| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | Ideas to encourage further (proper) use of the KudoZ disagree feature Thread poster: Henry Dotterer
|
|---|
Terry Gilman 
Germany
Local time: 20:35
Member (2003)
German to English
+ ...
Dear Henry,
Thanks for asking instead of just deciding by fiat.
I'm glad to see people here are not sensitive to colors, but I have to say that my experience in one-on-one editing has been that red ink does hurt and irritate people, even when they know they should be "above it all as adults." Same experience with loaded terms such as the ones Enrique mentions. The judgmental talk that emerged last year really turned me off.
I would prefer to see a steady... See more Dear Henry,
Thanks for asking instead of just deciding by fiat.
I'm glad to see people here are not sensitive to colors, but I have to say that my experience in one-on-one editing has been that red ink does hurt and irritate people, even when they know they should be "above it all as adults." Same experience with loaded terms such as the ones Enrique mentions. The judgmental talk that emerged last year really turned me off.
I would prefer to see a steady stream of correct suggestions and firm-but-friendly humorous/humane/ objective commentary as a form of role-modeling in the KudoZ, not piloring people, and less self-righteousness in general. As far as I can see, this can only be provided by leaders/participants and moderators per language pair. And some pairs need more attention of this type than others, i.e., no across-the-board solution.
I kind of like the counterintuitive idea of making agrees red and disagrees blue, but, in my ideal world, the terms agree, neutral, disagree should simply be black on white since they mean what they mean. Enforcing the requirement to supply a linguistic reason for disagrees (and neutrals, ideally, as well - since neutral is used as a substitute for disagree in some pairs) seems right to me. Same as for the askers who "find answers elsewhere" - they should somehow - even if only by peer pressure - be required to say what it is, for Pete's sake. At the same time, there should be some understanding for people who have to close answers without having found a convincing solution. The explanation is what counts and is helpful for people who look up previous KudoZ answers, a really valuable aspect of the site.
Only people who don't work/don't contribute don't make mistakes - I think the "hide" option should be left as it is for blunders whether "shameful" or just "hasty." I hate the idea of putting people in pilories/witch burning. It is enough to show the ratio of questions to answers, so you can see who has severe imbalances. That was a good addition.
I wasn't aware that the information page on KudoZ had been suppressed, but, if that is the case, agree that it ought to be restored. Newbies who don't know that they should lurk for a while before jumping into the fray (normal in any portal - everyone here must know the famous IT injunction, RTFM) could be directed to read the KudoZ page as a signal that they are out of line. This page could include a list of the type Klaus suggested for appropriate disagrees, but I agree that such a list shouldn't be automated, because automated answers would be less interesting or informative.
What are these commentaries on glossaries that Vladimir mentions? Haven't seen those, but sounds useful.
All the best,
Terry ▲ Collapse
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 11:35
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| A possible solution? | Aug 13, 2006 |
I've noticed that in most cases "rubbish" answers are suggested by answerers who are relatively new to ProZ. Feedback from colleagues does have an effect, and the quality of the answers suggested by new users and members tends to improve over time, as they are made aware of their "deficiencies".
I would propose to help answerers speed up this learning process. There should be a clear set of rules and guidelines for answering KudoZ questions, and answerers should be required to show... See more I've noticed that in most cases "rubbish" answers are suggested by answerers who are relatively new to ProZ. Feedback from colleagues does have an effect, and the quality of the answers suggested by new users and members tends to improve over time, as they are made aware of their "deficiencies".
I would propose to help answerers speed up this learning process. There should be a clear set of rules and guidelines for answering KudoZ questions, and answerers should be required to show that they have familiarized themselves with these rules and guidelines by reading a "how-to" article on answering KudoZ questions, and then passing a short test, as is now required in order to reclassify questions as Pro or Non-Pro.
This requirement, together with the increased use of the disagree comment option by colleagues, could be expected to lead to a reduction in the number of "rubbish" and other "problem" answers.
For those answerers who persist in suggesting "rubbish", we could have a "vote to urge (require?) answerer to reread how-to article and redo test" button.
[Edited at 2006-08-13 07:30] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Up the hill backwards | Aug 13, 2006 |
1)
I don't see any reason to change the colours. We don't object to red stop signs on the roads! But it wouldn't bother me if the colours were changed.
