| Vom Thema belegte Seiten: < [1 2] | Thanking those who "agree" Initiator des Themas: Gerard Burns Jr.
|
|---|
Jo Macdonald 
Spanien
Local time: 17:27
Mitglied (2005)
Italienisch > Englisch
+ ...
| Chronically disagreeable | Dec 23, 2005 |
Hi Gad,
That sounds like a pretty silly agenda there. Ive been here a few months and I havent seen anyone behave like that. If its that bad I think a moderator should step in because that sort of behaviour sounds pretty detrimental to the system.
Back on the topic of agrees, I agree its a great way to say Hi (if you type Hi) and communicate, and make acquaintances, so a good thing, but imo if you just click the button it means I think youre right, this is a... See more Hi Gad,
That sounds like a pretty silly agenda there. Ive been here a few months and I havent seen anyone behave like that. If its that bad I think a moderator should step in because that sort of behaviour sounds pretty detrimental to the system.
Back on the topic of agrees, I agree its a great way to say Hi (if you type Hi) and communicate, and make acquaintances, so a good thing, but imo if you just click the button it means I think youre right, this is a good translation not I think youre cool, I want to be friends. Maybe thats an easy trap to fall into.
So Id say theres nothing at all wrong with agreeing or not (personal choice, fine) as long as youre agreeing with what the person wrote and not with who you think they are, and as long as youre agreeing with ME of course.
Dont you just hate it when everyone agrees with someone else? Now what is going on there?
 ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Uncheck the 'notify me ' option | Dec 23, 2005 |
I think thanking is superfluous - the box is IMHO only intended for further relevant comments in the discussion...
There is a little box with a tick in it with the text: 'Notify me if the answerer sends a response'
Whenever I agree with anyone, I try to remember to uncheck that box. It seems churlish not to accept thanks, but I do prefer not to get yet another more or less superfluous e-mail about it!
On the whole I don't thank people for agrees... but if I... See more
| | | | Adrian MM. (X)
Local time: 17:27
Französisch > Englisch
+ ...
| Churlish to disagree on principle | Dec 23, 2005 |
Christine Andersen wrote:
It seems churlish not to accept thanks..
It is also churlish and childish to enter only disagrees and no agrees, just based on dislike of the answerer.
On the other hand, expressing thanks can show relief at receiving peer agreement.
| | | | Gerard Burns Jr.
Vereinigte Staaten
Local time: 10:27
Spanisch > Englisch
+ ...
THEMENSTARTER | Disagreeing on Agreement | Dec 23, 2005 |
One of my concerns is that an Answerer thanking those who "Agree" is actually thanking them for helping the Answerer to get points. If it were the Asker thanking people for supporting opinions, that would seem more appropriate.
I also wonder to what extent "Agreeing" becomes a system of mutual social support, reflecting either ties built up from experiences on ProZ, or ties derived from national, educational, regional, or even political backgrounds; a paranoid person could imagine a... See more One of my concerns is that an Answerer thanking those who "Agree" is actually thanking them for helping the Answerer to get points. If it were the Asker thanking people for supporting opinions, that would seem more appropriate.
I also wonder to what extent "Agreeing" becomes a system of mutual social support, reflecting either ties built up from experiences on ProZ, or ties derived from national, educational, regional, or even political backgrounds; a paranoid person could imagine a deliberately created web of mutual "Agree" support formed by some persons. Well short of that thoough,is the natural human tendency to want to join the group of people who are acting like they are having a party -that is a natural desire that is exploited by advertisers all over the globe, and they have made billions proving that a lot of people will to rush to join the group having fun. That is the effect that the parade of "Thanks", often with evocative and heartwarming phrases included, seems intended to generate.
Notice please that no one has suggested the idea of sending thanks privately. A private message or email would fulfill any perceived need for thanks as a courtesy, but would not have the churning effect that the public thanking may produce.
I am heartened, I should mention, when I see those who mark "Agree" (or "Disagree", obviously) and include some piece of evidence or a logical point in support, rather than just a "Me too, me too!", but those who offer such when they Agree are a distinct minority. More often we see people "Agree" without offering any evidence that they have any knowledge of the terms involved.
There have already been a number of posts saying that 'anyone who doesn't wish to offer thanks (i.e. "join thefun") need not do so. That is precisely the dilemna, if you don't join the crowd, you are excluded.
As I wish to be constructive, I would like to offer two specific suggestions for changes which I believe would lessen what I see as the pernicious effect of Answerers thanking those who "Agree" with them.
