dear Werner
You said:
You forgot the majority: All of us who enjoy KudoZ as an intellectual challenge, a way to learn, a way to sharpen our perception (an asset in translation) and enlarge our number of Internet sources of knowledge.
I have increased my knowledge enormously and I have a much sharper eye than pre-KudoZ!
... See more Quote:
On 2002-05-06 06:09, MatsWiman wrote:
Dear Werner
You said:
You forgot the majority: All of us who enjoy KudoZ as an intellectual challenge, a way to learn, a way to sharpen our perception (an asset in translation) and enlarge our number of Internet sources of knowledge.
I have increased my knowledge enormously and I have a much sharper eye than pre-KudoZ!
Mats
Mats, it was a general statement, and I did not take sides. Nor did I try to assign \"majorities\". I merely said that KudoZ was different things to different people, and \"different\" can be anything you want it to be.  ▲ Collapse
| | | | | What is good KudoZ-behaviour? | May 6, 2002 |
I don’t know, but I have seen numerous examples of what is not. An interesting discussion, certainly. Some people seems to be very strong advocate’s for anything related to KudoZ, while others just doesn’t seem to care much (anymore). One obvious conclusion that I make – in general - about KudoZ, is that it first of all can be of tremendous help to those asking for assistance. However, what the KudoZ rating system really proves about any individual (with a lot points, or not) is a comple... See more I don’t know, but I have seen numerous examples of what is not. An interesting discussion, certainly. Some people seems to be very strong advocate’s for anything related to KudoZ, while others just doesn’t seem to care much (anymore). One obvious conclusion that I make – in general - about KudoZ, is that it first of all can be of tremendous help to those asking for assistance. However, what the KudoZ rating system really proves about any individual (with a lot points, or not) is a completely different story.
Addiction has been mentioned, and from my year and half here on ProZ, I certainly agree to that some people seem to have become true KudoZ-junkies. Strong language, yes it is, but with a good foundation. Anyone with some knowledge about addictions would agree that it takes a mountain to climb, before the addict him/herself would agree to this condition. So I was thinking for a moment about this, what is it that defines this? What have I seen myself?
In my opinion, these are some of the evident signs, in no particular order:
1. At all times, giving answers to every possible question.
Speaks for itself.
2. Around the clock; answering most questions within a matter of a few minutes.
Take a rest, ProZ will be around.
3. Answering questions in language combinations that you do not work with.
Others are better suited to do this.
4. Repeatedly answering questions in areas where your competence is very low.
Relax, in most areas there are people with the proper expertise. (One can easily get an idea by looking at the ratio of given/awarded answers. Suggestion: show this figure in profile page)
5. Repeatedly disagreeing with others, rather than letting your own suggestions speak for themselves.
Bad self-esteem or just being a troublemaker?
6. Repeatedly neglecting to give proper explanations and/or references.
Can’t you or is it just laziness?
7. Repeatedly giving explanations that are not possible to verify or do not explain the answers.
Think for a second about the asker; I’m sure they will be happy to see this.
8. Systematically trying to override answers from other translators; rather than pointing out a minor objection to an existing answer in the agreement/neutral field, disagreeing and giving your own answer.
I agree: “minor” things can be of great importance, and I’m not talking about these situations. I think you’ve probably all seen what I mean.
9. In Proz forums and elsewhere: Not showing any willingness to discuss any changes meant to improve KudoZ.
Is the KudoZ-system really that incredible?
Sorry missed the last one:
10. Whenever and wherever someone comments/asks about your time spent on KudoZ: Strongly deny any link vs awarded points.
Absolutely.
And to be serious for just a moment; it is not as much about establishing who is a KudoZ-junkie and who is not. Some things on the list above are just very unpleasant to deal with, for askers, and for other ProZ-members generally speaking. And just for the record; Yes, I’ve done a couple of things myself that I’m not particularly proud of.
PS. Werner, I do very much agree with some of the things that you’ve said in this tree, I’m going to send you a little story about a personal experience of mine.
Looking forward to hear what you all think about this listing?