(In our office, we always use red when proofreading, for the best-of-all reason that it stands out so well against black/white. It's harder to miss a page with red on it. Once that reasoning has been made clear to all affected, no one objects or takes it personally.)
2)
I don't really know what to make of Kim's "per... See more 1)
I don't see any reason to change the colours. We don't object to red stop signs on the roads! But it wouldn't bother me if the colours were changed.
(In our office, we always use red when proofreading, for the best-of-all reason that it stands out so well against black/white. It's harder to miss a page with red on it. Once that reasoning has been made clear to all affected, no one objects or takes it personally.)
2)
I don't really know what to make of Kim's "personal comments" suggestion, though the linguistic/personal threshold does need some defining.
But I do think a (long) pull-down list of ACCEPTABLE reasons for disagreeing would be very useful (but by all means leave an option for those who wish to modify them or compose their own reason). I have often wanted to disagree but found that formulating an acceptable reason (and not offending anyone) was simply too time-consuming, so I've given up. (On other occasions I've just gone ahead and offended them.)
3)
My thoughts on the hiding issue are here (if anyone missed that thread and is interested, but also because I feel slightly misquoted):
http://www.proz.com/post/396450#396450
(And please note: I did suggest a few jokers.)
Ciao,
Cilian
P.S. Henry, Approx. what percentage of answers are hidden? I'm curious. It would be useful information to have when considering the feasibility of other suggestions (e.g. not being able to hide answers without someone/moderator approving the reason given).
P.P.S. Henry, Have you ever considered abolishing the BrowniZ for peer comments (agree/disagree)? Rewarding people for clicking haphazardly on any "agree" they choose is counterproductive. I think the hard core would continue to air their views even if there were no points. There's nothing preventing me from accumulating B-points by agreeing with a suggestion I can't even read, let alone understand. Or should I post this in a separate thread? It is related, though. The "proper use of disagree" is an offshoot of the recent improve-the-quality drive.
P.P.P.S: Henry (again), When you started the site, was it a happy-go-lucky venture? Or did you ever envisage it getting so earnest? Again, just interested? ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Note from a ProZ.com beginner | Aug 13, 2006 |
Ideas presented for KudoZ, to encourage further (proper) use of the disagree feature to improve the quality of KudoZ discourse:
* Making disagrees blue (or colorless) (Nik-On/Off, langnet)
* Listing examples of clearly personal comments of the type that are not permitted. (Kim)
* Show the names of those who have hidden answers and their reasons given". (Cilian)
Thoughts?
1)A couple of days ago, starting to use KudoZ, I gave my firs... See more Ideas presented for KudoZ, to encourage further (proper) use of the disagree feature to improve the quality of KudoZ discourse:
* Making disagrees blue (or colorless) (Nik-On/Off, langnet)
* Listing examples of clearly personal comments of the type that are not permitted. (Kim)
* Show the names of those who have hidden answers and their reasons given". (Cilian)
Thoughts?
1)A couple of days ago, starting to use KudoZ, I gave my first 'disagree', and got 'told off', that' here we don't take&use 'disagree' lightly'.
Well, I understood it was a feature meant to help to improve the quality, but I've noticed since, that people prefer to agree (including myself, I'm avoiding it now)
So - I am FOR changing the 'disagree' colour - it really does effect the perception, there are studies on the color influence
Perhaps if it was e.g. orange, people would not be so reluctant to use it, and I think it's vital for the site!
2) I think we know, what the personal comments are)
3) why? I have made a mistake today, and gave an incorrect answer, after looking twice, I noticed my mistake - made a note, and will remove it, asa a correct answer appears - I don't want to confuse anyone.
Perhaps as a 'beginner' I don't understand the idea - personally I don't care, I my name will be shown
Well, 5 AM here so just a word to express my delight with the site! So glad I discovered it! ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Linguasphere
France
Local time: 20:35
Spanish to French
+ ...
| Why more and more rules and less and less rights ? | Aug 13, 2006 |
Nikki Graham wrote:
* Listing examples of clearly personal comments of the type that are not permitted. (Kim)
Personally, I would prefer to continue to explain why I don't support an answer in my own words and I don't much like the way we are so often forced to live in a "box" in our modern society. Please don't curtail any more of our "freedom".
I would prefer too because I do not really see how "pre-answers" could really explain the point of disagree.
Thank you for asking no more curtail of our "freedom"!
