| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | Extending characters limit for KudoZ peer comments Thread poster: Christel Zipfel
|
|---|
| Reference post | Jul 6, 2010 |
Lucia wrote:
In cases in which more needs to be said or added, the use of reference posts is recommended.
Lucia
Dear Lucia,
As far as I'm concerned when somebody answers a question, then reference post is not available. So you can use the reference post only if you didn't answer that particular question.
Best regards,
Katalin
| | | | | Hairsplitting? | Jul 6, 2010 |
Lucia wrote: Marie-Hélène Hayles wrote:
Bearing in mind the non-arbitrary nature of the 255-character limit, the obvious alternative would be to permit the dis/agreer to respond to the answerer's response in a new text box, rather than having to edit the old. I am afraid that having an option / section to reply to the answerer's reply to a peer comment is a different feature, Marie-Hélène. Peer comments must contain linguistic evaluations or considerations of the answer proposed and not replies to answerers' replies. Lucia
I fail to see what purpose the distinction serves, Lucia. The comments (both from the dis/agreer and the answerwer him/herself) in any case all relate to the answerer's suggestion, and so the most suitable place for them has to be under the suggestion itself, surely? It would make no sense to have them anywhere else.
| | | | | Suggestion posted in this thread has been added to list of possible improvements | Jul 6, 2010 |
Hi Steffen,
Replies to replies to peer comments would need to be linguistic, I agree. However, like explained in my previous post, that's a feature different from the one being suggested in this thread.
Extending the characters limit of peer comments does not seem to be necessary for now but the suggestion has been added to a list of possible KudoZ improvements. Thanks!
Lucia
| | | | | Suggestion acknowledged | Jul 6, 2010 |
Creativity wrote:
As far as I'm concerned when somebody answers a question, then reference post is not available. So you can use the reference post only if you didn't answer that particular question.
Thant's right, Katalin. Reference posts are not possible once an answer has been posted. However, reference posts are still an alternative.
Marie-Hélène Hayles wrote:
I fail to see what purpose the distinction serves, Lucia. The comments (both from the dis/agreer and the answerwer him/herself) in any case all relate to the answerer's suggestion, and so the most suitable place for them has to be under the suggestion itself, surely? It would make no sense to have them anywhere else.
Including comments that are related to the answer somewhere else is not what has been suggested, Marie-Hélène. Instead, what is pointed out here is that comments accompanying agree/disagree/neutral peer comments should be made to back up the agree/disagree/neutral selection and that 255 characters should be enough for a back-up comment.
In any case, like already mentioned in previous posts, this suggestion has already been added to a KudoZ backlog of ideas for improvement to be evaluated for possible future implementation.
Kind regards,
Lucia
| | |
|
|
|
| Going round in circles | Jul 6, 2010 |
Lucia wrote: Marie-Hélène Hayles wrote:
I fail to see what purpose the distinction serves, Lucia. The comments (both from the dis/agreer and the answerwer him/herself) in any case all relate to the answerer's suggestion, and so the most suitable place for them has to be under the suggestion itself, surely? It would make no sense to have them anywhere else. Including comments that are related to the answer somewhere else is not what has been suggested, Marie-Hélène. Instead, what is pointed out here is that comments accompanying agree/disagree/neutral peer comments should be made to back up the agree/disagree/neutral selection and that 255 characters should be enough for a back-up comment. In any case, like already mentioned in previous posts, this suggestion has already been added to a KudoZ backlog of ideas for improvement to be evaluated for possible future implementation. Kind regards, Lucia
I am perfectly aware that the suggestion was not to include comments related to the answer elsewhere. My point is that with the current 255 character limit, one is sometimes forced to cut comments to the bone in order to respond to further points made by the answerer in their response to feedback, and this is in no one's interest. Currently, we have a choice between trying to fit it all in under the answer, or sticking it somewhere totally unrelated.
You have said that we shouldn't be using the comment box to reply to the answerer's response in any case - Peer comments must contain linguistic evaluations or considerations of the answer proposed and not replies to answerers' replies. - which brings up the obvious question of where on earth we're supposed to reply.
[Edited at 2010-07-06 14:17 GMT]
| | | | | Who gets the last word? | Jul 6, 2010 |
Marie-Hélène Hayles wrote:
which brings up the obvious question of where on earth we're supposed to reply.
