| Vom Thema belegte Seiten: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | Confession of a KudoZ limits supporter Initiator des Themas: Nikki Graham
|
|---|
| Limiting the number of questions has proved useful. | Aug 1, 2006 |
Nikki Graham wrote:
The point I am trying to make is this:
Limiting the number of questions people can ask is one way of trying to improve the overall quality of questions and answers, but if Proz.com were truly a site for professional translators, then we would not see the questions or answers some of us are complaining about except on very rare occasions.
Hi Nikki,
Agree. That is exactly what happened when the current limit was set up. Number of questions decreased and quality improved.
Kind regards,
Walter
| | | | Mats Wiman 
Schweden
Local time: 19:39
Mitglied (2000)
Deutsch > Schwedisch
+ ...
In stillem Gedenken
Ian Winick wrote:
Mats Wiman wrote:
(Nikki's quote): It has been suggested by those who do not support limits that more questions will improve the glossary, the more the merrier approach.
This is not true without qualification. Good answers AND bad answers will of course BOTH increase.
I really don't think so. I've lost count of the valuable colleagues who simply felt they were wasting their time and left. If the number of questions doubles, that means that there is - deep breath, Mats - twice as much crap to wade through. Not a positive development as far as I am concerned.
I do not have to take a deep breath. It is exactly what I said.
If you limit questions the number of good questions will go down - just as the bad ones.
Mats Wiman: Prerequisite is though, that you refrain from judging the asker, the answerers, the peers and their respective motives, qualifications, ownership of dictionaries, being navite speaker etc. and concentrate on the original fantastic idea with KudoZ:
A retrievable assistance system for words and phrases - sometimes containing interesting LINGUISTIC discussions
and not a battling ground where some are better than others.
A few points on this:
(1) Assistance is the key word - "rubbish answers" are no assistance at all
Nobody has ever said that rubbish answers are desirable. It is the right to give rubbish answers which guarantees many answers and thus hopefully some good ones.
(2) Some ARE better than others - and only a fool would think otherwise. - knowing your limits is a part of being a professional. Which, for example, is why I steer clear of technical questions, because I can barely change a plug.
Quite. In my poor English, my point is that some hold themselves better than others.
(3) For all his altruism, I suspect that if the points system were abolished, we wouldn't see Mats for dust.
Right! The Kudoz points is an integral part of the KudoZ system and for me too. I am not preaching altruism - on the contrary.
What I am saying is that every answer is welcome and that is not up to Mats Wiman or Ian Winnick to pass judgement - it is up to the asker and the outsourcers.
| | | | | We work on quality and we listen | Aug 1, 2006 |
CMJ_Trans wrote:
Doubtless this will be squashed but here goes....
This, and all the other exchanges about the Proz experience that have been going on for the past few days all follow the same pattern.
Well-intentioned people are genuinely trying to help with useful and interesting suggestions.
In return, site staff and moderators toe the party line and find every excuse in the world for maintaining the status quo.
The status quo is killing Proz, which was originally a great idea.
Wake up you guys and do something (not simply messing around with the limits on the number of questions - talk about cataplasms on wooden legs!) .
Organise a powwow or a working party of people with ideas and a true awareness of the problem before it is too late.
But on your own heads be it if you do nothing - and no, this is not a threat, it is a word to the wise!
Please leave moderators out of your picture. You can't blame moderators for "maintaining the status quo", as site policy and development are defined by staff. Moderators are consulted and their advice is greatly appreciated, but at the end of the day any responsibility for implementation falls on staff.
We (staff) are concerned about quality, both of KudoZ and of every other section of the site, and we constantly work on improving ProZ.com.
We listen to suggestions, we implement some, we store some for implementation later on, we just disagree with some of them.
I imagine that decline or growth are (at least partially) in the eye of the beholder, but I fail to see ProZ.com as a decaying place.
There is much room for improvement in KudoZ, and we are working on more than one line, but we don't believe that lowering the current limits will do the trick.