I do not really understand why people are so passionates with Kudoz, as it was said it is a game : sometimes you win, sometimes you loose because you are not the quickest answerer or because your answer does not suit perfectly with the context's asker or otherwise.
* Show the names of those who have hidden answers and their reasons given". (Cilian)
As I have ever said in another thread, I do not understand why the abuse of some should private all the community of some rights. I do not use this option a lot but I know it exists and I think showing the names of those who hide their answers is like "denoucement", so I am totally against this idea and I do not see any interest in this.
And please may I ask you before implementing this idea to propose a poll like it was done with the point of the decrease of the kudoz questions to 15/45 instead of 20/60? I think in this case all the community should have to express about it.
Furthermore, I think that "punish" disagreer' abuse by removing kudoz points or otherwise is a little bit "dictatorial". Who can define the limits of abuse, if you disagree more than 3 times a week for example, is it an abuse? It is not really a good point to improve the use of the disagree button, if you have to tell you before using it, I use it or not or am I going to be punished for using it? You are going to use it in extreme cases only. We are not at school and we do not need to have "good points" or "bad points", I think the majority of us do not abuse and we do not need more and more rules.
As I have ever said in another thread too, I would like to suggest to have another box in addition with the three existing, something like "Comment" or "Ask the answerer" as it exists for the asker. Because sometimes you do not agree, you are not neutral, you do not disagree, you just want to ask something to the answerer and I think this kind of box may be very useful to improve kudoz quality. Sometimes I want to ask or to tell something to the answerer regarding his/her answer but as it does not exist an appropriate box for this, I give up.
[Edited at 2006-08-13 09:56]
[Edited at 2006-08-13 09:56]
| | | | CMJ_Trans (X)
Local time: 20:35
French to English
+ ...
| These 3 questions are interesting but the real issue goes much deeper… | Aug 13, 2006 |
I have read all the points made so far and have picked out the following:
Michele Fauble said: “I've noticed that in most cases "rubbish" answers are suggested by answerers who are relatively new to ProZ.com. Feedback from colleagues does have an effect, and the quality of the answers suggested by new users and members tends to improve over time, as they are made aware of their "deficiencies".
There should be a clear set of rules and guidelines for answering KudoZ questions... See more I have read all the points made so far and have picked out the following:
Michele Fauble said: “I've noticed that in most cases "rubbish" answers are suggested by answerers who are relatively new to ProZ.com. Feedback from colleagues does have an effect, and the quality of the answers suggested by new users and members tends to improve over time, as they are made aware of their "deficiencies".
There should be a clear set of rules and guidelines for answering KudoZ questions, and answerers should be required to show that they have familiarized themselves with these rules.”
I think Michele has hit the nail on the head in saying that people who join the site need to understand the rules of the game. When I first discovered ProZ.com, for example, I naively thought “disagree” was the option you selected when you did not agree with a peer’s suggestion. For whatever reason. People more site-savvy than I fell over themselves to put me right. In site etiquette, I was told, you use “neutral” to express such things. Well, I had been wondering what the neutral button was for, because although I could see the point of voting to support a suggestion (agree) or to warn “asker” it was wrong (disagree), I couldn’t imagine why you would vote to say you neither particularly agreed nor disagreed. Now I knew. I still think that “neutral” is superfluous to requirements and that “agree” and “disagree” should suffice, provided they are handed out with discretion and justification. Instead of “neutral” some sort of “comments” box could be added, so those who neither strongly agree nor disagree could make the odd pertinent remark (I can think of cases where this could be useful).
Cilian - "Henry, Have you ever considered abolishing the BrowniZ for peer comments (agree/disagree)? Rewarding people for clicking haphazardly on any "agree" they choose is counterproductive. I think the hard core would continue to air their views even if there were no points. There's nothing preventing me from accumulating B-points by agreeing with a suggestion I can't even read, let alone understand."