I would respectfully suggest that the strong implication is - you ain't.
| | | | Erik Freitag 
Germany
Local time: 09:35
Member (2006)
Dutch to German
+ ...
| No need to backlog, we've already started the evaluation... | Jul 6, 2010 |
Lucia wrote:
comments accompanying agree/disagree/neutral peer comments should be made to back up the agree/disagree/neutral selection and that 255 characters should be enough for a back-up comment.
Sometimes, when a agree/disagree/neutral is criticized, it needs purely linguistic substantiation, for which 255 characters often is not enough.
Fwiw, "has already been added to a KudoZ backlog of ideas for improvement to be evaluated for possible future implementation" to me sounds like nothing more than a way to stop this discussion. Has anybody ever seen a feature that was added to a backlog of ideas to be evaluated for possible future implementation come into life?
| | | | | Railroad paradox | Jul 6, 2010 |
Lucia wrote:
I just took a few minutes to check 100 peer comments at random in most latest KudoZ answers and I discovered that only 4 of these comments included more than 200 characters (that's the 4%). So, it seems an extension may not be necessary.
Lucia,
You just stumbled over Gerry Weinberg's Railroad Paradox. See http://www.umsl.edu/~sauterv/analysis/specsandfables/specsandfables.html (about 1/2 way down the page).
| | |
|
|
|
Neil Coffey
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:35
French to English
+ ...
| I'd go for about 500 chars as well... | Jul 6, 2010 |
efreitag wrote:
What purpose does the limit of 255 characters serve, anyway? People who need to say more will do so anyway, it will only take them more time while the readability of the result degrades due to excessive use of abbreviation etc.
It isn't so much that they specifically wanted a 255 character limit, they just wanted the length to be "short". Databases offer different storage types for data that each have a tradeoff between flexibility and efficiency; one of the most efficient storage types limits to 255 characters. (Technically, it's not to do with the space saving per se, just to do with how you end up having to organise the data if you allow for larger data.)
But nowadays, I think the efficiency argument is negligible: the implementers could happily change to the next size up and then impose what would effectively be any limit they wanted. I think my Goldilocks value would also be about 500 characters.
| | | | | Suggestion will be eventually re-evaluated | Jul 6, 2010 |
Efreitag wrote:
Fwiw, "has already been added to a KudoZ backlog of ideas for improvement to be evaluated for possible future implementation" to me sounds like nothing more than a way to stop this discussion. Has anybody ever seen a feature that was added to a backlog of ideas to be evaluated for possible future implementation come into life?
This comment is not fair, Erik. Many site features started as suggestions that were later added to a list of ideas for improvement and evaluated before being implemented.
Then, note that Christel's suggestion is not being discussed but it has been acknowledged and evaluated. Not implementing it now does not mean that it is being declined for good and all but that it will eventually be re-evaluated, if you may.
Regards,
Lucia
| | | | Ildiko Santana
United States
Local time: 00:35
Member (2002)
Hungarian to English
+ ...
MODERATOR | What are peer comments for? | Jul 6, 2010 |
Hi All,
I have thought that peer commenting is just another way to help askers decide which solution is best to their particular translation problem. It is only indicative of the participating colleagues' opinion, in general. If we believe to have the right answer, this should be posted as an "Answer," right? Second best way to offer our suggestion to the asker is by posting a reference comment with links, quotes, etc. Next, we have the discussion field, where additional ideas can be poste... See more Hi All,
I have thought that peer commenting is just another way to help askers decide which solution is best to their particular translation problem. It is only indicative of the participating colleagues' opinion, in general. If we believe to have the right answer, this should be posted as an "Answer," right? Second best way to offer our suggestion to the asker is by posting a reference comment with links, quotes, etc. Next, we have the discussion field, where additional ideas can be posted, views exchanged, etc. That's already 3 different ways to be of help. Lastly, we can comment on answers provided by others. I thought this was to briefly express our agreement/disagreement with their answers. Don't these functions serve one common purpose, to assist the askers in finding the best translation/interpretation of difficult terms? It is entirely up to the askers how thoroughly they read the answers/references/discussion entries, just like it is up to them which solution they go with in the end (if any).