My sincere thanks for caring about the site, I really mean it.
Enrique
| | | | | Wasting our breath? | Aug 1, 2006 |
I'd love to see limits. Strict limits. I'd like to see people who post hundreds of questions and contribute nothing in return ("contribute" including money to help run the site) be prevented from doing so. I wish people would use "disagree" more to discourage crap answers/answerers. I'd like to see a lot of things, quite frankly
But, probably for financial reasons, the site largely aims for quantity not quality (plus,... See more I'd love to see limits. Strict limits. I'd like to see people who post hundreds of questions and contribute nothing in return ("contribute" including money to help run the site) be prevented from doing so. I wish people would use "disagree" more to discourage crap answers/answerers. I'd like to see a lot of things, quite frankly
But, probably for financial reasons, the site largely aims for quantity not quality (plus, to be fair, quality IS hard to judge, who decides who meets the standard? etc. etc.). The site ethos is to be open to all. And the majority of people voted either to keep the limits as they are, or expressed no opinion on the subject.
(I'll skip over the fact that the poll was very badly worded, such that if you were in favour of a stricter limit than that suggested, you could have been inclined to effectively vote in favour of the current limit.)
I see no alternative other than to go along with the majority view. You could argue that there was a time when the majority view saw no reason to give women the vote, or saw nothing wrong with slavery, or child labour, that it takes a minority to enlighten a majority, or that for evil to triumph all that is required is for good men to do nothing. You could be right, if so, keep trying. Personally, I think we're in a minority (if quite a large one) and we're wasting our breath.
[Edited at 2006-08-01 14:18] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Maria Karra
Vereinigte Staaten
Local time: 13:39
Mitglied (2000)
Griechisch > Englisch
+ ...
Charlie wrote:
(I'll skip over the fact that the poll was very badly worded, such that if you were in favour of a stricter limit than that suggested, you could have been inclined to effectively vote in favour of the current limit.)
Speaking as a regular member and not as a moderator:
I may be wrong, but I got the impression that several collegues voted in favor of keeping the current limit because of those few occasions when they'd need to ask a lot of questions at once (let's just call them emergency situations). A stricter limit wouldn't allow them to do that. It's not those rare occasions that we're trying to address by suggesting a lower limit. The problem is that some askers don't consider KudoZ to be the last resort but the "first resort" and try to get colleagues to do their work for them.
What if we had one more option in the poll along the lines of "reduce the current limit but make it possible to exceed it 3-4 times a year" (I think somebody suggested a "panic button" in the poll-discussion thread. How about being able to use that panic button on those few occasions? Wouldn't that option offer the best of both worlds?).
Maria
[Edited at 2006-08-01 14:45]
| | | | | But the point is... | Aug 1, 2006 |
Maria Karra wrote:
The problem is that some askers don't consider KudoZ to be the last resort but the "first resort" and try to get colleagues to do their work for them.
[Edited at 2006-08-01 14:45]
.... that there are vast numbers of people on this site who apparently see nothing wrong with that whatsoever, either as an asker or as an answerer. And having high limits can only encourage, or at least tacitly condone, that attitude.
I am sorely tempted to start flooding the site with 60 questions a week (while continuing to do my own research, of course ) and wonder whether, if lots of us did the same thing as a concerted effort, the point might be successfully made....
| | | | Mats Wiman
Schweden
Local time: 19:39
Mitglied (2000)
Deutsch > Schwedisch
+ ...
In stillem Gedenken | Freedom of speech is important | Aug 1, 2006 |
Nikki Graham wrote:
The point I am trying to make is this:
Limiting the number of questions people can ask is one way of trying to improve the overall quality of questions and answers, but if Proz.com were truly a site for professional translators, then we would not see the questions or answers some of us are complaining about except on very rare occasions.
Does that make my apparent contradictory statement any clearer?
I am sorry, No. I see no relation between the two
I know you do not agree with me, Mats, but I have a right to voice my opinion as much as you do, I believe.
