would non-natives answering KudoZ Qs practice a little introspection please?

Robert Forstag wrote:

I certainly see Lia's point here, but I have to second Henry's and Thomas's responses. Serious professionals will almost always see clearly ridiculous answers--and the people who habitually offer them--for what they are.

If Kudoz were dominated by such people, then the entire system would be a travesty. Thankfully, such is not the case. Therefore, no need to get into a snit about it. We all probably have more important things to worry about. As Thomas points out, "Disagrees" are often in order in such cases. And if the irresponsible asker decides (as is so often the case) to throw a tantrum over being disagreed with, then they will only deepen the negative impression that they have already made.



[Edited at 2006-10-05 00:17]

Kim Metzger wrote:

But the point Lia and others have made has to do with honesty. Yes - non-natives should contribute by all means, but they should also make it absolutely clear that they're not pretending to be expert writers of the target language. In my opinion, they should select an appropriate confidence level AND add a statement about not being a native speaker of the target language.

Jande wrote:

I find the initial post contradictory and difficult to understand.

You say you admire non natives answering questions, but you also say that they should never be allowed to give a 5 for their answers. Then you say you know some good bi-lingural people.

I totally disagree with the suggestion that someone who isn't native can't have a 5 or that they have to declare that they are not native when answering.

Each language pair has their askers and answerers to look out for.

I think you're talking about a specific incident or person/people here and not all non natives. Be careful not to take one incident and apply it to all.

[Edited at 2006-10-05 02:34]

[Edited at 2006-10-05 02:49]

Parrot wrote:

Would it make programming sense (considering we already have programmable asker-side restrictions) to make it impossible for a non-native not working in the question's specialist field to assign a confidence level of '5'?

And then, would it make kudoZ sense?

Sophia Hundt wrote:

The one problem I can see with this suggestion is that sometimes, non-natives of the target language happen to know exactly what something means in their native tongue (again, that's for the cases when the problem is understanding the source vs. the best possible translation into the target language). It seems to me it's important that they have the option to indicate that they know something for sure.

Michele Fauble wrote:




Providing translations into "learner English" at ridiculously low rates ?

Francis Lee wrote:
What Lia is referring to, I assume, is the kind of question where the source term is clear to all.

Francis Lee wrote:
The overwhelming majority of blatantly inflated confidence levels for German->English questions are from non-natives, who quite clearly OVERESTIMATE their command of the latter language. Disturbingly, most of them state the above as a working pair. But I digress ...
Example:
On a recent German-English Kudoz question, a German colleague gave a CL4 to an answer that was simply not English as a native would express it. When three natives (incl. myself) posted Disagrees with words to the above effect, this colleague responded to us all as follows: "Don't teach. Learn." !!!
From their credentials and past contributions to Kudoz, it's clear that this colleague is a good if not excellent Eng->Ger translator, but one who is evidently deluded about their active command of English. Not just that, but also somebody who themself is not willing to "learn".
There are many exceptions on the modesty front, may I stress - Thomas Pfann (above) being a notable one.

The problem intensifies when the Answerer is likewise a non-native. Some here have said: fine, leave them be. But is that ultimtely in the interests of the Proz/Kudoz site?

What do we do? Sell up or sell out ...

Ara Mkrtchyan wrote:

I agree that non-natives sometimes give not a very happy answer, but I also agree that prohibiting a non-native to give a Kudoz answer is not the best idea.
You are quite right differentiating between bilinguals and native speakers; I am myself a bilingual as Russian was a must for the ex-Soviet Union citizens, but I do not indicate Russian as my native language because my only real mother tongue is Armenian. I've been doing rather well-feedbacked technical and literature translations from and into Russian, but still, to the best of my belief, I am NOT a native Russian speaker, though quite often I see Armenian translators stating Russian as their native to attract more cleints just because they 'understand and speak the language'.
However, I take part in the Kudoz Q&A's for Russian realizing that my qualifications are competent to give an answer, but compared to Armenian pairs I indicate an appropriate, lower level of confidence, plus there's no need to write that I'm a Russian-second-native speaker since my native language is mentioned under my name, as said above.
I do share, though, the concern that there are rather non-competent, non-professionals that merely strive to get points by giving primitive answers (e.g. by copy-pasting an online dictionary translation which I could have done myself before asking!) and those who, being unable to provide an own answer, seek someone to agree with just to get Browniz for quoting, leaving the correctness of the answer aside. In one of the Armenian Kudoz qustions an erroneous answer was given prior to mine, and I posted my reply explaining the drawbacks of the first answer and proposed a more or less standard and correct translation. But before this, three translators had agreed to the first answer, there being nothing else to agree to, and when in the end my answer was chosen best, a 'professional' popped up to argue with with the asker 'who had ignored the opinion of three professionals'.
What I mean, finally, is that it is not important whether an answer is given by a native speaker or not. What does matter is the answer itself, its quality/correctness/adequacy.

Rgrds,
Ara Mkrtchyan

Lia Fail wrote: more pros and less amateurs

Jackie Bowman wrote:
I am not, in reality, among the busiest people in the known universe. But for those ProZ ‘users’ who are, perhaps it would be prudent if ProZ could obviate the peril of irritation by deploying some software to ensure that only people with the correct answer can suggest answers.

Kirill Semenov wrote:



Thank you for opening our blind eyes, dear Mats! Yet another great excuse to do nothing when something wrong is happening...

Kim Metzger wrote:

We've been brainstorming solutions for improving the overall quality of KudoZ answers from the very beginning, i.e. for the past seven or eight years, and we've seen many good ideas implemented over the years. KudoZ is better than it was years ago because of the ideas presented by members in this forum.

The rules now permit "purely linguistic" peer comments on answers: "Notes should be based solely on linguistic evaluation of answers provided." But in addition to pointing out purely linguistic problems with an answer, one should also be able to point out flaws in the process of arriving at a solution. We are translators and processes are as important as results. Experienced professionals can help inexperienced translators with these kinds of comments. Thus, telling a peer that his proposed French term was used at Chinese website could be a legitimate peer comment that is not strictly a linguistic comment.

Our rules have always been subject to change.


[Edited at 2006-10-05 15:30]

Erika Pavelka wrote:

I totally understand where you're coming from. My take on it is that these translators probably don't realize that their English is abysmal. They must think that it's very good or even excellent.

I think it's best to just ignore those people. If the asker chooses the wrong answer, that's too bad for them.

Mats Wiman wrote:

In order to help the asker you can pass judgement on an answer but that is all you should pass judgement on - period.

What is left is to be kept to yourself - period.

My definition of appropriate web behaviour.

Balasubramaniam wrote:

... that is, restrict kudoz to just natives, especially in languages like English in which non-natives with fairly good command over the language perhaps exceed the natives in numbers.

One will miss out on a lot of local flavour, and even get things wrong, if say we were to allow only those native to UK (the copyright holding nation of English) to answer questions asked in English monolingual.

English is spoken in such diverse corners of the world, from New York to New Delhi and London to Ludhiana, that a person sitting in UK, however native he/she may be of English, will not be able to catch all the myraid ways in which this language is used in both written and spoken form.

It is best to let everyone who claims to have expertise in any language to express himself/herself in whatever way he/she can and let the peer group sift the chaff from the grain.

That is the way of science, and it should work with languages too.