1) "Thanks" should be sent privately, OR
2) "Thanks" should only be posted after an answer has been accepted by the Asker.
I believe it would be easy at a glance to distinguish a "Thanks" for agreement from a reply by an Answerer to any substantial point brought up by the person Agreeing or Disagreeing.
And by the way, thank you all for reading this. I hope you will overlook the curmudgeonly impression it creates of me.
Gerard Michael Burns ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Certainly haven't noticed this | Dec 23, 2005 |
gad wrote:
Jo Macdonald wrote:
So, imo a disagree is more important than an agree any day, and Ill definitely appreciate that and answer someone who disagrees. Because you can be wrong, and if no one tells you, then you might carry on being wrong forever, and even pass that wrong on to many others in the future.
Jo
I see what you mean and while that is true in many instances, there are instances where the disagreer: is downright rude and engages in personal attacks, and/or is WRONG but insists that s/he is RIGHT, and/or it a chronic disagreer and/or all of the above.
I think for one thing, it takes a lot away from the whole idea of a "disagree" if you have someone who does it all the time (except to his/her "buddies" of course). I can think of individuals who fall into this category, and I don't consider their input to be the least bit constructive.
However, your point about CONSTRUCTIVE disagrees is a good one.:) [Edited at 2005-12-23 02:06]
There are some people who can't handle a disagree at all and take it completely personally. That's when it's time for a moderator to step in and set the person straight. A number of people currently view every 'contribution' they make to Kudoz as a neat way to market themselves. So of course if a "spoilsport" comes in and says the answer doesn't fit the context or is wrong, this interfers with the original intention of trying to 'look good'. Most of the time, it's probably best to sigh and just ignore the answer altogether.Some people are just going to be 'offended' as long as they don't hear applause.
Disagrees can be very helpful and are a heads up that you may have misunderstood something in the source text.
I personally haven't noticed anyone singling out people to disagree with and don't understand what buddy system is being referred to so often, unless it's the one where buddies only choose other buddies' answers no matter what. That one does indeed stand out.
| | | | Michele Fauble
Vereinigte Staaten
Local time: 08:27
Norwegisch > Englisch
+ ...
| Quoting myself | Dec 23, 2005 |
Gerard Michael Burns wrote:
One of my concerns is that an Answerer thanking those who "Agree" is actually thanking them for helping the Answerer to get points.
From the earlier discussion
"I thank those who respond to my answers (whether agrees, disagrees, or neutrals) because they have taken the time to consider my answer and give me feedback. And also because I consider it polite."
"I do think there is a social element involved in saying 'thank you' that some people are not recognizing. We work in a global workplace. Somebody pops in with an agree, comment, whatever, so I say 'thank you'."
| | | | | Agree with a reason | Dec 26, 2005 |
Gerard Michael Burns wrote:
One of my concerns is that an Answerer thanking those who "Agree" is actually thanking them for helping the Answerer to get points. If it were the Asker thanking people for supporting opinions, that would seem more appropriate.
I am heartened, I should mention, when I see those who mark "Agree" (or "Disagree", obviously) and include some piece of evidence or a logical point in support, rather than just a "Me too, me too!", but those who offer such when they Agree are a distinct minority. More often we see people "Agree" without offering any evidence that they have any knowledge of the terms involved.
I believe that when a translator agrees with one of the proposed answers, there should be a reason, because if not, it seems to be a away of helping the other get the points, and this is by no means helpful to the asker and even the answerers. Having more agrees does not mean that the answer is the correct one. As Kim Metzger said, this could be a problem as askers can be misled.
Though I try to justify my agrees, I must admit Ive sent some agrees without any comments, and now that I come to think of it Im aware of the importance of expressing a reason or comment, as Gerard mentioned. Therefore, before agreeing one should consider the following and share it with the answerer: Why do I agree or disagree? Am I familiar with the terms involved? Have I got evidence to support my agree? Have I got experience on the field?
By the way, I find the KudoZ a very interesting feature of the site where we can learn so many things by interacting with colleagues all over the globe!
Regards, Mariana Toscano
[Edited at 2005-12-26 13:52]
| | | | Gina W
Vereinigte Staaten
Local time: 11:27
Mitglied (2003)
Französisch > Englisch
| There ARE chronic disagreers | Dec 26, 2005 |
writeaway wrote:
gad wrote:
Jo Macdonald wrote:
So, imo a disagree is more important than an agree any day, and Ill definitely appreciate that and answer someone who disagrees. Because you can be wrong, and if no one tells you, then you might carry on being wrong forever, and even pass that wrong on to many others in the future.