Most certainly. I have had no intention to deprive you of that right (how could I or what made you suspect it).
| | | | Nikki Graham
Vereinigtes Königreich
Local time: 18:39
Spanisch > Englisch
THEMENSTARTER | Another attempt | Aug 1, 2006 |
Mats Wiman wrote:
Nikki Graham wrote:
The point I am trying to make is this:
Limiting the number of questions people can ask is one way of trying to improve the overall quality of questions and answers, but if Proz.com were truly a site for professional translators, then we would not see the questions or answers some of us are complaining about except on very rare occasions.
Does that make my apparent contradictory statement any clearer?
I am sorry, No. I see no relation between the two
Well, Mats, I really don't know how to explain it any more clearly without being very blunt and possibly offending people. If you open the door wide and let everyone in, then don't be surprised if the result is a mess. Other people in this thread have already expressed what I am trying to say.
Mats Wiman wrote:
Nikki Graham wrote:
I know you do not agree with me, Mats, but I have a right to voice my opinion as much as you do, I believe.
Most certainly. I have had no intention to deprive you of that right (how could I or what made you suspect it).
Perhaps from the prerequisite and refraining bit and all the big black stuff.
| | |
|
|
|
Kim Metzger
Mexiko
Local time: 11:39
Deutsch > Englisch
| Expressing opinions in forums | Aug 1, 2006 |
Mats Wiman wrote:
I know you do not agree with me, Mats, but I have a right to voice my opinion as much as you do, I believe.
Most certainly. I have had no intention to deprive you of that right (how could I or what made you suspect it).
I hope you'll clarify the remark you made in an earlier thread, Mats:
Mats Wiman wrote:
Keep your thoughts to yourselves
does not mean that you are not entitked to your opinion or that you are not entitled to air them, just as little as "Mind you own business" was.
What I am referring to is this incessant criticism of questions, answers and answerers to no avail. KudoZ was created not to have questions, answers and answerers judged by you or besserwissers but to offer an opportunity for translators and others to get help or help.
Your elitist discussions about what is chaff or not is uninteresting and pathetic.
Answer questions or do not, but don't whine when others (in your view not enough qualified persons) dare to ask or answer questions.
KudoZ is a service - not a club.
| | | | Mats Wiman
Schweden
Local time: 19:39
Mitglied (2000)
Deutsch > Schwedisch
+ ...
In stillem Gedenken | KudoZ activity is the subject | Aug 1, 2006 |
Nikki Graham wrote:
Mats Wiman wrote:
Nikki Graham wrote:
I know you do not agree with me, Mats, but I have a right to voice my opinion as much as you do, I believe.
Most certainly. I have had no intention to deprive you of that right (how could I or what made you suspect it).
Perhaps from the prerequisite and refraining bit and all the big black stuff.
The "prerequisite and refraining bit" both refer to attitudes in the KudoZ arena, not forums. (What is the "big black stuff"?)
I am hoping for us all to agree that in a community like ProZ.com, attitudes play a paramount part in creating and maintaing a successful site.
I am planning to write an article "ProZ.com what it is, what it isn't and what it should be - a member's view" in the hope that members will understand what I am trying to say, instead of misreading my statements.
One of the important facets of those attitudes are the tools "Mind your own business" and "Keep your thoughts to yourself" for which I have been bashed by some (see my answer to Kim below).
[Edited at 2006-08-01 16:08]
| | | | | on which basis do you want to shut the door? | Aug 1, 2006 |
Nikki Graham wrote:
Well, Mats, I really don't know how to explain it any more clearly without being very blunt and possibly offending people. If you open the door wide and let everyone in, then don't be surprised if the result is a mess.
I am not offended, but yes, that was blunt.
And I probably miss your point.
However, this site is open to all, it's not an élite club, nor is it an academic circle. It's a community, and KudoZ and the glossary are only two of many features.
People contribute in many different ways, some more than others and some not at all, but I don't mind what other people do, there is plenty of space to "let everyone in". Why would you want to shut that door?
