| Stranica u temi: < [1 2 3] > | Answers: a fast/right/undocumented one or a documented one? Postavljač teme: Lia Fail (X)
|
|---|
PAS 
Local time: 06:40
poljski na engleski
+ ...
| Document this | Aug 25, 2007 |
How do you document very abstract questions, suggestions for translations of character names in a story, titles of works (fiction or non-fiction), word play, dialogue etc. etc.?
I agree with Lawyer-Linguist. If you are on top of the game (more or less), you will recognize the right answer.
You can always quiz the answerer or check on his answer. In the Polish-English pair there is often as much discussion "backstage" (Skype etc.) as there is officially on the forum.
... See more How do you document very abstract questions, suggestions for translations of character names in a story, titles of works (fiction or non-fiction), word play, dialogue etc. etc.?
I agree with Lawyer-Linguist. If you are on top of the game (more or less), you will recognize the right answer.
You can always quiz the answerer or check on his answer. In the Polish-English pair there is often as much discussion "backstage" (Skype etc.) as there is officially on the forum.
Pawel Skalinski ▲ Collapse
| | | | mediamatrix (X)
Local time: 00:40
španjolski na engleski
+ ...
Time and again we see askers making inappropriate choices from the answers they get, for a variety of reasons.
From what I've observed in my language pairs, it seems that those askers who do at least attempt to grade according on the 'most helpful answer' principle (as distinct from those who wouldn't recognise a valid answer if it slapped them in the face) seem to go for answers from, in order of preference:
- colleagues with a good track record;
- colleag... See more Time and again we see askers making inappropriate choices from the answers they get, for a variety of reasons.
From what I've observed in my language pairs, it seems that those askers who do at least attempt to grade according on the 'most helpful answer' principle (as distinct from those who wouldn't recognise a valid answer if it slapped them in the face) seem to go for answers from, in order of preference:
- colleagues with a good track record;
- colleagues who are flagged as "specialises in field" or, "works in field" (with a clear preference for the former, especially if the specialist is seen to correct or clarify the answer from the 'mere' worker);
- those who provide valid references, from the web, the major dictionaries, etc.
- those who answer fastest, regardless of accuracy or documentary support;
- the rest.
At least in 'technical' subjects (including stuff like legal, medical, etc. as well as technology per se) it seems to me that the person most likely to be 'right' - without that implying that (s)he is necessarily being the 'most helpful' - is the person flagged as a specialist in the field and has the appropriate language pair.
I find it perplexing, therefore, to see the number of questions that are posted with the 'field' flagged as something entirely inappropriate. Why? - because if the question is wrongly categorised, answers from specialists in the true subject-matter will not be flagged as such and their answers, however valid they may be, will not get the attention they deserve. It's one of many ways that many askers systematically shoot themselves in the foot.
Looking at my own 'Kudoz answered' table, for example, I can see dozens of points gained from answers to questions labelled as "Law - Patents", which I most certainly do not claim as a specialist or even a working field, when in fact the problem terms were to do with digital media systems, for example, which most certainly are one of my specialities. Likewise, I've accumulated numerous (unwanted) KudoZ in the 'medical' field - answering questions about anything from diesel-electric generators (!) to power supplies for X-ray machines; those questions should have been classified as 'electrical engineering', not 'medical'.
By mis-classifying their questions, askers do themselves a disservice in that they cannot determine who - if anyone - among the answerers is a real specialist, hence likely to have provided a sensible answer.
And they do the KudoZ-aware askers a disservice, since they cause dilution of their points across a broad range of subjects about which they actually know very little, to the detriment of their standing in the rankings for their specialist fields and hence their visibility when job-posters come searching the directory.
While I'm here, a final, related, gripe: Almost 20% of my pro-KudoZ have come from answers to questions classified under the ubiquitous 'Other' field. This field ranks second in my league table after 'Tech/Engineering' (the general field in which I've actually been working professionally for over 30 years) and third in this ranking is 'Legal/Patents' about which I actually have zero professional experience.
When, o when, will 'Other' be abolished, eradicated, banished from the face of the Earth (or at least from Proz.com)?
And, errrr..., while we're at it, can we please do away with the option to set 'Other' as a 'general' and 'specific' field in proz.com profiles? How can anyone be a 'specialist' in 'Other'? It's utter nonsense!
MediaMatrix ▲ Collapse
| | | | Amy Duncan (X)
Brazil
Local time: 01:40
portugalski na engleski
+ ...
CMJ_Trans wrote:
I could also say that a lot of the references people haul off Google are not always much good. And if the answerer can fish them out that easily, the asker should have been able to do so for him or herself, so an "unsubstantiated" answer from someone with "expert" knowledge may often be a safer bet.
This is so true. Also, with things like slang expressions, even though you might find examples of them in the target language on Google, there's no way you can really prove that they mean the same thing as the source language.
Amy
| | | | Vito Smolej
Njemačka
Local time: 06:40
Član (2004)
engleski na slovenski
+ ...
LOKALIZATOR PORTALA | The difference between the moment we asked and | Aug 25, 2007 |
...the moment we have the answers, is that we have learned something, that we know more than before. And given the human nature and the nature of out languages, in majority of cases every answer has point (pun intented), we can profit from.