Jo
I see what you mean and while that is true in many instances, there are instances where the disagreer: is downright rude and engages in personal attacks, and/or is WRONG but insists that s/he is RIGHT, and/or it a chronic disagreer and/or all of the above.
I think for one thing, it takes a lot away from the whole idea of a "disagree" if you have someone who does it all the time (except to his/her "buddies" of course). I can think of individuals who fall into this category, and I don't consider their input to be the least bit constructive.
However, your point about CONSTRUCTIVE disagrees is a good one.:) [Edited at 2005-12-23 02:06]
There are some people who can't handle a disagree at all and take it completely personally. That's when it's time for a moderator to step in and set the person straight. A number of people currently view every 'contribution' they make to Kudoz as a neat way to market themselves. So of course if a "spoilsport" comes in and says the answer doesn't fit the context or is wrong, this interfers with the original intention of trying to 'look good'. Most of the time, it's probably best to sigh and just ignore the answer altogether.Some people are just going to be 'offended' as long as they don't hear applause.
Disagrees can be very helpful and are a heads up that you may have misunderstood something in the source text.
I personally haven't noticed anyone singling out people to disagree with and don't understand what buddy system is being referred to so often, unless it's the one where buddies only choose other buddies' answers no matter what. That one does indeed stand out.
Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with the very good point I made that you "replied" to; however, that does not change the fact that some people disagree chronically, as a habit, and do not add much constructive to KudoZ.
The rest of what you wrote is not on that topic, so it's irrelevant to what I said. But thanks anyway.
| | |
|
|
|
Gina W
Vereinigte Staaten
Local time: 11:27
Mitglied (2003)
Französisch > Englisch
Tom Thumb wrote:
Christine Andersen wrote:
It seems churlish not to accept thanks..
It is also churlish and childish to enter only disagrees and no agrees, just based on dislike of the answerer.
On the other hand, expressing thanks can show relief at receiving peer agreement.
Yes, it is childish of someone to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing.
And since you mentioned this, it must mean that I'm not the only one who noticed that this DOES in fact occur. Thanks.
I agree on your second point, too.
| | | | Andy Watkinson
Spanien
Local time: 17:27
Mitglied
Katalanisch > Englisch
+ ...
Kim M. wrote:
"But here's another problem: whereas many colleagues do in fact appear to be getting things confused, i.e. placing the emphasis on the idea of winning a contest instead of primarily seeking to help the asker and getting the best possible translation into the KudoZ glossary, just as many participants who thank people when they've agreed have no such ulterior motives - they are simply being polite and friendly.
Kim"
I have, after much lurking and stal... See more Kim M. wrote:
"But here's another problem: whereas many colleagues do in fact appear to be getting things confused, i.e. placing the emphasis on the idea of winning a contest instead of primarily seeking to help the asker and getting the best possible translation into the KudoZ glossary, just as many participants who thank people when they've agreed have no such ulterior motives - they are simply being polite and friendly.
Kim"
I have, after much lurking and stalking in the forums for several years, finally found in one of Kims posts something akin to a biologist discovering an entirely new life form.
A mistake.
He wrote - But heres another problem
When we all know he should really have written ......But heres another fact:
And another fact:
Gerard: a paranoid person could imagine a deliberately created web of mutual "Agree" support formed by some persons
To which I can only say that I must be paranoid.
Saludos,
Andy ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Every disagree must be accompanied by an explanation | Dec 28, 2005 |
Tom Thumb wrote:
Christine Andersen wrote:
It seems churlish not to accept thanks..
It is also churlish and childish to enter only disagrees and no agrees, just based on dislike of the answerer.
On the other hand, expressing thanks can show relief at receiving peer agreement.
A disagree without an explanation is not allowed and most disagrees I've seen do come with an explanation as to why the person is disagreeing. Some people chronically provide incorrect answers and so either one makes the effort to disagree and explain or one just ignores them. Personally I find it absurd to dismiss disagrees as non-constructive. No one really enjoys receiving them, but unless they are given as a sort of personal attack on the person answering, they can be quite helpful. And since personal attacks aren't allowed, this should never be the case (theoretically).
As to thanking those who agree-I don't believe in it. People should post peer comments freely. Agree with people they don't like or disagree with friends. We shouldn't be acting like politicians and thanking people for their votes.
| | | | | Vom Thema belegte Seiten: < [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 » Thanking those who "agree" | 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 » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
