How do you like an idea of differentiation of terms in user (personal) glossaries? Thread poster: Dmitry Murzakov
|
|---|
Dmitry Murzakov 
Russian Federation
Local time: 08:08
English to Russian
+ ...
I proposed a new feature to Proz.com site staff during recent Kudoz survey to differentiate terms in personal glossaries into own (extracted from own translations in other words translated personally) and found (found on the Internet and other places in other words not translated personally).
I don’t believe that leaders listed here - http://www.proz.com/?sp=gloss/titles - translated t... See more I proposed a new feature to Proz.com site staff during recent Kudoz survey to differentiate terms in personal glossaries into own (extracted from own translations in other words translated personally) and found (found on the Internet and other places in other words not translated personally).
I don’t believe that leaders listed here - http://www.proz.com/?sp=gloss/titles - translated terms personally. Another idea is to give scores only for glossary entries from own personal glossaries not for found. I think it is a fair practice.
Let’s discuss it here.
[Редактировалось 2011-01-08 10:48 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Erik Freitag
Germany
Local time: 06:08
Member (2006)
Dutch to German
+ ...
| clarification | Jan 8, 2011 |
Dead Dmitry,
I'm not sure if I understand your concept correctly. Finding translations in the internet and other places is what a translator should do. Translating terms "personally" as you put it, without reference to other sources, comes down to outright invention of terms, which usually should be avoided. In other words: translations from someone's own personal glossaries are utterly useless if those terms haven't been or can't be found anywhere else.
Maybe I didn't ... See more Dead Dmitry,
I'm not sure if I understand your concept correctly. Finding translations in the internet and other places is what a translator should do. Translating terms "personally" as you put it, without reference to other sources, comes down to outright invention of terms, which usually should be avoided. In other words: translations from someone's own personal glossaries are utterly useless if those terms haven't been or can't be found anywhere else.
Maybe I didn't understand your concept well, please clarify.
Kind regards,
Erik ▲ Collapse
| | | | Dmitry Murzakov
Russian Federation
Local time: 08:08
English to Russian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Concept explanation | Jan 8, 2011 |
Erik,
I just mean that users shouldn't add translations from online or paperback dictionaries to get scores or Browniz for this - only terms with translations made by them only. Is it clear now?
| | | | Erik Freitag
Germany
Local time: 06:08
Member (2006)
Dutch to German
+ ...
Dmitry Murzakov wrote:
Erik,
I just mean that users shouldn't add translations from online or paperback dictionaries to get scores or Browniz for this - only terms with translations made by them only. Is it clear now?
So you want to deny points for terms found in dictionaries, but grant points for terms found elsewhere? I don't think I agree with that concept. If the term can be easily found in an online dictionary, the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place. In all other cases, finding a translation (in dictionaries or elsewhere) costs the answerer time and effort, which should be rewarded.
I must say that I'm still in some doubt what you mean by "making translations themselves".
Kind regards,
Erik
| | |
|
|
|
Lingua 5B
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Local time: 06:08
Member (2009)
English to Croatian
+ ...
efreitag wrote:
I must say that I'm still in some doubt what you mean by "making translations themselves".
The way I see it, he refers to the terms that involved an actual cognitive translation process ( contextual one and actual work) rather than mechanical copy/pasting from a dictionary. Yes, those in the cognitive translation might have also been taken from a dictionary but they are drawn from a contextual unit for the glossary. It makes it at least a little bit more original than pasting a dictionary, don't you agree?
| | | | Erik Freitag
Germany
Local time: 06:08
Member (2006)
Dutch to German
+ ...
Lingua 5B wrote: efreitag wrote:
I must say that I'm still in some doubt what you mean by "making translations themselves".
The way I see it, he refers to the terms that involved an actual cognitive translation process ( contextual one and actual work) rather than mechanical copy/pasting from a dictionary. Yes, those in the cognitive translation might have also been taken from a dictionary but they are drawn from a contextual unit for the glossary. It makes it at least a little bit more original than pasting a dictionary, don't you agree?
I see, that way it makes sense. I do however not agree with the idea of differentiating those cases when it comes to awarding points.
[Bearbeitet am 2011-01-08 19:53 GMT]
| | | | Oliver Walter
United Kingdom
Local time: 05:08
German to English
+ ...
| Too difficult | Jan 8, 2011 |
efreitag wrote:
I see, that way it makes sense. I do however not agree with the idea of differentiating those cases when it comes to awarding points.
