Proposed system for rating KudoZ archive entries (K) Thread poster: Stuart Allsop
|
|---|
We have the ability to vote on the correctness of answers to questions, but once an answer goes into the glossaries, it is basically written in stone, and beyond any further comment.
I propose that we need a system to allow "post-humus" rating of glossary entries.
One of the most important parts of Proz is, inarguably, the glossaries. However, I have seen numerous comments in this forum (and others) lamenting the poor quality of some glossary entries, especially thos... See more We have the ability to vote on the correctness of answers to questions, but once an answer goes into the glossaries, it is basically written in stone, and beyond any further comment.
I propose that we need a system to allow "post-humus" rating of glossary entries.
One of the most important parts of Proz is, inarguably, the glossaries. However, I have seen numerous comments in this forum (and others) lamenting the poor quality of some glossary entries, especially those arising from those inconsiderate askers who slam out a question, get an answer, grade it, and stuff the result in the glossary, all within 27 seconds, regardless of how good it was. That questionable entry then stays in the glossary until the end of time.
Just a few minutes ago I came across yet another one of those in the glossary, and realized that there is NOTHING I can do about it, to set the record straight. Sure, I could add yet another entry to the glossary, duplicating the word but with the correct term, but that would achieve nothing: anyone searching for the same term in the future will then find two competing and diametrically opposed entries, and will end up more confused than when they started.
Therefore, I suggest that there should be some kind of system where we can rate the terms we find in glossaries: All terms would, of course, start out unrated. We would then be able to rate them as we come across them, according to their correctness. Even a simple "agree/disagree" would at least allow us to express our opinions on the correctness of entries.
[Subject edited by staff or moderator 2005-02-01 22:32] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Moderators can help | Dec 1, 2004 |
Stuart Allsop wrote:
Just a few minutes ago I came across yet another one of those in the glossary, and realized that there is NOTHING I can do about it, to set the record straight.
Fortunately this is not quite true. You can contact a moderator (see links at the bottom of each KudoZ page) and ask them to correct the entry. In Spanish-language KudoZ, a refereeing system (arbitraje) has also been proposed---see http://www.proz.com/post/66257#66257.
[Edited at 2004-12-01 16:58]
| | | | SirReaL 
Germany
Local time: 17:47
English to Russian
+ ...
| A very logical improvement but I don't think it will work | Dec 1, 2004 |
What you are proposing makes a lot of sense. However, the only way to make the system work as you describe would be to take drastic measures (against newcomers especially, who do not know how the Kudoz system works). It would involve things like disallowing grading of questions within a certain period of time, making guests register accounts, and a host of other modifications. Also the double-grading concept (once for the answer, once for the glossary term) seems a bit over the top. The value of... See more What you are proposing makes a lot of sense. However, the only way to make the system work as you describe would be to take drastic measures (against newcomers especially, who do not know how the Kudoz system works). It would involve things like disallowing grading of questions within a certain period of time, making guests register accounts, and a host of other modifications. Also the double-grading concept (once for the answer, once for the glossary term) seems a bit over the top. The value of correct glossary entries notwithstanding, I submit that people don't care enough about it to go through with these changes.
Respectfully,
SirReal
P.S. Also, lots of questions are not even meant to produce glossary entries anyway. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Stuart Allsop
Chile
Local time: 13:47
Spanish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Not so complex, really! | Dec 1, 2004 |
SirReaL wrote:
What you are proposing makes a lot of sense. However ... It would involve things like disallowing grading of questions within a certain period of time, making guests register accounts, and a host of other modifications.
Thanks for the comment SirReal. I wasn't really thinking of anything so complex as you describe: More along the lines of just having an additional column on the glossary listing itself, showing the current "confidence" rating for each item, and a method for recording one's own rating, if you want to, while you are browsing the glossaries. Just a link that you can click to enter your assessment, perhaps just a simple "agree" / "disagree" box (I don't think we need a complex numerical system for this). All I'm after is a system to warn the unwary user that the glossary term he or she is looking at might not be reliable (if it has a couple of "disagrees" attached) or probably is reliable (if it has several "agrees" attached). Of course, the vast majority of terms would have no rating initially, but over time the ratings will come, making the system more and more useful. Like a fine Chilean wine, it will improve with age.
To discourage misuse of this system, I don't even think it is necessary to award Browniz for rating a glossary term, and certainly not Kudoz. It's just something that a true professional translator would do anyway, reward or no reward, all of their own accord, to help out their peers and help maintain the high standard of the glossary.
I also don't think this is something that the moderators should be burdened with: They have enough to do in any case, and may not be sufficiently expert in the relevant field to decide on the correct usage. I don't doubt the linguistic expertise of the moderators, but I do doubt that they are all esteemed experts in every possible field of endeavor known to mankind! After all, the very reason for the existence of the glossaries is to help out with unusual, uncommon, and difficult terms, so I doubt that the moderators can always make the correct call: This needs to be done by peers, not moderators, since peers are the real experts here.
In any event, what I have in mind is just a simple system that can be implemented easily, to let others know that someone else has looked at the glossary term, and did or did not agree with it. Just a simple box with two numbers in it, one red, one green, counting disagrees/agrees, and the box would remain empty for un-rated terms.
Simple, yet effective and informative.
Also the double-grading concept (once for the answer, once for the glossary term) seems a bit over the top. The value of correct glossary entries notwithstanding, I submit that people don't care enough about it to go through with these changes. I'm not so sure. Since it would be entirely voluntary, and since many of us obviously DO care (or we wouldn't bother checking and posting in the forums at all!), I believe it would be used by the more conscientious and noble translators among us.
Also, I'm not saying that this is something you would do at the time of GRADING a question, but rather that it would be done at any time in the future, even months of years after the question is closed and long forgotten. You would only do while USING the glossary anyway as you normally, not while CREATING it. You would just add an "agree" to the term that you actually used, and a "disagree" to any term that you KNOW to be wrong.
P.S. Also, lots of questions are not even meant to produce glossary entries anyway. Exactly! That's why it would not be a compulsory system. Just something that you use when you are already searching for a term in the glossary, and you come across one that you KNOW is not right, or absolutely IS right, and deserves to be marked as such. How many times have you looked up what you thought was a simple term, only to be confronted by a long list of dozens of alternative answers (some of which contradict each other), of which maybe just two or three have the true sense correct?
All I'm suggesting is that it would be nice to have some kind of indictor next to each glossary entry that would let you know which ones have been checked by others, and found to be either good or bad.
That's all.
| | |
|
|
|
SirReaL
Germany
Local time: 17:47
English to Russian
+ ...
| Well thought out, Stuart. | Dec 7, 2004 |
You have the design all ready to go!
It would be nice, yes.
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Proposed system for rating KudoZ archive entries (K) | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