I believe the less complicated the system, the easier it is to use it. I don't see why we need so many different ways to express what we believe is the right answer when we already have the "Answer" option. There is unlimited space there, under "Answer," to write explanations and back up our suggestion with references and links, as many as we'd like. If we choose to post a reference instead of an answer, the space is also unlimited there. Some prefer to post answers in the discussion field; no character limit there, either. As for the "peer comment" field: why try to squeeze more than a brief "yes"/"no"/"more or less" into that little box that is for feedback only? ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Two illustrations. | Jul 6, 2010 |
Usually, my peer comments are 100 words or less. This morning, however, I commented on two questions and had difficulties with both.
1) XX gave an answer with which I fully agreed. Later, she changed her mind, and added a comment that reversed her answer. (The asker had given two options--does this phrase mean A or B?--and the answerer first chose B, then switched it to A.) XX's answer was the only one given. If I had submitted an answer myself, it would have been identical to XX's... See more Usually, my peer comments are 100 words or less. This morning, however, I commented on two questions and had difficulties with both.
1) XX gave an answer with which I fully agreed. Later, she changed her mind, and added a comment that reversed her answer. (The asker had given two options--does this phrase mean A or B?--and the answerer first chose B, then switched it to A.) XX's answer was the only one given. If I had submitted an answer myself, it would have been identical to XX's original answer, which would have made me look bad for submitting an identical answer an hour later.
So, I had to give an "agree," and then tell XX that I was agreeing with the original answer, not with the switch. THEN I had to explain my reasons, which were complicated. The result was less than felicitous.
2) On another question, YY gave a very nice translation, but there were two problems: a) Using YY's translation would have created difficulties in translating the following sentence; b) YY's translation was basically OK but omitted a nuance that I consider important.
I tried to explain all this in 255 words. Now, however, YY has replied to my "neutral" comment and said "I don't understand your objection."
So what am I supposed to do now? I can't reply to YY except by editing my original comment, and if I couldn't express it adequately in 255 words before, I doubt that I can do better.
Even 300 words would help. Four or five hundred would be better.
Most commenters write very little, often just a courtesy greeting. Many (including me) often hit the "agree" button and post with no further comment at all. I don't think there would be "abuse" of the longer limit. For that 4% that Lucia mentions, the extra characters may be crucial to adequate expression. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ildiko Santana
United States
Local time: 00:35
Member (2002)
Hungarian to English
+ ...
MODERATOR | "people don't read" | Jul 6, 2010 |
Marie-Hélène Hayles wrote:
...it means having to jump about all over the page to follow the argument, and at worst, people don't read it at all.
Hi Marie-Hélène,
How can you tell if your entries are being read or not?
| | | | Erik Freitag
Germany
Local time: 09:35
Member (2006)
Dutch to German
+ ...
| just my impression | Jul 6, 2010 |
Lucia wrote: Efreitag wrote:
Fwiw, "has already been added to a KudoZ backlog of ideas for improvement to be evaluated for possible future implementation" to me sounds like nothing more than a way to stop this discussion. Has anybody ever seen a feature that was added to a backlog of ideas to be evaluated for possible future implementation come into life? This comment is not fair, Erik. Many site features started as suggestions that were later added to a list of ideas for improvement and evaluated before being implemented.
Sorry Lucia, I didn't mean to be unfair. It was just my impression that the idea was dumped onto some obscure list before the discussion really started...
Lucia wrote:
Then, note that Christel's suggestion is not being discussed but it has been acknowledged and evaluated. Not implementing it now does not mean that it is being declined for good and all but that it will eventually be re-evaluated, if you may.
Acknowledged and evaluated by you, or other staff members, you mean? What was the result of this evaluation (well, this is obvious, but which where the reasons)? When will it be re-evaluated?
[Bearbeitet am 2010-07-06 16:40 GMT]
| | | | | Acknowledged and evaluated by staff | Jul 6, 2010 |
efreitag wrote:
Acknowledged and evaluated by you, or other staff members, you mean? What was the result of this evaluation (well, this is obvious, but which where the reasons)? When will it be re-evaluated?
Acknowledged and evaluated by staff. Immediate implementation declined based on evidence. Re-evaluation not scheduled.
Lucia
| | | | | 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 » Extending characters limit for KudoZ peer comments | 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 » |
| | 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 
