| Stranica u temi: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] | Entering 'See comment...' in answer box Postavljač teme: Tony M
|
|---|
Kirill Semenov 
Ukrajina
Local time: 09:08
Član (2004)
engleski na ruski
+ ...
| The only thing I'm happy with,,, | May 13, 2005 |
..is that the rule you quoted is based on "should" not "obliged" or "must". If it would sound "An answerer must provide the best answer" or "the asker obliged to accept the most helpful answer"... Well. Fortunately, it does not sound this way.
Btw, it contradicts a bit to Mats' "golden rule" (if you don't like a question pass it by). I mean if I *should* provide the best answer I can, I * shouldn't* pass by any questi... See more ..is that the rule you quoted is based on "should" not "obliged" or "must". If it would sound "An answerer must provide the best answer" or "the asker obliged to accept the most helpful answer"... Well. Fortunately, it does not sound this way.
Btw, it contradicts a bit to Mats' "golden rule" (if you don't like a question pass it by). I mean if I *should* provide the best answer I can, I * shouldn't* pass by any question. Even if my answer is stupid, this is the best I can provide -- but anyway *I should*.
two2tango wrote:
I mean that in my view Mats was correct (and not simply juggling with the word), since he talked from the answerers point of view, who are meant to provide their BEST answers.
▲ Collapse
| | | | Kim Metzger
Meksiko
Local time: 00:08
njemački na engleski
| Another "exception" | May 13, 2005 |
When things go nicely in KudoZ, you've got a bunch of fine guys and gals helping the asker and each other find an ideal translation. It's a thrill to be part of this kind of exchange of ideas. Nobody's doing it for the points – it's the translation that counts. Just now I saw a term that interested me personally – and I started doing some digging. I found a very good solution and came back to the question where I saw that someone else had already reached a similar conclusion. I gave him my a... See more When things go nicely in KudoZ, you've got a bunch of fine guys and gals helping the asker and each other find an ideal translation. It's a thrill to be part of this kind of exchange of ideas. Nobody's doing it for the points – it's the translation that counts. Just now I saw a term that interested me personally – and I started doing some digging. I found a very good solution and came back to the question where I saw that someone else had already reached a similar conclusion. I gave him my agree with the link I had found and wanted to add the information I had found but there wasn't enough space in the agree box. I then entered "Support for Jack's answer – not for points" in the answer box, added the information I had found and gave myself a level 2 confidence rating.
[Edited at 2005-05-13 21:17] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Tony M
Francuska
Local time: 08:08
francuski na engleski
+ ...
POKRETAČ TEME LOKALIZATOR PORTALA | My point precisely! | May 13, 2005 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
...I gave him my agree with the link I had found and wanted to add the information I had found but there wasn't enough space in the agree box. I then entered "Support for Jack's answer – not for points" in the answer box, added the information I had found and gave myself a level 2 confidence rating.
This is exactly the sort of 'getaround' situation that occurs from time to time --- and more often, the more time you spend answering!
| | | | Can Altinbay
Local time: 02:08
japanski na engleski
+ ...
U sjećanje | You're right, Kiril | May 13, 2005 |
Kirill Semenov wrote:
Any answer consists of its title (heading) and its body. The title (heading) is not equal to "the answer", it's just a part of it. Sometimes the title is enough (and the body may be empty), sometimes the title is empty and the body is extremely useful/best, whatever you choose.
If we *must* to fit our answer into the title (heading) always, let us get rid of the body entirely! Why we need it, really? This is what the rule mean as it sounds now. This is my own point of view. I represent only myself here and at other forums.
After all, the ANSWER belongs in the ANSWER box. Anything else is irrelevant. From now on, I shall place an up to 10 word ANSWER in the ANSWER box, whether or not it makes sense without any explanation. This way I can assume I won't be yelled at for not ANSWERing in the ANSWER box.
Maybe
| | |
|
|
|
Can Altinbay
Local time: 02:08
japanski na engleski
+ ...
U sjećanje | An answer is not like a book title (now how's THAT for a good answer box type entry?) | May 13, 2005 |
Jabberwock wrote:
The comparison to the title is quite good. Imagine if you have written a book. It is very important, relevant and informative. Are you saying that you cannot title it, because you are saying in your book much more than you can fit in the title? But nobody expects you too!
Sorry, you're comparing apples and oranges. You can't possibly be saying that we should create an answer in the same way that we create the title for a book. The title of a book is not a summary of the contents of the book.
