| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | not checking glossary Thread poster: RHELLER
|
|---|
RHELLER
United States
Local time: 00:07
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | I repeat my opening posting | Feb 3, 2006 |
Everyday, a number of questions are asked that are already in the glossary.
and second issue: WHY ARE ASKERS/ANSWERERS NOT MAKING GLOSSARY ENTRIES?
Either the KOG is considered an important tool or it is not - adding unclassified responses just confuses the situation and makes it harder to find a definition when one really needs it.
----------------------------------------------
Fred, I apologize if I was unclear.
My concern is the quality of th... See more Everyday, a number of questions are asked that are already in the glossary.
and second issue: WHY ARE ASKERS/ANSWERERS NOT MAKING GLOSSARY ENTRIES?
Either the KOG is considered an important tool or it is not - adding unclassified responses just confuses the situation and makes it harder to find a definition when one really needs it.
----------------------------------------------
Fred, I apologize if I was unclear.
My concern is the quality of the KOG.
Rude people on proz is quite another issue and does not belong in this forum. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Gina W
United States
Local time: 02:07
Member (2003)
French to English
| They may seem off-topic, but they are valid and RELATED points | Feb 3, 2006 |
Rita Heller wrote:
I started this forum to discuss glossary entries - not how rude people can be on kudoz.
It is well known that there is a lot of childish behavior in kudoz - it has been discussed over and over again in the forums.
Rita, with all due respect, my posts belong on this thread, as my opinions first of all have been echoed by others, but more importantly DO directly relate to glossary entries, whether or not people make them, and this proposal of having panels. You have to consider all of these factors before going ahead and asking such a system of panels be implemented.
[Edited at 2006-02-03 16:04]
| | | | Gina W
United States
Local time: 02:07
Member (2003)
French to English
| I disagree completely | Feb 3, 2006 |
Rita Heller wrote:
Everyday, a number of questions are asked that are already in the glossary.
and second issue: WHY ARE ASKERS/ANSWERERS NOT MAKING GLOSSARY ENTRIES?
Either the KOG is considered an important tool or it is not - adding unclassified responses just confuses the situation and makes it harder to find a definition when one really needs it.
----------------------------------------------
Fred, I apologize if I was unclear.
My concern is the quality of the KOG.
Rude people on proz is quite another issue and does not belong in this forum.
They are NOT two separate issues, they are definitely related, like it or not, even if this discussion does not further your proposal for panels. Thanks for acknowleding and respecting this.
| | | | RHELLER
United States
Local time: 00:07
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | why the resistance? | Feb 3, 2006 |
what I do not understand is that you resist opening a new forum...meanwhile, the topic I wanted to discuss will not be discussed.
| | |
|
|
|
Gina W
United States
Local time: 02:07
Member (2003)
French to English
| No "resistance" from me | Feb 3, 2006 |
Rita Heller wrote:
what I do not understand is that you resist opening a new forum...meanwhile, the topic I wanted to discuss will not be discussed.
Please re-read what I just repeated twice - that my posts DO relate to this topic, namely, whether or not there should even BE a panel. I'm not sure why you are resisting including this very important information within THIS discussion.
I asked you to respect my opinions and input as PART of this discussion, but it doesn't seem that you are. Let's now please refer this to a moderator. Thanks.
| | | | sarahl (X)
Local time: 23:07
English to French
+ ...
| Two heads are better than one | Feb 3, 2006 |
Rita,
I think gad made some valid points here. I actually find these forums interesting because we can all contribute in our own way. Different people bring different things to the pot, and I think that's great.
| | | | Fred Neild (X) 
English to Spanish
+ ...
I am sure we can all behave without any help, let's chill out
Rita Heller wrote:
Fred, I apologize if I was unclear.
My concern is the quality of the KOG.
That's OK, I just got a bit lost
Rita, I thought the issue was creating a panel to improve current KOG entries. Then, some of us stated that we didn't agree with this. If this was not the issue I'll refrain from making any further comments on it since nobody is suggesting to create a panel.
Fred
| | | | | Good suggestion Kim | Feb 3, 2006 |
Kim Metzger wrote: gad wrote:
... I have to say that there are also times when a person knows that the term exists in the glossary already but posts it to inquire what the translation is in a particular context.
I know I don't like seeing those little "Ask the Asker" notes that some individuals are so fond of posting, saying things like "This is already in the glossary" or "You're supposed to check the glossary".
