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

Lia Fail wrote:

And haven't you ever seen the non-native translator and poster of a Q choose an answer that reflects the structure of their own language (i.e. the blind leading the blind), rather than a more correct structure as proposed by a native. As one famous forum posting said "Who needs natives?".

Mats Wiman wrote:


This one should not do because:
1. You very often do not know the person good enough to pass judgement.
2. It creates an unfriendly atmosphere when persons are attacked or derided.
3. It leads away from what we should focus on:
a) Help each other (KudoZ)
b) Educate each other ( " )
c) Educate ourselves ( " )
d) Have interesting exchanges of ideas, thoughts, feelings and information (Forums)

This effort of mutual interest should not be smeared by derision (as above), dirt throwing, defamation, exclusion etc.

The loss of focus on the point at issue.

[Edited at 2006-10-05 17:42]

mediamatrix wrote:

1. As it stands, the system assumes - incorrectly - that all input from answerers is intended as straightforward answers to the question - i.e. translations of the difficult word or expression in a given context.

2. Very often, however, the root cause of the askers' difficulty lies not finding the best translation but in the basic comprehension of the source text, either because it's poorly written or because it is simply 'obscure' (or, if the truth be told, because the asker is working out of his/her depth, but that's another story).

3. A native of the source language can, in such circumstances, make a very substantial contribution by rewording the source text, rather than trying to translate it, leaving the actual translation to natives of the target language (or the asker).

4. In situations such as this, a native of the source language should be able to claim CL5 for that part of the job that he/she has contributed. Forcing such contributors to set CL to less than 5 is inappropriate - why, if someone provides an expert unravelling of the source text should he/she not make a clear statement of his/her confidence?

5. In the question that triggered this thread, I did not answer the question, but provided some potentially useful information intended to give the asker confidence in (some of) the translations that were being provided by other answerers, but to avoid confusion I gave myself a low CL - which might now be misconstrued by the asker as implying that I was only guessing.

6. What's needed, I think, is some mechanism that enables contributors to flag their input as an answer to the question as posted or other potentially useful assistance. And both categories of input should receive CLs of 1 to 5 as appropriate, and either category of input should stand an equal chance of being picked as 'most helpful' when the asker grades the responses.

MediaMatrix

Claudia Iglesias wrote:



I'm sure this would be the solution for all kudoz, glossary and native related problems.
A software that detects when an answer is wrong and refuses to let the author enter it in the form. Great suggestion, we only need staff to implement it.

Claudia

Jackie Bowman wrote:

... and if so, what is it (genuine question)?

As I understand it, the original poster was irritated (actually, was beyond irritated, was ‘infuriated’) because (i) he/she had answered a question and (ii) someone else had answered the same question and the other person’s answer was – let’s say – sub-optimal.

I don’t know for certain what this question was, and therefore I don’t know for certain which answers were given. But there was enough evidence in the original post to lead anyone who was interested to narrow down the possibilities to a very, very small number.

Someone else in this thread has made a direct assumption about which answer the original poster was referring to. I concur (I might, of course, be wrong) with that assumption.

Now … the answer that infuriated the original poster (always allowing the correctness of the assumption about which answer it is) was not a great one. In fact, it was pretty poor. It wasn’t a calamity. And it wasn’t Martian. It was simply a poor rendering of the term in the asker’s question. But the answerer made an effort, and the effort seems to have been a genuine attempt to be helpful.

I’ve been a ‘user’ of ProZ for a few years and in that time I have asked exactly six questions. Some of the answers I got to those questions were obviously incorrect. In awarding points and thanking answerers, I think there was one occasion (from six occasions) when I forgot to thank all the answerers for taking the time to try to help me.

If I were the busiest person in the known universe, it might (just about conceivably) be understandable that I would get irritated at the prospect of having to review obviously incorrect answers before deciding which answer was the correct one.

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.

