| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | Another slant on Pro/Non-Pro questions Thread poster: Sheila Wilson
|
|---|
Neil Coffey 
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:56
French to English
+ ...
Daniel Grau wrote: Discussion area:This area is accessed with the "Post discussion" and should be used for additional exchanges of context information and for linguistic discussions on the question. ( http://www.proz.com/faq/4876#4876 )
Excellent -- this is very logical and how I see the discussion area being used, and how I use it myself.
So, I come back to my point -- I don't see why we need to start bastardising the Pro/Non-Pro categorisation as there's already a designated mechanism for asking about context.
| | | | mediamatrix (X)
Local time: 10:56
Spanish to English
+ ...
| A qustion of interpretation | Jan 4, 2010 |
Daniel Grau wrote:
Discussion area:This area is accessed with the "Post discussion" and should be used for additional exchanges of context information and for linguistic discussions on the question.
That may well be the stated purpose of the discussion box, but there are some moderators out there who interpret that very restrictively, allowing discussion 'of context information that is provided', but disallowing 'asking for context' where none has been provided - often backing up their action with the argument that asking for context is not 'linguistic discussion'.
MediaMatrix
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 15:56
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Contradiction? | Jan 4, 2010 |
Stéphanie Soudais wrote:
As long as answerers answer to these questions without waiting for context and as long as agreers carry on to agree with them, why should askers make the effort to provide context?
"Experts" argue over and over in the discussion box while they should maybe keep silent and leave these questions unanswered, to show askers that they will never get help if they don't give useful data.
I agree with your second point Stéphanie - these questions should go unanswered rather than guesses being proposed, seconded and entered into the glossary.
But your first point shows that the second point is impractible.
Others have said that 3 votes for non-Pro is sufficient to reclassify it. My problem is with the definition that is displayed when you do so. I'm not happy declaring that this is a term that could be easily answered by any bilingual person without the aid of a dictionary. How can I say that when I don't know how the word is being used? It could be a dead-common usage or it could be some little-used archaic usage that only a professional with experience would know about.
That really is the root of my problem - I'm a very law-abiding citizen (probably too much for my own good, sometimes ) and this declaration gives me problems.
| | | | Paul Cohen
Greenland
Local time: 13:56
German to English
+ ...
| Add a new category: "ridiculous" | Jan 4, 2010 |
There have been complaints in the past about "interesting" questions being downgraded as "non-pro" with the argument that a question that generates a great deal of discussion must be "pro", right?
Hogwash.
Often it is the patently ridiculous questions, i.e., those with vague, ambiguous or scanty context, that generate the most discussion.
The other day, a person (who is not a native speaker of either language 'x' or 'y') asked a question about a tra... See more There have been complaints in the past about "interesting" questions being downgraded as "non-pro" with the argument that a question that generates a great deal of discussion must be "pro", right?
Hogwash.
Often it is the patently ridiculous questions, i.e., those with vague, ambiguous or scanty context, that generate the most discussion.
The other day, a person (who is not a native speaker of either language 'x' or 'y') asked a question about a translation from 'x' to 'y' with virtually no context. It eventually turned out that the asker had found a very dodgy translation somewhere, recognized that it was poor, and wanted to check its accuracy, so he back-translated it as best he could himself from 'y' to 'x' (he had no access to the original text in 'x', it turned out later) and posted the question as 'x' to 'y' with virtually no context, despite repeated appeals for more clues.
Confused? Clueless? Most people were! But that didn't stop over half a dozen answerers from firing off all kinds of wild guesses.
Oh, given the proper context, it could have been a "pro" question -- and it was intriguing, no doubt about it, but in this particular situation, I'd say it merited a new category: "ridiculous"!
What's a ridiculous question, you ask? Any question that has so little context that it requires telepathy to answer correctly. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| contradiction? | Jan 4, 2010 |
Sheila Wilson wrote:
Others have said that 3 votes for non-Pro is sufficient to reclassify it. My problem is with the definition that is displayed when you do so. I'm not happy declaring that this is a term that could be easily answered by any bilingual person without the aid of a dictionary. How can I say that when I don't know how the word is being used? It could be a dead-common usage or it could be some little-used archaic usage that only a professional with experience would know about.
I am not sure if I understand you right. I agree with what you say, but then I don't understand why you (or anyone else) decide to reclassify - or answer/agree or debate in the discussion box - without waiting for context first. I don't understand why you suggest to "systematically classifying all questions without context as non-Pro" before getting context.
Some users/askers - especially newbies - are simply not aware of how kudoz work, or of the importance of context (which is quite problematic if they claim to be professional translators, but this is another debate). Sometimes explaining things to them may be enough - sometimes not, unfortunately.
Stéphanie
| | | | Lingua 5B
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Local time: 16:56
Member (2009)
English to Croatian
+ ...
| More on Ridiculous | Jan 4, 2010 |
Imagine an art reviewer reviewing an art painting by watching random fragments plucked out of the painting ( without actually ever seeing the painting as a comprehensive whole). And he gets awarded points for his analysis.