Best Regards,
Glenn Viklund
[ This Message was edited by: on 2002-05-06 19:53 ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Werner George Patels, M.A., C.Tran.(ATIO) (X)
Local time: 12:45
ألماني إلى أنجليزي
+ ...
| Excellent! I could not have said it better myself! | May 6, 2002 |
Signs of addiction (which, by the way, is an illness, so the whole question was wrong from the start):
Quote:
On 2002-05-06 13:21, twiddle wrote:
1. At all times, giving answers to every possible question.
Speaks for itself.
2. Around the clock; answering most questions within a matter of a few minutes.
Take a rest, ProZ will be around.
3. Answering questions i
... See more Signs of addiction (which, by the way, is an illness, so the whole question was wrong from the start):
Quote:
On 2002-05-06 13:21, twiddle wrote:
1. At all times, giving answers to every possible question.
Speaks for itself.
2. Around the clock; answering most questions within a matter of a few minutes.
Take a rest, ProZ will be around.
3. Answering questions in language combinations that you do not work with.
Others are better suited to do this.
4. Repeatedly answering questions in areas where your competence is very low.
Relax, in most areas there are people with the proper expertise. (One can easily get an idea by looking at the ratio of given/awarded answers. Suggestion: show this figure in profile page)
5. Repeatedly disagreeing with others, rather than letting your own suggestions speak for themselves.
Bad self-esteem or just being a troublemaker?
6. Repeatedly neglecting to give proper explanations and/or references.
Can’t you or is it just laziness?
7. Repeatedly giving explanations that are not possible to verify or do not explain the answers.
Think for a second about the asker; I’m sure they will be happy to see this.
8. Systematically trying to override answers from other translators; rather than pointing out a minor objection to an existing answer in the agreement/neutral field, disagreeing and giving your own answer.
I agree: “minor” things can be of great importance, and I’m not talking about these situations. I think you’ve probably all seen what I mean.
9. In Proz forums and elsewhere: Not showing any willingness to discuss any changes meant to improve KudoZ.
Best Regards,
Glenn Viklund
Thank you, Glenn
[ This Message was edited by: on 2002-05-06 18:59 ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Endre Both 
ألمانيا
Local time: 18:45
أنجليزي إلى ألماني
| You've summed it up perfectly, Glenn | May 6, 2002 |
...thanks for taking the time.
My girlfriend has accused me more than once of being addicted to this site, now I know I\'m not - after all, only 50% or so of what you\'ve said applies to me 
| | |
|
|
|
\"Signs of addiction (which, by the way, is an illness, so the whole question was wrong from the start):\"
but then I\'m mentally ill myself and I do have a drink problem... so, sorry for not being more precise.
Giovanni
| | | | Werner George Patels, M.A., C.Tran.(ATIO) (X)
Local time: 12:45
ألماني إلى أنجليزي
+ ...
| Now you got it right | May 6, 2002 |
Quote:
On 2002-05-06 21:34, guarnieri wrote:
\"Signs of addiction (which, by the way, is an illness, so the whole question was wrong from the start):\"
but then I\'m mentally ill myself and I do have a drink problem... so, sorry for not being more precise.
Giovanni
 ... See more
| | | | Eva Blanar
المجر-هنغاريا
Local time: 18:45
أنجليزي إلى مجري
+ ...
| Comments of an addicted | May 6, 2002 |
First of all, I\'ve got to admit that, according to most of the criteria listed by Glenn Viklund (an excellent analysis!), I am addicted.
Initially, I started answering KudoZ questions for two reasons: (1) to \"show myself\", to prove my language skills and (2) to help fellow translators, as this gave me a moral background to ask a whole lot of questions myself. (I don\'t know too much about technical stuff, but it comes up again and again in general business documents.)<... See more First of all, I\'ve got to admit that, according to most of the criteria listed by Glenn Viklund (an excellent analysis!), I am addicted.
Initially, I started answering KudoZ questions for two reasons: (1) to \"show myself\", to prove my language skills and (2) to help fellow translators, as this gave me a moral background to ask a whole lot of questions myself. (I don\'t know too much about technical stuff, but it comes up again and again in general business documents.)
