| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | Use of a single question to clarify distinctions between similar terms/ apparent rule conflict Thread poster: Oliver Lawrence
|
|---|
Jared wrote:
Wouldn't posting this information, plus the other terms, as context for the question work?
question one: terms two, three and four as context
question two: terms one, three and four as context
question three: terms one, two and four as context
question four: terms one, two and three as context
Regards,
Jared
IMHO, that's an unnecessary multiplication of KudoZ, especially when (quite frequently) the individual term(s) already exist in KOG. Unless we intend to do that specifically for ProZ marketing purposes..
AND I remember quite a few examples of such 'double' questions where the askers provided links to point out that their semantically related terms have identical translations in KOG, with the translations perfectly sound in the other asker's context but offering no solution to the problem at hand. We have been stressing the importance of context endlessly throughout the site, so let's do what we preach.
What's more, it's absolutely easy to distinguish a question in which the asker wants 2 for the price of 1, as Kim dubbed it , from a 'double' (i.e. comparative) question which has been well researched beforehand and is asked in this way with a good reason. An example from my own language pair: Polish has a far poorer vocabulary of company positions than English, and rendering the difference between twin terms in a payroll may be quite challenging. Why make people try to find a way round the ProZ rules when they have visibly exhausted all the other resources in compliance with those rules? I mean those users who provide context, provide the search results obtained prior to posting, provide sufficient explanation for posting a 'double' question etc.
I remember just a couple of instances where such questions were not "double" but rather triple or even quadruple - one of them asked by myself, merely for terminology clarification / organisation purposes. In my experience, a vast majority of users try to stick to the "single term" rule and when deviating, explain the underlying purpose at length. And they'd better... But that doesn't mean we should apply the letter of the rules blindly and at absolutely all costs - I've never seen a cart put before the horse actually travel in the right direction.
PS: Regarding the straight target-source format of KOG - every good dictionary I know contains the 'Usage' part in its entries, where semantically similar terms are compared / explained.
[Edited at 2009-08-04 20:10 GMT]
| | | | | How should we understand this, Jared? | Aug 4, 2009 |
Jared wrote: ...
"otherwise related" is the key phrase here. Such terms ARE related, and should be translated as a set.
I think I described what I see as disadvantages of NOT allowing such questions.
I would like to ask: What is the disadvantage of allowing such questions on KudoZ?
Katalin
... I really have no strong opinion on how you ask your KudoZ questions. ... Jared
Well...
What does it mean you have no strong opinion?
We have been discussing a specific situation: posting two or more terms in one question because we are looking for the translation of those terms as a set, where the translations relate to each other or differ from each other the same way as they relate/differ in the source language.
The general consensus here seems to me that such questions should be allowed - and the rules actually allow them (see the criteria that says "otherwise related"), so we need you, Jared to make some sort of "official" statement about this, so it is clear for everybody, users, staff and moderators, especially new ones.
With the sudden onslaught of new moderators everywhere, I think there will be situations where clarification will be needed as to the proper interpretation of site rules. There are cases that present a challenge, especially if the useful info is scattered in various rules, FAQs, and articles. It takes some time, but it is possible to recognize the pattern in certain situations, after dealing with them on a case by case basis. The key is to handle them consistently, otherwise there is no pattern to recognize (and fairness is nonexistent). The topic discussed in this thread aims for that consistency and fairness.
[Edited at 2009-08-04 23:34 GMT]
| | | | | Reply to Katalin, 2 | Aug 5, 2009 |
Hello Katalin,
... so we need you, Jared to make some sort of "official" statement about this ...
Please see my post at http://www.proz.com/post/1186828#1186828
Best regards,
Jared
| | | | | Last attempt to clarify the question and offer a proposal | Aug 5, 2009 |
I am about to give up, but I make a last attempt to make the question clear.
