Order of Answers Thread poster: Henry Hinds
|
|---|
Henry Hinds 
United States
Local time: 12:59
English to Spanish
+ ...
In memoriam
Maybe something could be added, a feature showing the order in which answers have been received (1, 2, 3, etc.). The reason for this is that often two or more easy answers can be given in the same minute, and be the same.
Apparently the order shown is the order in which they were received, but perhaps not all askers know that. Also, if one posts another comment afterwards, it goes to the bottom.
The asker does not have to give the points to the first one, but most are i... See more Maybe something could be added, a feature showing the order in which answers have been received (1, 2, 3, etc.). The reason for this is that often two or more easy answers can be given in the same minute, and be the same.
Apparently the order shown is the order in which they were received, but perhaps not all askers know that. Also, if one posts another comment afterwards, it goes to the bottom.
The asker does not have to give the points to the first one, but most are inclined to do so, which is fair.
I think such a feature would make things easier if it's not too much trouble. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Andy Watkinson
Spain
Local time: 20:59
Member
Catalan to English
+ ...
| Order of answers | Nov 12, 2005 |
Hi Henry,
You mention this feature: "Also, if one posts another comment afterwards, it goes to the bottom."
I believe this is as it should be.
I imagine the reason behind this is to discourage those answerers who fire off an answer just to "get first place" and then come back later with explanations, references etc...
If the person knows that their answer will be relegated to the end if they use this "method" of answering, they'll think twice... See more Hi Henry,
You mention this feature: "Also, if one posts another comment afterwards, it goes to the bottom."
I believe this is as it should be.
I imagine the reason behind this is to discourage those answerers who fire off an answer just to "get first place" and then come back later with explanations, references etc...
If the person knows that their answer will be relegated to the end if they use this "method" of answering, they'll think twice about it and post a "proper" answer, taking their time to look into the context, find references, put together an explanation etc...thus, hopefully, doing away with the "KudoZ Race" which is so damaging to the asker's chances of receiving a decent answer and the reputation of the site in general.
Saludos,
Andy ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Thoughfulness | Nov 12, 2005 |
andycw wrote:
taking their time to look into the context, find references, put together an explanation etc...thus, hopefully, doing away with the "KudoZ Race" which is so damaging to the asker's chances of receiving a decent answer and the reputation of the site in general.
You took the words right out of my mouth, Andy. Yes, do it right the first time and let the race be damned.
Greetings, Kim
| | | | | Speed is not of the essence: quality is | Nov 12, 2005 |
Kim Metzger wrote: andycw wrote:
taking their time to look into the context, find references, put together an explanation etc...thus, hopefully, doing away with the "KudoZ Race" which is so damaging to the asker's chances of receiving a decent answer and the reputation of the site in general.
You took the words right out of my mouth, Andy. Yes, do it right the first time and let the race be damned. Greetings, Kim
I agree too!
| | |
|
|
|
| The speed mania | Nov 12, 2005 |
andycw wrote:
You mention this feature: "Also, if one posts another comment afterwards, it goes to the bottom."
I believe this is as it should be.
I imagine the reason behind this is to discourage those answerers who fire off an answer just to "get first place" and then come back later with explanations, references etc...
This is exactly why the feature was introduced a few years ago. Before it was introduced, the KudoZ point hunter's trick was to get any old thing in as fast as possible and then to hold on to the first-place position while adding one change or explanation or new reference after another.
Now, if they haven't thought through their answers before submitting them, careless answerers pay the penalty of going to the bottom of the pile.
I still see a lot of peer graders agreeing with the first answer even though it may well not be the answer with the best translation and explanation/references. When several correct answers are submitted, I like to give my "agree" to the answer that is best-documented and most thoughtful regardless of when it was submitted.
[Edited at 2005-11-12 18:32]
[Edited at 2005-11-12 18:45]
[Edited at 2005-11-12 18:50]
| | | | NancyLynn
Canada
Local time: 14:59
Member (2002)
French to English
+ ...
MODERATOR | That is best | Nov 12, 2005 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
When several correct answers are submitted, I like to give my "agree" to the answer that is best-documented and most thoughtful regardless of when it was submitted.
That is the best course of action. Indeed the better answer may have come in a few minutes later precisely because that answerer was busy doing research instead of tripping over his/her feet trying to be the first one in.
Nancy
| | | | Henry Hinds
United States
Local time: 12:59
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER In memoriam | Only a small detail | Nov 13, 2005 |
What I was referring to was only a small detail, useful in some cases but not in most. I certainly agree that quality is preferable to speed. However, there are also cases where we know the answer right off the top of our heads. In such cases, then, no research is needed, and the first one in is, or should be the winner.