Later, in about two months\' time, I had to realise that in many cases completely wrong answers were accepted by the askers and entered into the glossary. Then, my main endeavour became to prevent this from happening (as I was a frequent user of the glossaries myself in that period). But very soon, I had to realise that this is a hopeless exercise: partly because of the hasty closings (sometimes within a few minutes!), partly because askers tend to believe to those people who already have lots of KudoZ points...
There is not much to do about the hastiness in making a decision: any translator shall feel free to make himself/herself ridiculous with terms used on the base of someone else\'s guess (and many times a guess coming from a simple Google search...).
What ProZ.com could do here, might be to impose a \"cooling-down period\" (= an answer could be selected after say, 24 hours only, not earlier) or to apply a double scoring system (= the asker selects the answer knowing the given context / personal preferences, but parallel to that, points could be gathered with the peer comments).
At any rate, in my opinion, the real problem is that, in addition to the mud slinging observed (see the other discussion about that) there is something increasingly hysterical about KudoZ: even with an immediate reaction to the email notifying about a question, by the time I get there, there are typically already two replies and frequently a couple of peer comments - or the question is already closed and the term entered into the glossary.
Now, this is the real headache: how can you rely on glossaries compiled in such a hysterical atmosphere? How can you tell that poor asker that it was a mistake to accept a term, a term none from that particular profession ever heard of? How can you prove that the selected term is OK, but it is used in a completely different context / situation?
Also: there was a suggestion that the ratio of suggested / accepted answers should be shown on the profile page. This is a logical suggestion, but it might further deteriorate the problem with the notorious Mr/Ms Know-Alls (= if a Name\'s answer is accepted, because it comes from a Name). On a personal note, I might add that I would also suffer from this: in the language pair English-Hungarian, with answers to about a dozen of questions (there are not too many in this pair), I could collect 1, say, one point in Business/Financials, in spite of my 28 years working experience as an economist - I would rather remove my profile from the database than demonstrate to clients / potential clients that I am unable to collect more!
Therefore, I would rather stick to the basics: my suggestion is that, for the trustworthiness of the glossaries, at least part of the terms entered ought to be \"voted for\" (for points - why not?), before being entered into a \"common\" glossary. (Personal glossaries could remain untouched, of course, but the common ones should be closer to the quality of the dictionaries.)
I could also support the suggestion of VBaby: let\'s try it without points (I\'ll be there), but I would not drop KudoZ altogether. ProZ.com is probably the best site in the translation marketplace, first of all because of the bright and clear structure, and KudoZ represent one of the greatest attractions. I think we ought to fight to let KudoZ remain an attraction!
▲ Collapse
| | | |
Quote:
Glenn wrote:
4. ... (One can easily get an idea by looking at the ratio of given/awarded answers. Suggestion: show this figure in profile page)
.....
10. Whenever and wherever someone comments/asks about your time spent on KudoZ: Strongly deny any link vs awarded points.
Absolutely.
------------------
Hi Glenn,... See more Quote:
Glenn wrote:
4. ... (One can easily get an idea by looking at the ratio of given/awarded answers. Suggestion: show this figure in profile page)
.....
10. Whenever and wherever someone comments/asks about your time spent on KudoZ: Strongly deny any link vs awarded points.
Absolutely.
------------------
Hi Glenn,
Love point 10!
However,
I disagree with your assessment about given/awarded answers. It usually does not matter to me whether an asker selects the one wrong answer out of many good ones and like to keep this attitude intact. It is the agency\'s job to select a competent translator, not mine or ProZ\'s.
Your suggestion would definitely not work in the science field. I like to illustrate this with an example:
Recently, a translator with a chemistry background, which could fill a Nobel prize winner with envy, asked for one of the main parts of an electrophoresis set-up. Then, this translator selected the wrong answer. The first \"agree\" for that wrong answer said:
\"Correct! I found 6 Google hits.\"
There are almost 10,000 times more Google hits for the right answer.