I also agree with Cilian that giving BrowniZ to people simply because they click on “agree” makes no rational sense. Plus which – sorry, not exactly on the topic but important, so please bear with me – what does one do with these BrowniZ anyway, when one has got them? Non-members can use them to bid for jobs but members can bid without them, and most non-members don’t want to bid in the first place from what I can gather. I have thousands of the things and I wish I could think what to do with them – trade them in for air miles perhaps? Of course, this begs the whole bigger issue of why points at all but, for Henry’s sake and to spare him exasperation, I’ll pass on that one here……
So maybe to have just “agree” and “disagree” – perhaps in different colours, if the red “disagree” is too much like a rag to a bull to some, may be a partial answer to this small part of a much bigger problem. Also having a sample list of reasons for “disagrees” and of unacceptable reasons for disagreeing might help some people understand the rules of the game. However, I also agree with:
Nikki - "Personally, I would prefer to continue to explain why I don't support an answer in my own words and I don't much like the way we are so often forced to live in a "box" in our modern society. Please don't curtail any more of our "freedom"."
I therefore think that the list I mentioned should only be indicative.
On the subject of hiding answers, I think it should be discouraged and that should it should be made clear that there must be a very good reason (verified by Moderators, if you must) for this to be allowed. For example, since I work in several language permutations, I have been known to offer a translation in the wrong language in all good faith. In such cases, I have hidden the answer as soon as I have realised my mistake. But, I never hide an answer given in good faith that subsequently is shown to be out in left field because “asker” adds some more information putting things in a totally different light. I would NOT expect peers to give me a “disagree” in such cases, any more than I would do that to them. But hiding often makes nonsense of earlier comments by other contributors and also removes a chance to show people the importance of context. On this subject I agree with Virygnet as below:
Virgynet –"Furthermore, I think that "punish" disagreer' abuse by removing KudoZ points or otherwise is a little bit "dictatorial". Who can define the limits of abuse, if you disagree more than 3 times a week for example, is it an abuse? It is not really a good point to improve the use of the disagree button, if you have to tell you before using it, I use it or not or am I going to be punished for using it? You are going to use it in extreme cases only. We are not at school and we do not need to have "good points" or "bad points", I think the majority of us do not abuse and we do not need more and more rules."
So finally to answer Henry’s questions:
1) If you must but why not address the real issue of which this is just the tip of the iceberg?
2) Yes, provided this list is purely indicative and people are free to make their own comments in their own words
3) Only if the reasons for hiding are abusive.
Last, but far from least, please support the “disagree” drive to help raise the standard of answers on the site. But also please let’s not launch retaliatory battles in so doing. Thanks. ▲ Collapse
| | | | mediamatrix (X)
Local time: 14:35
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Overall page presentation is important here. | Aug 13, 2006 |
CMJ_Trans wrote:
(...) I never hide an answer given in good faith that subsequently is shown to be out in left field because “asker” adds some more information putting things in a totally different light. I would NOT expect peers to give me a “disagree” in such cases, any more than I would do that to them. But hiding often makes nonsense of earlier comments by other contributors and also removes a chance to show people the importance of context.
One of the things that makes that kind of reasoning difficult on Kudoz is the pseudo-random order of information on the page and the incoherent timing information.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear that:
Questions are time-stamped on arrival in the system.
The Table summarising answers received is in descending net points order, and then reverse chronological order if net points are equal. There is no time-stamp here.
The detailed replies are displayed in increasing order of time of arrival - but if an answerer adds a note, that answer
goes to the bottom of the list, so list position is not a good guide to order of delivery. Answers are time-stamped relative to the time of posting of the question, idem for notes added to an existing answer.
Peer Agrees/Neutrals/Disagrees are in chronological order. These entries are time-stamped with respect to the time of the answer that is being commented upon, not the time of submission of the question by the asker.
Answer's replies to peer comments are not time-stamped. And they can be edited, making other information on the page irrelevant (or even appear 'stupid') - and in some cases they contain information relating to other answers than those to which they are attached.
Nothing at all is time-stamped in the 'Ask the asker' zone - and it is extremely difficult to determine who is 'talking' to who in this zone (replying to comments in the same zone? commenting on answers?). 'Cacography' is the word that comes to mind here...
Asker's comments to specific answers are also not time-stamped. Idem when the asker 'declines' an answer.
When the asker selects the 'most useful answer', there is no time-stamp on this operation.
So, short of pulling out a pocket calculator, there is no way to know whether, for example:
- an inadequate answer has been given before, or after, the asker has given additional context in response to a question from an answerer;
- an inadequate answer has been given after it has already been made clear that similar answers were out of context by a 'decline' given by the asker for another answer;
- an answer (good or bad) has been given after the asker has closed the question, and consequently has escaped the peer grading process altogether.