I can just talk from my experience: to focus just on the answer with the most points (whatever the rules of the game) and have no time for the rest would be a real loss to me. I read, enjoy and learn from every single one of them. Not always o... See more ...the moment we have the answers, is that we have learned something, that we know more than before. And given the human nature and the nature of out languages, in majority of cases every answer has point (pun intented), we can profit from.
I can just talk from my experience: to focus just on the answer with the most points (whatever the rules of the game) and have no time for the rest would be a real loss to me. I read, enjoy and learn from every single one of them. Not always of course, but most of the time.
To me, it is a very good everyday substitute for the Glass Bead Game (*)
Regards
* if you don't know the book, you should
[Edited at 2007-08-25 18:54] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Lia Fail (X)
Španjolska
Local time: 06:40
španjolski na engleski
+ ...
POKRETAČ TEME | You know that .... | Aug 25, 2007 |
giselrike wrote:
While I'm not disagreeing that documenting your answer is a valuable addition, I do believe that it also depends on the answerer's expertise and experience with the term in question. If I help someone with a term that I have personally translated as "widget" numerous times and know for a fact that this is the correct term, then I may not feel it necessary to support my answer with links or references.
However, if the term is much more obscure and difficult to research, meaning I actually did some research to come up with it, rather than already know the term up front, then I will provide the research that led me to my proposed term.
That's my take on it.
You know your expertise, but I only have your word for it, which is why I would still like documentation.
| | | | Lia Fail (X)
Španjolska
Local time: 06:40
španjolski na engleski
+ ...
POKRETAČ TEME | Good point ... | Aug 25, 2007 |
Henry Hinds wrote:
So you be the judge, and you do the research. I'm not getting paid to do it for you.
Teach someone to fish...?
You certainly have a point, but it's sometimes quite clear that the asker lacks expertise - as both a translator and researcher - and this is why they need help ... but we all have to start somewhere:-)
| | | | | I have been wondering for years | Aug 25, 2007 |
how one can specialize in "Others". But there are hundreds of colleagues that are...
And then: there are questions asked about a topic people are translating but which has nothing to do with the term requested. I too find in my KudoZ answers in fields that I never thought I knew anything of... Luckily for the askers (at least in some case) I look into every question that comes in my LP if I have time.
mediamatrix wrote:
While I'm here, a final, related, gripe: Almost 20% of my pro-KudoZ have come from answers to questions classified under the ubiquitous 'Other' field. This field ranks second in my league table after 'Tech/Engineering' (the general field in which I've actually been working professionally for over 30 years) and third in this ranking is 'Legal/Patents' about which I actually have zero professional experience.
When, o when, will 'Other' be abolished, eradicated, banished from the face of the Earth (or at least from Proz.com)?
And, errrr..., while we're at it, can we please do away with the option to set 'Other' as a 'general' and 'specific' field in proz.com profiles? How can anyone be a 'specialist' in 'Other'? It's utter nonsense!
MediaMatrix
| | | | Lia Fail (X)
Španjolska
Local time: 06:40
španjolski na engleski
+ ...
POKRETAČ TEME | documented = objective | Aug 25, 2007 |
Marijke wrote:
However, I think that many people ask for help far too quickly without doing research themselves. When I ask a question, it is the last option on my list and that is why I want answers to any question I ask documented.
I want documented answers, not becuase I'm too lazy or ignorant to be able to research answers, but becuase, in a public forum, it seems to me to be both more scientific and more objective.
| | |
|
|
|
JaneTranslates
Portoriko
Local time: 00:40
španjolski na engleski
+ ...
| Documented does not necessarily = objective | Aug 25, 2007 |
Lia Fail wrote:
I want documented answers, not becuase I'm too lazy or ignorant to be able to research answers, but becuase, in a public forum, it seems to me to be both more scientific and more objective.
Lia, I do see your point. But the vast majority of links I see "documenting" answers are just simple Google results that I have already checked out before asking my question. They take up time and space and serve little purpose. We all have Google.
When I ask a KudoZ question, I want to tap into the experience and knowledge of my colleagues worldwide. IF someone happens to know of a website (NOT on the first page of Google results) that is particularly helpful in understanding the term I'm asking for or related material, that's really helpful, and I'm grateful! But I would never consider an answer "more" or "less" helpful merely because there is/is not a link to "objective" documentation that I will still have to (subjectively) evaluate.
| | | | Kim Metzger
Meksiko
Local time: 22:40
njemački na engleski
| That's not documentation | Aug 25, 2007 |
JaneTranslates wrote:
Lia, I do see your point. But the vast majority of links I see "documenting" answers are just simple Google results that I have already checked out before asking my question. They take up time and space and serve little purpose. We all have Google.
That's not documentation, Jane, (as you know) it's a technique used by many in some language pairs - English/Spanish being a prominent one - to look impressive in two minutes. Copying pages of Google hits usually means showing that the proposed target term is actually used in the target language. These "references" are usually totally worthless, but a lot of peers are impressed.