Edit: what I described is actually done by archaeologists. But it's a very long process, precisely because of the lack of unity and context. And they do it because the context is missing, not because someone is hiding it from them.
[Edited at 2010-... See more Imagine an art reviewer reviewing an art painting by watching random fragments plucked out of the painting ( without actually ever seeing the painting as a comprehensive whole). And he gets awarded points for his analysis.
Edit: what I described is actually done by archaeologists. But it's a very long process, precisely because of the lack of unity and context. And they do it because the context is missing, not because someone is hiding it from them.
[Edited at 2010-01-04 11:45 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Lingua 5B
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Local time: 16:56
Member (2009)
English to Croatian
+ ...
| The answer is in your second paragraph | Jan 4, 2010 |
Stéphanie Soudais wrote:
I don't understand why you suggest to "systematically classifying all questions without context as non-Pro" before getting context.
Some users/askers - especially newbies - are simply not aware of how kudoz work, or of the importance of context (which is quite problematic if they claim to be professional translators, but this is another debate). Sometimes explaining things to them may be enough - sometimes not, unfortunately.
You answered the question from the first paragraph in the second paragraph.
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 15:56
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Clarification | Jan 4, 2010 |
Stéphanie Soudais wrote:
I am not sure if I understand you right. I agree with what you say, but then I don't understand why you (or anyone else) decide to reclassify - or answer/agree or debate in the discussion box - without waiting for context first. I don't understand why you suggest to "systematically classifying all questions without context as non-Pro" before getting context.
I quite agree, Stéphanie, that that would be over hasty, and I would always be happy to help new users (this is easy to see by just hovering over the asker's name so that's not a problem). However, as you go on to say, very often the context is not forthcoming. Normally, the asker does not respond at all - it seems they post the question then sit there waiting for the answer and ignoring all notifications about discussion entries. Those are the questions that should be reclassified as non-pro, IMO, even though the current declaration technically prevents that.
I really can't see why such askers cannot be blacklisted by the site and prevented from asking more unanswerable questions. They are abusing the system and the fact that I may opt out of answering them, or even seeing them, does not alter the fact that others will be raking in the points and causing the glossary to fill with total rubbish.
| | |
|
|
|
Steffen Walter
Germany
Local time: 16:56
Member (2002)
English to German
+ ...
| Gross misinterpretation | Jan 4, 2010 |
mediamatrix wrote: Daniel Grau wrote:
Discussion area:This area is accessed with the "Post discussion" and should be used for additional exchanges of context information and for linguistic discussions on the question. That may well be the stated purpose of the discussion box, but there are some moderators out there who interpret that very restrictively, allowing discussion 'of context information that is provided', but disallowing 'asking for context' where none has been provided - often backing up their action with the argument that asking for context is not 'linguistic discussion'. MediaMatrix
Hi MediaMatrix,
If that were the case, it would be a gross misinterpretation of the rules on the part of the moderators concerned, which would warrant a clarifying remark by site staff. Originally, the discussion area had been created to replace the former "Ask the asker" space, which had served exactly this (main) purpose of asking for more context. As its successor, the discussion box has basically "inherited" this purpose.
Steffen
| | | | | Asking for context is a valid use of the discussion box | Jan 4, 2010 |
mediamatrix wrote: Daniel Grau wrote:
Discussion area:This area is accessed with the "Post discussion" and should be used for additional exchanges of context information and for linguistic discussions on the question. That may well be the stated purpose of the discussion box, but there are some moderators out there who interpret that very restrictively, allowing discussion 'of context information that is provided', but disallowing 'asking for context' where none has been provided - often backing up their action with the argument that asking for context is not 'linguistic discussion'. MediaMatrix
Asking for context is a valid use of the discussion box.
Reports regarding the fairness of moderator action should be made via the support system, to allow staff to properly look into the issue.
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | mediamatrix (X)
Local time: 10:56
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Thank you Enrique | Jan 4, 2010 |
Enrique wrote:
Asking for context is a valid use of the discussion box.
I respectfully suggest that it might be helpful to adapt the text quoted earlier by Daniel, to make it clear that this is an acceptable use of the discussion box. That way, both frustrated potential answerers and moderators would have something to back up their actions, rather than leaving it to the whims of individuals.
MediaMatrix
| | | | | Thank you MediaMatrix | Jan 4, 2010 |
mediamatrix wrote: Enrique wrote:
Asking for context is a valid use of the discussion box.
I respectfully suggest that it might be helpful to adapt the text quoted earlier by Daniel, to make it clear that this is an acceptable use of the discussion box. That way, both frustrated potential answerers and moderators would have something to back up their actions, rather than leaving it to the whims of individuals. MediaMatrix
Thanks for a good suggestion, the quoted sentence of the FAQ has been modified as follows:
"Discussion area: This area is accessed with the "Post discussion" button and should be used for requests and additional exchanges of context information and for linguistic discussions on the question."