Therefore the argument that people appreciate answers with extensive explanations completely misses the point. Of course they do. Nobody wants to take it away from them! We are just saying that if you put the answer you think to be right in the box where it belongs, they (and people who will _later_ search for the answer, and moderators) would be even more happy!
I don't remember anyone arguing anything that contradicts the above. Remember that Dusty's point is that in comparatively rare instances, it's next to unfeasible to come up with a title. It would suit me, and I'm sure, Dusty just fine if we could always have a ready entry into the answer box.
| | | | Can Altinbay
Local time: 02:08
japanski na engleski
+ ...
U sjećanje | This is part of the problem | May 13, 2005 |
Dusty wrote:
Jabberwock wrote:
Of course there are questions that might not have "the answer"... But these are rare exceptions, and Dusty at times seems to want to make an exception a rule.
Please, don't make assumptions about what I "seem to want" or not. I have never said (and never would say) that it should be made the rule; far from it, of course it must always remain an exception, a last resort...
Like you, I agree with Kirill that making the 'rule' less prescriptive by amending it to "whenever possible avoid" would be a simple and effective solution to this whole issue.
For whatever reason, it is easy to read something and read into it things that are not there. From the beginning, Dusty's comments seemed to have been interpreted like Jabberwock suggests above. It never looked to me like Dysty sdaid anything like that, and neither did I.
There is even a black and white sounding opinion out there, and maybe I'm reading more into it, but the voice of that opinion sure sounds like it's saying that.
I would point out that Jabberwock seems to be in agreement basically with what Dusty is saying.
| | | | Can Altinbay
Local time: 02:08
japanski na engleski
+ ...
U sjećanje | As a matter of fact... | May 13, 2005 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
When things go nicely in KudoZ, you've got a bunch of fine guys and gals helping the asker and each other find an ideal translation. It's a thrill to be part of this kind of exchange of ideas. Nobody's doing it for the points – it's the translation that counts. Just now I saw a term that interested me personally – and I started doing some digging. I found a very good solution and came back to the question where I saw that someone else had already reached a similar conclusion. I gave him my agree with the link I had found and wanted to add the information I had found but there wasn't enough space in the agree box. I then entered "Support for Jack's answer – not for points" in the answer box, added the information I had found and gave myself a level 2 confidence rating.
[Edited at 2005-05-13 21:17]
I find myself often adding options to existing answers that I think are good, without making them new suggestions. Often, I add notes ("Ask Asker"). So if people are under the impression that I'm just in it for the points (as was more than insinuated at least once on this thread)...
| | | | Kim Metzger
Meksiko
Local time: 00:08
njemački na engleski
| "See comment" | May 13, 2005 |
Can Altinbay wrote:
I find myself often adding options to existing answers that I think are good, without making them new suggestions. Often, I add notes ("Ask Asker"). So if people are under the impression that I'm just in it for the points (as was more than insinuated at least once on this thread)...
That's the spirit, Can. We should want to encourage dialog in KudoZ that will contribute to finding the best solutions, not stifle communication with rigid rules that have narrow purposes.
By the way, most of the sound reasons given for not entering 'see below' do not apply to the answerer's proposed translation but to the asker's term:
2. Asking KudoZ questions:
2.6 - Expressions such as 'see below' must not be entered in the form boxes intended for the term in question, or its proposed translations. Entering such expressions interferes with the expected display of the KudoZ viewing page, alerts, digests and glossary entries. The use of quotes, unnecessary capitalization, question marks, and anything else that would not be found in a dictionary, should be avoided.
| | |
|
|
|
Jaroslaw Michalak
Poljska
Local time: 08:08
Član (2004)
engleski na poljski
LOKALIZATOR PORTALA | I was wrong again, then... | May 13, 2005 |
Dusty wrote:
Please, don't make assumptions about what I "seem to want" or not. I have never said (and never would say) that it should be made the rule; far from it, of course it must always remain an exception, a last resort...
Sorry that I misread your intentions, it was just an impression I got from your statements like those (quoted out of context, naturally, but they're easy enough to find in the thread):
I often find myself taken to task for breaking the KudoZ rules, because I often put things like 'See comment...' or 'See explanation...' in the KudoZ answer box, and I freely admit I am probably one of the worst offenders in this respect.
...
WHY shouldn't one put 'See comment' etc. (lame though that is!) in the 'answer' box?
...
But in so many cases, there simply ISN'T a term
...
But so often, for lack of the entire / right / enough context, it is simply not possible to make the selection decision that only Asker has (possibly) enough information to make...
...
...and I'm not going to stick to a rule that appears to me frankly silly and unworkable...