Not all examples are so obvious. Yesterday, another chemistry answer led to the choice of a term that cannot be found at all in a Google search or in chemistry textbooks. Reason: The right answer was \"too scientific\". Like I said, this was not so cut-and-dried in this case: The original term, although quite easily understood, was also not quite correct.
I will no longer answer science questions. Agencies need to learn to hire scientists for science translations.
If you would provide a ratio of
given + ungraded answers / selected answers
to agencies, you would really do a great disservice to science translators and their agencies alike. (No! The above examples are NOT exeptions.)
I am not equally certain about other specialties but would not be surprised if accountants, mechanics or IT specialists felt the same way.
About the references: It is quite appropriate to leave at least a little bit of real work to some of the askers.
▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Quantity and quality? | May 13, 2002 |
Hi Ursula, thanks very much for your comments.
In one way I do agree that you have a good point about such a “KudoZ hit-ratio”; however my intention was not that it could, or should, be regarded as precise instrument to measure this. As I suggested, it could possibly “give an idea”, as a complement to (and based on)information that already exist.
Action would be required not to continue counting comments, for instance. These are currently inclu... See more Hi Ursula, thanks very much for your comments.
In one way I do agree that you have a good point about such a “KudoZ hit-ratio”; however my intention was not that it could, or should, be regarded as precise instrument to measure this. As I suggested, it could possibly “give an idea”, as a complement to (and based on)information that already exist.
Action would be required not to continue counting comments, for instance. These are currently included in the ‘no of given answers’ sum in everyone’s KudoZ summary. And there would similarly be a problem with duplicate answers by mistake (I once managed to create several answers myself as my beloved cat decided to take a walk on my keyboard while posting an answer , which would be absolutely disastrous to this ratio…); those are also currently included in this summary. Furthermore, sometimes people just simply gives more than one answer. By using the actual points awarded instead of number of awarded questions some of these problems could possibly be avoided. So yes, this would have to be given some thought, no doubt.
Ouote:
“Recently, a translator with a chemistry background, which could fill a Nobel prize winner with envy, asked for one of the main parts of an electrophoresis set-up. Then, this translator selected the wrong answer. The first \"agree\" for that wrong answer said:
\"Correct! I found 6 Google hits.\"
There are almost 10,000 times more Google hits for the right answer.”
In my view this is a valid illustration of some of the problems built into the KudoZ-system. Apart from the obvious problem that someone is eventually going to experience with a factual error in this document (no calamities caused, God forbid) I see a few additional things here. First, wrong answer is awarded. Second, correct answer is not awarded. Third, the agree function may mislead an asker. And on top of this, the reference.
The first three will not easily be improved. It’s of course in human nature to make mistakes, these will stick around. Nevertheless, I think that in the long run this is not such a big deal, as far as this KudoZ-ratio would be concerned. You win some, you lose some, and most of the time you hopefully will receive what is duly yours. In my experience the quality of KudoZ answers is steadily improving as more and more good professionals join ProZ. In another forum it was proposed that a mandatory waiting time for the asker prior to awarding points should be implemented, maybe that would help in reducing the level of incorrectly chosen answers.
I fully agree with you, that the asker should do some of the work him/herself. But I think that references sometimes can be very useful to the asker; cut down on lengthy explanations instead, that way by using your provided reference the asker can choose to do whatever extended research he/she finds necessary. And your example above illustrates another important point: The number of Google hits should be used as a reference with some caution. It cannot always be regarded as a decisive instrument. I’ve seen numerous examples myself where this number proves absolutely nothing.
Bottom line: A “KudoZ hit-ratio” will only be as good or as bad as the entire KudoZ-system is itself. The quality of such a ratio would purely be a reflection of what is already in the KudoZ summaries. And, not to forget, if this in any minor way could contribute in slightly shifting the major point of attraction from being quantity to becoming quality, wouldn\'t you agree that this would be a worthwhile endeavor?
Quote:
“I will no longer answer science questions. Agencies need to learn to hire scientists for science translations.”