That does not imply any lack of quality. What it does mean is that we are giving of what we have, our own knowledge. There are so many questions that can be answere... See more What I was referring to was only a small detail, useful in some cases but not in most. I certainly agree that quality is preferable to speed. However, there are also cases where we know the answer right off the top of our heads. In such cases, then, no research is needed, and the first one in is, or should be the winner.
That does not imply any lack of quality. What it does mean is that we are giving of what we have, our own knowledge. There are so many questions that can be answered with a bit of research; so many that I sometimes wonder why we are doing it and the askers are not.
Speed and lack of references may be recklessness or it may be wisdom. Buyer beware, you may get what you pay for ($0), or you may receive a rare gift. This is the Internet, after all, and there are no guarantees.
All this was not my point at the outset, but since others have brought it up I might as well address it.
It's just a detail. The important thing is to elevate our profession to the level it deserves. We have a long way to go, but we're on the right track. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Gina W
United States
Local time: 14:59
Member (2003)
French to English
| I think things are fine as is | Nov 13, 2005 |
If I'm not mistaken, right now the elapsed time is shown for each answer, and yes even the agrees are in order. I don't see any reason to change either order.
| | |
|
|
|
| Documented answers | Nov 13, 2005 |
Henry Hinds wrote:
However, there are also cases where we know the answer right off the top of our heads. In such cases, then, no research is needed, and the first one in is, or should be the winner.
That does not imply any lack of quality. What it does mean is that we are giving of what we have, our own knowledge. There are so many questions that can be answered with a bit of research; so many that I sometimes wonder why we are doing it and the askers are not.
Speed and lack of references may be recklessness or it may be wisdom. Buyer beware, you may get what you pay for ($0), or you may receive a rare gift. This is the Internet, after all, and there are no guarantees.
It's just a detail. The important thing is to elevate our profession to the level it deserves. We have a long way to go, but we're on the right track.
Hi Henry,
I frankly think that lack of proper references has become a plague in some language pairs. I don't know if it's still going on in Spanish and French, but for a long time the standard reference was a page of Google hits pasted into the explanation box showing that the proposed target term is actually used by native speakers - now against the rules: "Do not post an entire page of search engine results inside the explanation box. Enter Web links instead, preferably in the reference boxes provided."
The problem with this technique is that people forgot one crucial step in the translation process: not only showing that the proposed term is actually used by native speakers (a later step) but first of all showing that the proposed term is a legitimate translation in the first place, i.e. providing one of the various ways available to document a translation.
Under this system, askers have frequently been the recipients of totally incorrect translations. The answerer says to himself, "I know the translation and see, there are thousands of Google hits that verify that the term is used by educated native speakers in this context." The trouble is, the translation was wrong in the first place, so who cares whether it's used by native speakers?
If I asked for a translation of a Spanish legal term, and Henry Hinds entered a proposal, I would know that you know what you're talking about and that you may well have it in one of your personal glossaries because you once went to the trouble to verify it. I wouldn't need you to tell me that because I know you are reliable. I would probably also look at your confidence level as an indicator of how sure you are, even though that probably wouldn't be necessary because you tend to tell askers how confident you are in your explanation.
But as a prolific KudoZ participant, you set an example for others. There are hundreds of answerers who are not reliable and who don't know the subject matter and aren't masters of the languages involved. They quickly pick up on the search engine results business and the missing references and the high confidence levels and figure they're entitled to do the same thing. Askers often don't know one answerer from another.
So while you may do as you choose, I urge you to consider the influence you are having on hundreds of others, including newcomers.
Saludos, Kim
| | | | Gina W
United States
Local time: 14:59
Member (2003)
French to English
| Yes, Google is certainly not a language Bible | Nov 13, 2005 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
I don't know if it's still going on in Spanish and French, but for a long time the standard reference was a page of Google hits pasted into the explanation box showing that the proposed target term is actually used by native speakers - now against the rules: "Do not post an entire page of search engine results inside the explanation box. Enter Web links instead, preferably in the reference boxes provided."
The problem with this technique is that people forgot one crucial step in the translation process: not only showing that the proposed term is actually used by native speakers (a later step) but first of all showing that the proposed term is a legitimate translation in the first place, i.e. providing one of the various ways available to document a translation.
Under this system, askers have frequently been the recipients of totally incorrect translations. The answerer says to himself, "I know the translation and see, there are thousands of Google hits that verify that the term is used by educated native speakers in this context." The trouble is, the translation was wrong in the first place, so who cares whether it's used by native speakers?
Excellent point. Google is certainly NOT the be-all, end-all of translation work. Also, it can produce MANY mistranslations. There are plenty of terms that I have seen used repeatedly, but as a native speaker I know that they are just literal translations - and thus MIStranslations. Others may insist that there are such-and-such number of hits on Google, but while Google searches do help, they only go so far.
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Order of Answers | 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! » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