It just didn't sound to me like you're treating it like exception or last resort. Sorry again!
| | | | Mats Wiman
Švedska
Local time: 08:08
Član (2000)
njemački na švedski
+ ...
U sjećanje | The obvious is often shrouded | May 14, 2005 |
andycw wrote:
I don't think repeating time after time what can only be described as "the bleedin' obvious" is very helpful to anyone.
To borrow Mat's in style for a moment, "We all know that if an ANSWER exists it goes in the ANSWER box where ANSWERS belong".
We all know this. Why repeat it time and again?
Do we?
After 20000 questions one tends to draw conclusions. I also had my 'See below' period until I detected that my answer is my best OFFER selected from a number of alternatives or the result of reasoning, which I can display in the explanation box.
Thus I acquired a very strong conviction that the rule "No 'See comment' to be used as answer" serves everybody.
If necessary, I repeat the thought behind it as pithily as I can, just as I repeat incessantly:
If you don't find a question of interest to you - disregard it as best you can.
Your ENG>SPA example 'spin city' http://www.proz.com/kudoz/240978?keyword=spin%20city is an excellent example proving my point, not yours.
There is nothing exceptional with the question and your answer, which is excellent.
I would have tried to answer it in exactly the same way. If I were in stress I might have answered:
"spin city" in the answer box and in the explanation box: "Do not translate! No corresponding Spanish expression" or "Do not translate! Is already used in Spanish".
For the asker, my answer might have sufficed.
Allowing 24 hours delay - which I strongly support - might have let you the opportunity to present your superior answer.
Let me repeat 'the bleedin obvious':
A question is posted - more or less difficult.
Answers are wanted by the asker, consisting of a selected term/phrase as ANSWER, followed by an explanation. Period.
This simple principle ought to be able to accomodate everybody, and make valuable comments like Dusty's, andycw's and those of others more structured and easier to utilise.
Remember: The asker is out to get decision help. Do not make it more difficult for him/her by throwing a dissertation at him/her.
Give him/her an answer!
Mats (not Mat)
[Edited at 2005-05-14 04:51]
| | | |
Hi friends,
What about a workaround like this:
Program the system to reject all 'see below' answers (and their various multilingual manifestations in the most common languages) AND expand the character limit of the answer field so that exceptions, to which all of you see-below-proponents refer, may find safe harbor. This then satisfies all concerns in one sweep.
The overriding raison d'etre of this rule is for glossary search harmony. This is even mentioned... See more Hi friends,
What about a workaround like this:
Program the system to reject all 'see below' answers (and their various multilingual manifestations in the most common languages) AND expand the character limit of the answer field so that exceptions, to which all of you see-below-proponents refer, may find safe harbor. This then satisfies all concerns in one sweep.
The overriding raison d'etre of this rule is for glossary search harmony. This is even mentioned in the rule itself. To relegate its importance ("the glossary argument is secondary", "let's open a new thread about this") is skirting the issue. So far, no one has proposed a logical counter-argument. None of you see its importance because none of you are left with the broom to sweep after inept and lackadaisical entries.
Let's address these exceptional answers which seem to be of primary concern. What about an expanded answer field where most, if not all, possible answers and permutations thereof can be accomodated? This could house Dusty's uncertain, low-confidence answer of "not applicable" and andy's untranslatable "spin city", as well as all potential answers between the one extreme of absolute uncertainty and the other of absolute untranslatability.
As Mats pointed out, all answers can be reduced to a kernel that corresponds - however imperfectly - to the question's core. You can then be as effusive as you wish in the body of the answer if you are so moved.
And since most questions - if rules are effectively enforced - are within the 10-word limit anyway, answers that would exceed a reasonable established limit are rare.
When we encounter in our day-to-day translation routine a term that does not lend to easy and succinct transfer, we resort to many known methods: transliterate and footnote explanation, retain in source language and footnote explanation, explanatory translation, etc. There is no imaginable reason why this should not be practiced in Kudoz as well.
Marcus
ps: by the way, the proposal to program the system to reject all 'see below' answers has been on the table for a long time and might just be included in the next Kudoz reform cycle.
[Edited at 2005-05-14 10:42] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Tony M
Francuska
Local time: 08:08
francuski na engleski
+ ...
POKRETAČ TEME LOKALIZATOR PORTALA | Solution-seeking is the way to go! | May 14, 2005 |
Marcus Malabad wrote:
Program the system to reject all 'see below' answers (and their various multilingual manifestations in the most common languages) AND expand the character limit of the answer field so that exceptions, to which all of you see-below-proponents refer, may find safe harbor. This then satisfies all concerns in one sweep.