So the potential irritation of askers is conceivable. Whence, though, the irritation (indeed, the infuriation) of answerers? Where does it originate? What is its purpose? How does the infuriation help? Importantly, what causes it? You might lose the points? Is that it? The Sacred Temple of the Glossaries might be defiled? Is that it? What, actually, is it?

Someone else in this thread (Thomas, I think) made the truly excellent suggestion of having a cup of tea. I always look forward to ProZ’s software innovations, but having a cup of tea is – always and indisputably – the best suggestion in the known universe.

Good luck to all posters. May we yet elevate the rates.

JB

Jackie Bowman wrote:

I’m certain that I’ve never before been in any public discussion in which the originator absented himself or herself for such a long time from the debate that he or she sparked.

So … Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr./Whatever Fail. Can we have a contribution from you? Please?

mediamatrix wrote:

What struck me when I first looked at the question in question, and the four answers that had already appeared, was that the asker was asking the wrong question.

It was clear that the asker - and the first answerer whose efforts brought storm-clouds to this thread - were both having difficulty with a perfectly straightforward word (a 10-letter word, of which 9 letters are the same in both languages), because of the somewhat unconventional use of another word in the same sentence. The apparent contradiction in the mood of the sentence was throwing them off-course.

Lia´s answer was a satisfactory one, but she did not pick up on the root cause of the problem, preferring to begin attacking the first answerer right there in Kudoz.

Two peers - one (native English) supporting that first answer, the other (native Spanish) supporting Lia's answer - commented on the unconventional use of the other word, implying that the source text was poorly written if not actually wrong.

Two more answerers then gave valid translations of the question - but they, too, side-stepped the underlying problem.

My own contribution to the question was simply a dictionary reference to the 'rouge' word that was provoking all the problems, pointing out that it was not actually incorrect, mentioning the appropriate English translation and giving a couple of example sentences. As I wasn't answering the question 'as asked', I gave myself a CL of 2 and rewarded myself with a swig of beer.

It will be interesting to see who - if anyone - gets points on this one!

MediaMatrix

[Edited at 2006-10-05 23:04]

Jackie Bowman wrote:



An educated native English speaker would say 'fewer' amateurs, right?

Perhaps we all live in glass houses, and shouldn't throw stones.

[Edited at 2006-10-06 00:06]

Edited to correct the mis-spelling of 'stones'.

[Edited at 2006-10-06 00:26]

Malik Yenigelen wrote:

Those two rules will be my guidelines, till I come up with better ones. Of course I didn't invent them; I picked them up from these forums.

In setting CL, again, the guideline will be to help the asker (although I'm mulling the idea of fixing my CL, say, at 1, (or 5, it doesn't matter) for all answers, or the idea of proposing that it should not be mandatory to tick a CL).

And you're right, Mats Viman, I have found that you extract maximum utility from the exercise of answering only when you focus on helping the user. Only then, you too learn.

Don't go for Kudoz (spell?).

If your are not going to learn in process of asking a helper, don't bother, it won't be worth your while.

Don't even concern yourself with altruistic reasons to answer -- it would be an exceptional case where you only could help the asker and that, when it occurs, should be obvious.


[Edited at 2006-10-05 18:23]

Thomas Pfann wrote:

Wow, someone's angry her, eh? Did you already put the kettle on and have a nice cup of tea - that always helps


IT DOES INDEED; I HAVE SEVERAL THROUGHOUT THE DAY!


I had a look at the KudoZ question you are refering to. Did you notice that the answerer who upset you so much is actually an English native speaker? Anyway, I was surprised that you didn't give that answer a 'Disagree'. It might make sense to tick the disagree box and add a short explanation on why you disagree - that might make the the answerer re-consider their answer or explain why they have given that answer. And, of course, it makes the asker (and other users) aware that this particular answer might not be quite right.