Which is:
As mentioned above, if the question is about distinguishing the difference between two terms and not the translation of two terms, a monolingual KudoZ question can be used. I've updated http://www.proz.com/faq/2896#2896 to reflect this. In the case of two terms which also need translation, these should be posted in the correct language pair, as two separate questions.
Let's see:
As mentioned above, if the question is about distinguishing the difference between two terms and not the translation of two terms, a monolingual KudoZ question can be used. I've updated http://www.proz.com/faq/2896#2896 to reflect this.
Fine. This is clear. Understood. No more questions about when "a question is about distinguishing the difference between two terms and not the translation of two terms".
However, this:
In the case of two terms which also need translation, these should be posted in the correct language pair, as two separate questions .
does not specify whether the two terms are related or not.
The only place where this is mentioned is in the Squashing instructions here:
http://www.proz.com/howto/327
Unless they share a root or are otherwise related, terms should be posted separately--an asker should not ask how to say "apple" and "banana" in the same question.
So, again, the main point of this discussion (or at least the later part of it) is what to do when terms ARE related. Iza made some excellent points about the practicalities related to this, and you said you had no preference as to how we post such questions.
The above quoted Howto makes it clear, it allows for posting related terms. The problem is that not many people refer to this howto, the primary source of into is the Site Rules and the FAQ, so it is not clear.
Therefore, I would like to propose the following modification to the FAQ (1.2.1):
http://www.proz.com/faq/2896#2896
(By the way, the numbering on the subheadings is off, the first number is omitted, it shows up as 2.1 instead of 1.2.1.)
Current text:
A group of words (up to approximately 10) should be posted in a single question only when they constitute an unbreakable unit, such as an idiomatic expression (e.g. 'a jack of all trades and master of none') that may be several words long and where omitting any part would not formulate the question correctly.
Proposed modified text:
A group of words should be posted in a single question only when omitting any part would not formulate the question correctly, and the group of words meets at least one of these conditions:
- the group of words (up to approximately 10) constitute an unbreakable unit, such as an idiomatic expression (e.g. 'a jack of all trades and master of none') that may be several words long
- the group of words (up to 5) are terms that share a root or are otherwise related.
This wording would bring the "omitting any part would not formulate the question correctly" to the front, as that is a very fundamental condition, and filters out the "two for one" type questions immediately. It also includes the same text as the HowTo.
I hope you would consider this modification, as I think it would be helpful.
Katalin
(Edited as the Quote tags did not work right first.)
[Edited at 2009-08-05 14:34 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Post destined for other forum | | Purpose of strict "single question rule" not clear | Sep 16, 2009 |
IMHO the purpose of not allowing a single question to clarify distinctions between similar terms is not clear.
Is it to keep the glossary in a certain format (one source term - one target term)?
As Iza and Katalin already pointed out: this would reduce the quality of the glossary.
I cannot imagine doing a term search on ProZ and just looking on source and target term. If available, I always have a look at the KudoZ answers and the peer comments, which in this case serve as expl... See more IMHO the purpose of not allowing a single question to clarify distinctions between similar terms is not clear.
Is it to keep the glossary in a certain format (one source term - one target term)?
As Iza and Katalin already pointed out: this would reduce the quality of the glossary.
I cannot imagine doing a term search on ProZ and just looking on source and target term. If available, I always have a look at the KudoZ answers and the peer comments, which in this case serve as explanation, definition and usage part of the glossary and also provide alternative solutions for the given term.
Also I think Katalin made perfectly clear, that the asker needs and wants to ask a single question, because it IS a single question. Asking first monolingually and then in two or more bilingual questions is making the askers´ and the answerers´ lifes more complicated.
So my question again: what is the purpose of this rule (not allowing a single question to clarify distinctions between similar terms), how do askers, answerers, glossary and/or Term search and last but not least ProZ moderators benefit from this rule?
Best regards
Daniel ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Use of a single question to clarify distinctions between similar terms/ apparent rule conflict | 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 » |
| | 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 