To relegate its importance ("the glossary argument is secondary", "let's open a new thread about this") is skirting the issue. So far, no one has proposed a logical counter-argument. None of you see its importance because none of you are left with the broom to sweep after inept and lackadaisical entries.
ps: by the way, the proposal to program the system to reject all 'see below' answers has been on the table for a long time and might just be included in the next Kudoz reform cycle.
Nice work, Marcus! This is the sort of positive, constructive thinking we need here.
To try and respond to a few of your specific points:
1) I've a feeling (I may be wrong?) that is was Henry himself who said something to the general effect that the glossary consideration was secondary; I do agree with you about its importance, of course, but we must also be careful not to allow "the tale to wag the dog"! As you so rightly say, no, how can we appreciate the amount of work involved in tidying up the glossaries, since it is unseen and unheard? That's one of the reasons I suggested the topic is sufficiently important to deserve a thread all to itself. I must admit, if I were retired, I would simply relish the task of doing a lot of work on the glossaries. But it could also be said that the present glossary entry system has the air of a bolt-on fudge, and is far from ergonomic, in the way the KudoZ answering system is becoming increasingly with every improvement and refinement.
2) I believe the 'reject certain answers' part of the system is currently working, with certain terms at least, but frankly, this is just a nuisance and a deterrent to answering, and not IMO a 'solution'; it is just a nasty, unfriendly kick in the teeth to anyone who perhaps indavertently or through inexperience is unfortunate enough to use the wrong term. Anyway, however many terms you programme it with, we're all of us easily creative enough to find a way round it --- so the only effect wil be to deter novice answerers, and not seasoned anarchists It's not helped by the fact that it happens without warning, and the first few times it happoened to me, I wondered what on earth was going on; at least a jocular warning to the effect of "Don't enter xyz or your answer will get rejected" would be a helpful reminder at the time of entry. In fact, surely if this rule is so important, it would be worth including it in a screen prompt by the answer box? I for one had completely forgotten all about it by the time the first instance of this cropped up in my answering.
3) Surely another solution might be to put in place an automatic system that rejects such terms at the time of glossary entry; this way, the vast majority of Answerers would not be incovenienced by it, but it would be a very forcible and timely reminder to the one person involved (be it Asker or Answerer) at exactly the right moment, i.e. when the glossary is under consideration.
4) I would also like to suggest that some kind of tutorial information about glossary entries should be made available ---perhaps via a link from the glossary entry page, maybe even forcibly displayed the first n times a new Answerer / Asker enters terms.
5) As I said before, I would like to see some ergonomic improvements to the glossary itself, in particular, a separate field for notes or explanations, to avoid cluttering the two main boxes, and to enable a possible digest of the many explanatory notes for some of the thornier terms; this would surely make it easier for subsequent users to benefit from the fund of knowledge from all the answers to a particular question, instead of having to laboriously hunt through them all. Clearly such a field would need to be filled in intelligently by glossary contributors, but at least it could be blank by default, and those of us motivated and concerned enough to think about the glossary might be able to spare (share) the poor moderators a tiny fraction at least of their chore.
[Edited at 2005-05-14 22:38]
| | |
|
|
|
Can Altinbay
Local time: 02:08
japanski na engleski
+ ...
U sjećanje | Marcus, your points are good, and so is Dusty's response | May 14, 2005 |
But let me respectfully note that making assumptions such as "None of you see its importance because none of you are left with the broom to sweep after inept and lackadaisical entries." is not helpful in discourse. I for one have pointed out that I appreciate that moderators have to do this work. I wouldn't even mind helping out. All you do by making statements such as these is to invite hard feelings. Can we try to cooperate instead of pointing fingers? I think that someone who is a moder... See more But let me respectfully note that making assumptions such as "None of you see its importance because none of you are left with the broom to sweep after inept and lackadaisical entries." is not helpful in discourse. I for one have pointed out that I appreciate that moderators have to do this work. I wouldn't even mind helping out. All you do by making statements such as these is to invite hard feelings. Can we try to cooperate instead of pointing fingers? I think that someone who is a moderator should appreciate the importance of this. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Kirill Semenov
Ukrajina
Local time: 09:08
Član (2004)
engleski na ruski
+ ...
| A funny example :) | May 18, 2005 |
I remembered a funny case at kudoZ.
There was an old question in Latin>English pair: "vide infra".
I had tried it several time to type the correct answer "see below" before I realized that the system rejects "see below" in the heading.
| | | | | Stranica u temi: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Entering 'See comment...' in answer box | 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 » |
| | 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 