With such poor transparency regarding the timing of the information flowing into a question, it is all too easy to misjudge the quality of any specific answer, with the risk of issuing an unwarranted Disagree to someone who, in fact, had not seen all the context, or, on the contrary, giving an unjustified Agree to someone who had all the evidence in front of their eyes and 'still' came up with a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer.
I would advocate a complete restructuring of the Kudoz question/answer page, with all data displayed in strict chronological order.
| | | | Francis Lee (X)
Local time: 20:35
German to English
+ ...
| Red and in caps. and Century Gothic - not "hint of eggshell" with Edwardian font | Aug 14, 2006 |
IanW wrote:
(1) Making disagrees blue (or colorless)
Disagree: I fail to see what use this would be except to the amateur pyschologists among us.
Ditto. I've been dealt radioactive-red Disagrees before. It's the content, not the colour, that I'm interested in. And given the choice, I'd keep the red.
IanW wrote:
(2) Listing examples of clearly personal comments of the type that are not permitted.
... we are all adults who should be able to cope with constructive criticism.
Indeed. And I would like to see some sort of guidelines that are more specific than that little Kudoz clause.
IanW wrote:
(3) Show the names of those who have hidden answers and their reasons given".
... I would also show the number of agrees and disagrees the answer received before being hidden.
Absolutely. We've all seen it before: someone breaking the 10-second-reply barrier by using voice recog. software, getting 11 Agrees ... and then seeing their suggestion wither just as quickly as crucial context is subsequently revealed.
| | |
|
|
|
| dropdown "disagree" menu | Aug 16, 2006 |
Cilian O'Tuama wrote: I don't really know what to make of Kim's "personal comments" suggestion, though the linguistic/personal threshold does need some defining. But I do think a (long) pull-down list of ACCEPTABLE reasons for disagreeing would be very useful (but by all means leave an option for those who wish to modify them or compose their own reason). I have often wanted to disagree but found that formulating an acceptable reason (and not offending anyone) was simply too time-consuming, so I've given up. (On other occasions I've just gone ahead and offended them.) Ciao, Cilian
I have no particular opinion on any of Henry's proposals, but I believe that a dropdown menu of standardised comments would go a long way to defusing the current situation where disagrees are seen as personal attacks.
| | | | Gina W
United States
Local time: 14:35
Member (2003)
French to English
| Disagrees should stay red | Aug 20, 2006 |
Henry wrote:
Ideas presented for KudoZ, to encourage further (proper) use of the disagree feature to improve the quality of KudoZ discourse:
* Making disagrees blue (or colorless) (Nik-On/Off, langnet)
* Listing examples of clearly personal comments of the type that are not permitted. (Kim)
* Show the names of those who have hidden answers and their reasons given". (Cilian)
Thoughts?
.......................................
History: cbolton's "disagree drive" thread had to be locked due to rules violations. I am reposting to get feedback on a few concrete proposals that arose in that discussion that I feel are worthy of consideration.
I would ask any participants in this new thread to post your thoughts on these proposals with just one or two posts.
Thanks in advance!
I disagree with changing the color for disagrees. I think that red is fine. I do think that the rules for disagrees should strictly prohibit OVERdiagreeing on a question. Any professional should know to just disagree and move on. Also, being a chronic disagreer is something that should be counted statistically, discouraged and possibly even disciplined. Like, if someone insists on posting 500 disagrees and about 30 agrees over a few months time, then that person doesn't seem to be using those peer comments correctly and for their intended purposes.
Nasty personal comments are inappropriate and should not only be removed, the person should be warned that continued behavior will result in some sort of disciplinary action. As far as I know, people who constantly make rude and insulting remarks in peer comments (and elsewhere in KudoZ) are not in any way punished or disciplined for this, other than maybe individual warnings (which amount to...?).
I disagree with showing the names of the hidden answers. For instance, awhile ago I had posted a couple of questions, and someone who was not native to the source or target language posted an incorrect answer to each question. The person seemed nice, his/her heart was certainly in the right place. Once realizing his/her mistake, the person hid the answers. I appreciated that person's efforts and would have seen no reason to publish the name and reason for hiding the answer. The person was trying to help and I respect that.
| | | | | 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 » Ideas to encourage further (proper) use of the KudoZ disagree feature | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | 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 