Bewildered in Rome, D.
| | | | Mats Wiman
Schweden
Local time: 19:39
Mitglied (2000)
Deutsch > Schwedisch
+ ...
In stillem Gedenken | It's a matter of attitudes | Aug 1, 2006 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
I hope you'll clarify the remark you made in an earlier thread, Mats:
Mats Wiman wrote:
Keep your thoughts to yourselves
does not mean that you are not entitked to your opinion or that you are not entitled to air them, just as little as "Mind you own business" was.
What I am referring to is this incessant criticism of questions, answers and answerers to no avail. KudoZ was created not to have questions, answers and answerers judged by you or besserwissers but to offer an opportunity for translators and others to get help or help.
Your elitist discussions about what is chaff or not is uninteresting and pathetic.
Answer questions or do not, but don't whine when others (in your view not enough qualified persons) dare to ask or answer questions.
KudoZ is a service - not a club.
You can see the answer in the quote box, really.
What I am criticizing ist the attitude of a number of limit-lovers which also permeates into the KudoZ arena, built on a feeling of superiority visavi the less experienced. Such attitudes are destructive and do not take into account that KudoZ is a part of an Internet community, which has a number of consequences for one's behaviour.
ProZ.com is not a guild or a club even if some seem to believe just that.
| | |
|
|
|
Nikki Graham
Vereinigtes Königreich
Local time: 18:39
Spanisch > Englisch
THEMENSTARTER | To bewildered in Rome | Aug 1, 2006 |
Daniela Zambrini wrote:
People contribute in many different ways, some more than others and some not at all, but I don't mind what other people do, there is plenty of space to "let everyone in". Why would you want to shut that door?
Bewildered in Rome, D.
a) Have no idea what your reference to people's contributions is trying to say
b) I thought this was a site for (dare I say professional?) translators, not "everyone"
c) I don't believe I said anything about shutting doors, so please don't twist what I say
[Edited at 2006-08-01 16:40]
| | | | Mats Wiman
Schweden
Local time: 19:39
Mitglied (2000)
Deutsch > Schwedisch
+ ...
In stillem Gedenken | I can't help reiterating: | Aug 1, 2006 |
To believe that restricting the number of questions would bring quality is just as futile as asking half of the market stands to be eliminated from a market square in the belief that this would improve the average quality of the vendor products.
| | | | Nikki Graham
Vereinigtes Königreich
Local time: 18:39
Spanisch > Englisch
THEMENSTARTER
Mats Wiman wrote:
The "prerequisite and refraining bit" both refer to attitudes in the KudoZ arena, not forums. (What is the "big black stuff"?)
I am hoping for us all to agree that in a community like ProZ.com, attitudes play a paramount part in creating and maintaing a successful site.
the big black stuff was me just trying to be slightly light-hearted. I was referring to your use of larger size bold text, because I take it as online "shouting".
You are, of course, dead right about attitudes being all-important to maintaining (perhaps I should say regaining at this point?) a pleasant working atmosphere. As one of the very people that has been targeted by your "mind your own business" comments in the past, please forgive me if I am "touchy" about this issue, but I'm sure that it will not have escaped your notice that you are one of the main people I was quoting at the beginning of this thread. Personally, I was particularly offended by the following:
I hate to see all these negative commentators in various fora vent their spite upon people who are asking for (from their elevated vantage point) too much or too simple help and who are not as professional and knowledgeable as the self-appointed critics.
and I thought it was necessary to explain (please notice I said explain, not convince) that our reasons for suggesting limits have nothing at all to do with your assumptions just in case there is anyone out there who actually believes your statements are true.
Regards,
Nikki Graham
(who doesn't actually think she's better than all the rest, never has and never will)
[Edited at 2006-08-01 16:57]
| | | | | Vom Thema belegte Seiten: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Confession of a KudoZ limits supporter | Pastey |
|---|
Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
| | Wordfast Pro |
|---|
Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