AS I POINTED OUT TO ANOTHER CONTRIbUTOR IT'S NEITHER FAIR NOR ESPECIALLY INTERESTING TO DISCUSS A PARTICULAR QUESTION IN A FORUM. WE ARE TALKING 'ISSUE' OR 'PRINCIPLES' NOT DISCUSSING A PARTICULAR KUDOZ Q (tHAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ABOUT OR EVEN NEED TO KNOW ABOUT),

DISAGREE? YOU HAVE A POINT BUT I DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH FAITH IN THE DISAGREE FUNCTION. WHAT'S MORE, IT'S THE GENERAL ISSUE, NOT A PARTICULAR ANSWER THAT BOTHERS ME.

sometimes I, too, try and give answers to queries in a language which is not my native language, but in such cases I usually select a lower confidence level or state that I am not a native speaker. But I agree with Sophia - sometimes it is the speaker of the source language who can give the more valuable input on a particular query.

THAT SEEMS ENTIRELY LOGICAL TO ME.

I think the option to 'reject' a particular answer (maybe even "awarding" negative KudoZ points for plain wrong answers) would be a good idea.

Other than that, I do believe that the system is pretty self-regulatory. Even if other answerers don't highlight a wrong or useless answer, then usually the asker will have enough linguistic understanding to identify an answer as unhelpful or misleading.

THE SYSTEM IS BAD, JUST HAVE A QUICK LOOK-SEE IN THE GLOSSARIES... AND IT'S SELF-PERPETUATING ERROR ALL OVER GOOGLE:-(




Thomas

[Edited at 2006-10-04 22:37]

Jackie Bowman wrote:

M,

I wasn't correcting your English. And plainly you did not say you were infuriated. Someone else did. Sorry for the misunderstanding. My comment was not in any way a personal attack.

Malik Yenigelen wrote:



There is definitely some sort of an in-breeding(?) problem there.

So, why not highlight in different color the responses / comments from native speakers? That's one.

Second, list answers from native-speakers at the top, no matter what the CL.

But please stop, for God's sake, commenting about people's honesty or modesty, unless you want, in the long run, reaction in the form of (a) people starting to talk about possible native speaker rent-seeking behaviour and, then, (b) separate organizations of native speakers of English emerging, one for those born and raised in English speaking countries and one for those born and raised in other countries.

And ranting about honesty and modesty does not go too well with calls for professionalism. Please speak in concrete terms in formulating exactly whatever the problem you think there is, what the objectives are, and how they can be achieved.

Belittling them *non-natives* is not going to help you get any where -- maybe except (b) above.

Kim Metzger wrote:



Mats, as you know, the kind of discussion we can engage in here (the KudoZ forum) is not possible in the KudoZ arena itself. There are strict guidelines for obvious reasons.

When you write, "What is left is to be kept to yourself - period" it sounds like you're trying to discourage members from discussing their KudoZ experiences in this forum. "Keep something to yourself" means don't talk about it.

But, surely that's not your intention, right?

So I really wish you'd clarify this one point.

Lia Fail wrote:
(perhaps the asker was a non-native or an amateur, which pretty much amounts to the same thing, except it's easier to be expert in reading a language than writing it, so there's lots of hope for improvement in amateurs)

Francis Lee wrote:



Now, I am perhaps notorious on the German/English section for my (in the past) outspoken skepticism regards the ability of non-natives to translate into English, BUT you're overstepping the mark here, Lia.

There are many non-natives here on Kudoz and elsewhere who are consummate professionals and are able to provide very good (if ultimately deficient in terms of style etc.) English translations. But there are many native English-speakers on this site who are way out of their depth in terms of a) understanding the source text and/or appreciating the cultural background b) providing a natural-sounding English equivalent. In many cases, these "amateurs" (I call them "beginners") appear wary/incapacable of diverging even slightly from the original. The result is often a word-for-word translation that many non-natives would (like us) also cringe at.
The same applies to Engish->German and, in principle, to any language pair.

Blatantly excessive confidence levels do indeed generally appear to be a non-native phenomenon. But by no means exclusivey so.
And there are non-natives out there who can do a better job than the "amateur" native-speakers.