Hi gad, People who don't like seeing those little Ask the Asker reminders, should just tell the people whose help they're seeking that they've already checked the glossaries. It's as easy as that. All it takes is a short note to the community letting them know they understand how KudoZ is supposed to work - because there are so many who don't seem to. Answerers aren't mind readers, and they deserve well-prepared questions. Cheers, Kim
I've actually used such an explanation a few times myself. The obvious dictionary/glossary use of the term didn't fit and I needed to discover more info and hear other suggestions. I explained that in the context of my question so peers didn't waste their time producing the standard answer.
Imho, the more info an asker gives about exactly what the problem is, the better it is for all concerned. And 'snippy' comments about using the glossary and/or dicos certainly won't appear.
| | |
|
|
|
Gina W
United States
Local time: 02:07
Member (2003)
French to English
| Yes, that was my understanding, too | Feb 4, 2006 |
Fred Neild wrote:
Rita, I thought the issue was creating a panel to improve current KOG entries. Then, some of us stated that we didn't agree with this. If this was not the issue I'll refrain from making any further comments on it since nobody is suggesting to create a panel.
Fred
Yes, this is how I understood it as well. Thanks for posting this.
| | | | Gina W
United States
Local time: 02:07
Member (2003)
French to English
| By the way... | Feb 4, 2006 |
Kim Metzger wrote: gad wrote:
... I have to say that there are also times when a person knows that the term exists in the glossary already but posts it to inquire what the translation is in a particular context.
I know I don't like seeing those little "Ask the Asker" notes that some individuals are so fond of posting, saying things like "This is already in the glossary" or "You're supposed to check the glossary".
Hi gad, People who don't like seeing those little Ask the Asker reminders, should just tell the people whose help they're seeking that they've already checked the glossaries. It's as easy as that. All it takes is a short note to the community letting them know they understand how KudoZ is supposed to work - because there are so many who don't seem to. Answerers aren't mind readers, and they deserve well-prepared questions. Cheers, Kim
BTW, your reply to this assumed that it's only the actual Asker of a question who might find snippy remarks annoying. I can tell you, and you can even see from this thread, that there are plenty of the rest of us who don't appreciate having to read that, even if we are not the ones who have asked the question (which, I have to say, I am usually NOT, regarding the remarks to which I was referring in my post).
So saying that all the asker has to do is explain doesn't address the fact that answerers - or rather, more often NON-answerers who somehow think they own KudoZ and show absolutely ZERO tolerance regarding questions asked - should really read the CONTEXT of each question very carefully before answering, or before posting any kind of Ask the Asker note (which, btw, is to be used to ask the asker for additional information about the term - NOT to scold someone for having the nerve to post an imperfect question). (And if someone can't do read context, they should then NEVER ask for "more context", because that really is nervy then.)
Of course, going back to the original question Rita asked, regarding questions asked on terms that are already in the glossary, the fact is that context does matter. Just because a term has been posted does not mean that a new question with the same term is not valid. And some people should bother to read the questions thoroughly before piping in with a jerky comment.
There has been WAY too much criticism of askers, and almost NONE of answerers/non-answerers, all over these forums. I really think that tolerance shown to newcomers would produce a much more welcoming and thus diverse, and QUALITY, glossary.
And I think that the idea of panels is interesting, but I just would not want it to serve to alienate anyone further. Too many have felt alienated in the past. Seriously, so many people have told me as much, either in person at a translation conference, by email or whatever. I think it would really benefit the site to get off the kick of "askers should" so much and start to make this a more congenial environment to visit and to continue to visit.
So if such an idea for panels were introduced, I would want this to improve the quality and overall professional environment of KudoZ - NOT to add to certain already existing negative aspects of KudoZ.
[Edited at 2006-02-04 00:49]
| | | | Gina W
United States
Local time: 02:07
Member (2003)
French to English
| Snippy comments should not appear anyway | Feb 4, 2006 |
writeaway wrote:
I've actually used such an explanation a few times myself. The obvious dictionary/glossary use of the term didn't fit and I needed to discover more info and hear other suggestions. I explained that in the context of my question so peers didn't waste their time producing the standard answer.
Imho, the more info an asker gives about exactly what the problem is, the better it is for all concerned. And 'snippy' comments about using the glossary and/or dicos certainly won't appear.
That's nice, but it sounds like you are giving permission for people to be incredibly unprofessionally rude, not to mention not reading the context they cry so much about needing. Snippy comments are NOT constructive. Furthermore, they have NO place on a site where collaboration is the purpose. They are childish, inappropriate, rude and unprofessional. Furthermore, if the comments are posted because the snippy jerk posting the comment doesn't bother to read the context of both questions, then it is without a doubt the snippy jerk who is in the wrong, NOT the Asker who has to spend all this time explaining something that should be obvious to someone supposedly intelligent enough to comment or answer a question.
| | | | Andy Watkinson
Spain
Local time: 08:07
Member
Catalan to English
+ ...