I also think it might make sense but I don't agree with the idea in practice: I suspect it would often be difficult to determine the correct category for a translation of a term.
Problems:
- An accurate and understandable definition of how to determine the category for a translation is required
- Who should use the definition and decide the category in each case? It's too much work for the Proz staff; if it's the member him/herself, it will sometimes be incorrect, either accidentally or perhaps deliberately.
Dmitry wrote: "I just mean that users shouldn't add translations from online or paperback dictionaries to get scores or Browniz for this."
I think, users should do exactly this, if it produces the correct result, for example if the answerer has a specialist dictionary. To the asker, it's the result that's important, not where it came from.
My 2 cents' worth.
Oliver
| | | | | My idea can't be enforced but... | Jan 9, 2011 |
It would be much more useful if glossary-builders were to give some references together with the translation they propose. I find terminology without context and some argument about why the term was chosen is of very little use.
| | |
|
|
|
Aude Sylvain
France
Local time: 06:08
English to French
+ ...
| disagree - emphasize to be put on source/reference info | Jan 9, 2011 |
Oliver Walter wrote: Dmitry wrote: "I just mean that users shouldn't add translations from online or paperback dictionaries to get scores or Browniz for this." I think, users should do exactly this, if it produces the correct result, for example if the answerer has a specialist dictionary. To the asker, it's the result that's important, not where it came from.
Fully agree with Oliver. However, while what's important is the result and not where it came from, I also agree with Lesley:
Lesley Clarke wrote: My idea can't be enforced but... It would be much more useful if glossary-builders were to give some references together with the translation they propose. I find terminology without context and some argument about why the term was chosen is of very little use.
I do believe this could be enforceable. I assume one can't make an entry without a source term and a target term, because the machine would refuse to record an incomplete entry. The "source" field could be a required field in the same manner.
That is quite similar in fact to the issue of context in KudoZ that is currently under discussion. A question/answer without context is of no value, as is a translation without ref/source information.
Lesley, why don't you submit the idea to ProZ? I would support it and I am sure I won't be the only one!
| | | | Dmitry Murzakov
Russian Federation
Local time: 08:08
English to Russian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | It's not about Kudoz glossaries | Jan 9, 2011 |
I'm not speaking about Kudoz glossaries. It's about personal glossaries which can be found here http://www.proz.com/?sp=my_g&entity_id=X where X - number of your profile page. Is it clear now?
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 06:08
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| A different solution is called for | Jan 9, 2011 |
Dmitry Murzakov wrote: I proposed a new feature to Proz.com site staff during recent Kudoz survey to differentiate terms in personal glossaries into own ... and found. ... I don’t believe that leaders listed here - http://www.proz.com/?sp=gloss/titles - translated terms personally.
This would have been a good idea if it had been implemented from the start. It would be rather difficult to implement it now. I don't think many glossary contributors would be happy to comb through their submitted glossaries to determine which terms or chunks of terms were harvested (what you call "found") and which were researched (what you call "own").
Perhaps ProZ.com can appoint some volunteers to use plagiarism tools to check the top 100 or top 1000 glossaries to determine which of them are largely harvested and which of them actually have large sections of researched (i.e. non-harvested) terms. The owners of the flagged glossaries can then submit proof that any glossaries found on the internet that look very similar to their ProZ.com glossaries are in fact also theirs.
A system whereby a glossary owner indicates the source of the glossary item (i.e. whether it was researched or simply copied from an online or offline source as-is) would be nice.
| | | | Aude Sylvain
France
Local time: 06:08
English to French
+ ...
| KudoZ glossaries vs. personal glossaries | Jan 9, 2011 |
Dmitry Murzakov wrote: I'm not speaking about Kudoz glossaries. It's about personal glossaries which can be found here http://www.proz.com/?sp=my_g&entity_id=X where X - number of your profile page. Is it clear now?
Hi Dmitry, yes it's clearer, yet I don't see why these 2 types of glossaries should be handled differently. Both are indexed and searchable through the "search term" function (http://www.proz.com/search/, see advanced options > resources to search). Then both are potentially equally useful (or useless, depending on the entries).
Obviously the reasoning would be different for some of the glossaries Samuel evoked (e.g. unauthorised copies of copyrighted existing materials/database). But that's a different point in my view, and such conducts are likely to be forbidden by law I guess. Were you speaking about this kind of glossaries?
edited for typo
[Edited at 2011-01-09 21:48 GMT]
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » How do you like an idea of differentiation of terms in user (personal) glossaries? | 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 » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