Regards,
Enrique
| | |
|
|
|
Alison Sabedoria (X)
United Kingdom
French to English
+ ...
| Lack of context is not always the asker's fault | Jan 4, 2010 |
I share Sheila's frustration at questions which lack context. But a few that I have tried to help with lately have been terms used as titles or items in a list, where the asker has had little or no context to add, hence the question.
Surely some questions of this nature should be allowed, in the hope that another translator in the pair may have come across a similar text and be able to shed some light on it. This would seem to me to be "professional" level help. Though of course, we... See more I share Sheila's frustration at questions which lack context. But a few that I have tried to help with lately have been terms used as titles or items in a list, where the asker has had little or no context to add, hence the question.
Surely some questions of this nature should be allowed, in the hope that another translator in the pair may have come across a similar text and be able to shed some light on it. This would seem to me to be "professional" level help. Though of course, we should also recognise when we are stepping into the world of pure conjecture.
Whatever system is used to grade questions as Pro or Non-Pro, it might be open to some abuse by the rabid "points chasers", a few of whom already ruthlessly defend their own answers (somtimes clearly wrong) by rubbishing others' quite valid suggestions, and take a disagreement as a personal slight. I've had the impression more than once that the Pro/Non-Pro vote has been used in an unscrupulous way. Fortunately such folk are only a tiny minority, and those who are "top of the list" are generally there because they're very good. I've only been on ProZ a few weeks, but I already know who I'd trust for quality help when the need arises.
I'm glad the "myth" of the discussion box has been cleared up - thanks, Enrique! ▲ Collapse
| | | | Erik Freitag
Germany
Local time: 16:56
Member (2006)
Dutch to German
+ ...
| Lack of context IS the asker's fault | Jan 4, 2010 |
Wordeffect wrote:
I share Sheila's frustration at questions which lack context. But a few that I have tried to help with lately have been terms used as titles or items in a list, where the asker has had little or no context to add, hence the question.
Often enough, the problem seems to be that "context" for some translators seems to be what their PM or client filled in in the order form, under "context". No entry there - bang! No context.
Terms used as titles? - Titles for what? Has the translator been given a list of titles alone? What are the other titles?
Items in a list? - What are the other items? What do the headers say?
All this is context, sometimes even "What's the name of the file you translate?"
Wordeffect wrote:
Surely some questions of this nature should be allowed, in the hope that another translator in the pair may have come across a similar text and be able to shed some light on it.
"Come across a similar text"? Well, that's hard to determine if you don't know anything about the text to begin with...
| | | | mediamatrix (X)
Local time: 10:56
Spanish to English
+ ...
| The 'no context' syndrome | Jan 4, 2010 |
Wordeffect wrote:
I share Sheila's frustration at questions which lack context. But a few that I have tried to help with lately have been terms used as titles or items in a list, where the asker has had little or no context to add, hence the question.
Indeed, it's not uncommon to see askers explaining - sometimes in apologetic tone - that 'there is no other context'. For example:
***********
Question: quolly
Fields: Law/Patents - Other
Context: It's in a list - (sorry but) no context available.
***********
But if you press these askers, they can sometimes be persuaded that actually they could provide quite a lot of useful information if only they had a clear understanding of what context is and what purpose it serves.
Questions from potential answerers may elicit all sorts of useful information, quite possibly leading to a valid answer.
For example:
- What does the patent describe? And if it's a revolutionary ion engine for spacecraft, change the fields to Tech/Enginnering - Space/Aeronautics - Ion engine design.
- What is the purpose of the list? There's a big difference of context between a list of engine parts and a list of tools used to assemble an engine.
- What are the adjacent items in the list? Very often lists contain related terms, and to an expert the meaning of the obscure term may well be clear when seen along with the other items.
- What is the country of origin of the text, and/or of it's author? Words are often misused by non-native speakers (a classic example is the systematic mis-use of 'resp.' by German authors writing in English).
- Does the overall quality of the source text suggest the problem term is 'just another typo or scanno' in a text riddled with rubbish or is it, on the contrary, a real term that's probably being used correctly.
Armed with that meaningful context we have a new question, such as:
***********
Question: quolly
Fields: Tech/Enginnering - Space/Aeronautics - Ion engine design
Context: It's in a list of tools used in the assembly of spacecraft engines, mentioned in the patent for a revolutionary ion engine.
The rest of the text seems to be well-written by a native English-speaker (from a well-known manufacturing company in the UK), so I don't think it's an error in the source text.
***********
Of course, this doesn't guarantee there will be a valid answer, but at least that won't be for "no context".
MediaMatrix
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Another slant on Pro/Non-Pro questions | 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 » |
| | 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 