.....Rita wrote:
"Everyday, a number of questions are asked that are already in the glossary.
and second issue: Why are askers/answerers not making glossary entries?"
If I'm not mistaken, the original two issues are these.
I wasn't going to comment on the second, because I wasn't even aware this was the case but the answer would seem to be simple.
When an asker closes a question, the system should automatically make the appropriate entry.
... See more .....Rita wrote:
"Everyday, a number of questions are asked that are already in the glossary.
and second issue: Why are askers/answerers not making glossary entries?"
If I'm not mistaken, the original two issues are these.
I wasn't going to comment on the second, because I wasn't even aware this was the case but the answer would seem to be simple.
When an asker closes a question, the system should automatically make the appropriate entry.
Who it attributes the entry to can then be the suject of another endless, rambling discussion which eventually gets off track.
I think I'll give that one a miss.
Probable objection to this idea?
That all sorts of weird entries will be made - well, they already are, so what's the difference?
A panel such as that suggested by Rita (or anyone else, for that matter) could take care of this.
As regards the first, I think it's true to say that:
(NB.- When I say "asker", I mean someone who purports to be a "translator", not a "non-translator" "psychopath" or "tocacollons".)
a) Far too many askers post questions which are already in the glossaries; and there are nine million bicycles in Beijing. That's a fact.
b) These askers have obviously made no effort whatsoever to find the answer for themselves, be it via the glossaries, Google or, God forbid, dictionaries.
c) They are not special cases. There are no subtle nuances involved which require a new question. We talking about, e.g.
"Including but not limited to"
"Proforma invoice"
"FOB"
"Know all men by these presents"
"Bill of lading"
etc...etc....
Even regional variation is no excuse. Any of the above questions has received answers from (in my languages) Spain and the vast majority of LatAm.
An entirely different issue is the "Ask the asker".
Well, I embarked on a rather sbort-lived campaign (about a year ago) systematically posting answers which consisted of referring the asker to the previous glossary entries, in the vague hope that they might eventually realise that the answer is already there.
Either that, or using the infamous box to remind the supposéd asker that the answer is staring them in the face.
As for asking for more context, what could be wrong with that? A translator-asker who doesn't realise the importance of context simply isn't a translator, just an "asker".
Andy ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
RHELLER
United States
Local time: 00:07
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | thank you, Andy | Feb 4, 2006 |
thank you, Andy
automatic glossary entry sounds wonderful - perhaps someone in support is listening
| | | | | A great idea that seemed to get lost | Feb 8, 2006 |
Hello Rita,
Thank you for your posting; you raise some excellent issues that need to be addressed.
Regarding the incorrect subject classifications, I thought Alfredo had an excellent idea:
"Thus, it may be useful to have an option to make a "change label" proposal - more or less on the line of the change PRO / non-PRO status. It might be restricted to experienced users, and I'd say that at least 2 peers should agree before a label is actually changed."
... See more Hello Rita,
Thank you for your posting; you raise some excellent issues that need to be addressed.
Regarding the incorrect subject classifications, I thought Alfredo had an excellent idea:
"Thus, it may be useful to have an option to make a "change label" proposal - more or less on the line of the change PRO / non-PRO status. It might be restricted to experienced users, and I'd say that at least 2 peers should agree before a label is actually changed."
Brilliant! I imagine it would be relatively easy to implement, if it has the same functionality as PRO/Non-PRO, and could ensure that a glossary entry is classified properly (where it makes the most the most sense), if it requires 2 or 3 peer approvals.
And on another note, I think your idea of having experts periodically review the glossary is also an excellent one, with the key being 'experts'. By spending just a 1-2 hours a week, true experts in specific fields (for example, not the general 'IT' but 'telecommunications hardware' or 'ERP software') could really clean up and enhance the glossary.
And finally, just to throw my 2 cents into the debate, all problems could be avoided if askers simply state 'I looked in the Kudoz glossary but none of the answers seem to fit this context.'
Really, how long does it take to type that simple sentence? And it would avoid the comments (snippy or otherwise) gad (and others) find offensive.
Cheers!
Sylvia ▲ Collapse
| | | | RHELLER
United States
Local time: 00:07
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | thanks, Sylvia for your concise comments | Feb 8, 2006 |
Thank you, Sylvia for addressing these issues.
Several ideas have been proposed in this forum and maybe some of them will actually be implemented one day.
Let us hear from other members and/or Henry / proz staff as to whether any or all of these ideas might be considered desirable.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » not checking glossary | 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 » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