Sorry to hear that. And yes, of course agencies should learn how to handle the tools that ProZ is providing. Even though I’m not sure I fully comprehend your reasons, and I’m sure they are valid, I have a bit of a hard time in seeing how that would enable the agencies that haven’t previously found you, to do so hereafter - under the ProZ umbrella, I mean? Nor do I understand why this would be a disfavor to specialists within the many fields you mentioned?
And Ursula, glad to hear that you liked no. 10; I do hope that your house piece is still in order
Best Regards,
Glenn Viklund
[ This Message was edited by: on 2002-05-13 21:50 ]
[ This Message was edited by: on 2002-05-13 22:09 ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | KudoZ as a playground for translators | May 14, 2002 |
Quote:
On 2002-05-13 17:27, twiddle wrote:
Bottom line: A “KudoZ hit-ratio” will only be as good or as bad as the entire KudoZ-system is itself. The quality of such a ratio would purely be a reflection of what is already in the KudoZ summaries. And, not to forget, if this in any minor way could contribute in slightly shifting the major point of attraction from being quantity to becoming quality, wouldn\'t you agree t
... See more Quote:
On 2002-05-13 17:27, twiddle wrote:
Bottom line: A “KudoZ hit-ratio” will only be as good or as bad as the entire KudoZ-system is itself. The quality of such a ratio would purely be a reflection of what is already in the KudoZ summaries. And, not to forget, if this in any minor way could contribute in slightly shifting the major point of attraction from being quantity to becoming quality, wouldn\'t you agree that this would be a worthwhile endeavor?
Quote:
“I will no longer answer science questions. Agencies need to learn to hire scientists for science translations.”
Sorry to hear that. And yes, of course agencies should learn how to handle the tools that ProZ is providing. Even though I’m not sure I fully comprehend your reasons, and I’m sure they are valid, I have a bit of a hard time in seeing how that would enable the agencies that haven’t previously found you, to do so hereafter - under the ProZ umbrella, I mean? Nor do I understand why this would be a disfavor to specialists within the many fields you mentioned?
And Ursula, glad to hear that you liked no. 10; I do hope that your house piece is still in order
Best Regards,
Glenn Viklund
[ This Message was edited by: on 2002-05-13 21:50 ]
[ This Message was edited by: on 2002-05-13 22:09 ]
Thank you, Glenn, for your thoughtful reply. You are right, improving the quality of the KudoZ section would be a worthwhile endeavor. I used to participate as much as possible. However, this has not resulted in an \"addiction\" by any stretch of the imagination.
The point of not providing agencies with yet another hit-list is this:
Project managers are usually in a hurry, they will go for the numbers. It is easier, expecially when that manager has no idea about the project background.
At this time, there is a considerable number of ProZ members who have marvellously adapted to this fact. Rather than searching for the best answer, they will search for the fast way to improve their \"ratios\". Their target is the translator who is in over his/her head and has no idea about terminology or context.
As long as the asker gets any answers, agencies can afford a relaxed attitude about the translator\'s qualifications. The KudoZ community will work for them at the best of all rates: free!
Because of these impressions, I would rather like to see the KudoZ site develop toward a \"playground\" status, where translators can afford to learn, improve and exchange knowledge without penalties for being \"wrong\" or the decision to only answer the more interesting questions.
I fully agree with you about the value of the KudoZ site. My expectation is that it would work better without the \"hit lists\" and the \"fight for points\".
While I have to admit that I have received job offers in my specialty via ProZ, these are from clients who would not likely look at KudoZ lists.
Much has been said about the quality of translators and how to measure their expertise. I think the balance needs to shift towards assisting translators and attracting agencies with competent, experienced project managers.
I know it is fashionable to pretend that clients stand in a long line in front of my door, begging me to do their translations. Alas, I do have to spend time and money to improve my client base. In the end, a successful translator will be a business person. I would like to keep the KudoZ site out of this part of being a translator.
Again, thank you for your reply. Your ideas are very interesting in many ways.
Best of wishes,
Ursula
▲ Collapse
| | | | | صفحات الموضوع: < [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 » KudoZ... illness or addiction? | 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 » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