[Edited at 2007-08-25 22:31]
| | | | | A suggestion | Aug 26, 2007 |
Lia Fail wrote:
giselrike wrote:
While I'm not disagreeing that documenting your answer is a valuable addition, I do believe that it also depends on the answerer's expertise and experience with the term in question. If I help someone with a term that I have personally translated as "widget" numerous times and know for a fact that this is the correct term, then I may not feel it necessary to support my answer with links or references.
However, if the term is much more obscure and difficult to research, meaning I actually did some research to come up with it, rather than already know the term up front, then I will provide the research that led me to my proposed term.
That's my take on it.
You know your expertise, but I only have your word for it, which is why I would still like documentation.
Well then, here's my suggestion:
When you pose a question to other translators, you may choose to only accept well-documented answers, ignoring all others that don't provide the documentation you prefer.
While I can't guarantee that you'll end up with the best/correct/fitting answer (or do some more research yourself), it will ensure that as far as you are concerned, no answer outside of your expected amount of documentation will be considered by you.
As far as other askers are concerned, let them make their own decisions with respect to which answer works best for them; if they also feel that they want to totally ignore any answer outside of their parameters with respect to the amount of effort put forth by the answerer, then that is certainly their right.
As for myself, I'll try to pick the answer that I feel best fits my context - if no documentation is provided, I'm certainly capable of doing some more checking on the proposed term myself, and I'll assume that the answerer has come across this term in the past and knew the answer without having to
look for it.
[Edited at 2007-08-26 03:52]
| | | | tazdog (X)
Španjolska
Local time: 06:40
španjolski na engleski
+ ...
| rather off topic, but... | Aug 26, 2007 |
mediamatrix wrote:
While I'm here, a final, related, gripe: Almost 20% of my pro-KudoZ have come from answers to questions classified under the ubiquitous 'Other' field. This field ranks second in my league table after 'Tech/Engineering' (the general field in which I've actually been working professionally for over 30 years) and third in this ranking is 'Legal/Patents' about which I actually have zero professional experience.
When, o when, will 'Other' be abolished, eradicated, banished from the face of the Earth (or at least from Proz.com)?
MediaMatrix
...no more so than the above comment.
So in which of the fields available would you classify tourism/travel, wine and cooking/culinary--three of my areas of specialization?
Back on the subject of the original post, I, too, prefer to receive anwers with a little more than a period, "that's it," or endless streams of meaningless text copied from a Google search page to explain how the answerer came up with his/her suggestion, even if it's only a comment explaining HOW they know or believe it's valid (e.g., "I worked in HR at a large Spanish company, and this is the term that was used there"). I am perfectly capable of doing my own research, but sometimes it's very difficult to see how the answerer arrived from "x" in Spanish to "y" in English, for example, unless an explanation is given. That is also why my own answers tend to be thoroughly documented.
| | |
|
|
|
| Find it yourself | Aug 26, 2007 |
Lia Fail wrote:
You know your expertise, but I only have your word for it, which is why I would still like documentation.
With all due respect Lia, that sounds like want to have your cake and eat it too.
So let's say hypothetically (nothing personal) you're working on a legal text and you ask a PT»EN question.
I happen to notice it at the very end of the 5 minute break I try to take every hour. I happen to know the answer instantly because I slogged through law school and practised mainstream for 10 years. I quickly enter the answer, cite personal experience, am glad to have put you on the right track, expect you will double-check it's appropriate for the full context only you have and get back to my own job.
From your utopian view, you'd rather me jeopardise my own deadline and sit wasting my precious time, providing you with links to put your mind at rest. All this, when you, as a professional translator - having accepted a legal job and therefore presumably having a good background in the field - can get verification of the term yourself and should, in any event, immediately recognise a good thing when you see it.
Or worse still, you'd prefer me not to be "arrogant" and think my experience counts for something, and simply ignore your call for help altogether.
Yes, sure if there is time, it's nice to see well-substantiated answers and if I have time (or I'm in the mood for that matter) I'll provide it, but don't bite the very hand that gets you out of the tight spot.
I depart from the assumption therefore that a qualified translator doesn't need spoonfeeding and is willing, able (and grateful) enough to take the matter further without me holding his/her hand every step of the journey.
I don't care about points - I gave up "playing" Kudoz yonks ago - I simply monitor certain types of questions and if I'm in the mood, have time and have some level of respect for the asker, I'll try and help out. That's my prerogative.
Yours is to take it or leave it - but as Henry says, you're the one getting paid to do the job. Remember that.
And finally, the question and proposed answers don't "belong" to the asker, they belong to the community, so whereas some may prefer links, others are quite happy and grateful to take an unsubstantiated answer, which they recognise has merit, and follow it up themselves.
[Edited at 2007-08-26 15:00]
| | | | | Keep on point | Aug 26, 2007 |
Lia Fail wrote:
You certainly have a point, but it's sometimes quite clear that the asker lacks expertise - as both a translator and researcher - and this is why they need help ... but we all have to start somewhere
I agree everyone has to start somewhere, but inexperienced translators should be taking on their jobs under a mentor until they are ready to go it alone.
But Lia, that is not the point. You posted this thread commenting, inter alia, on the arrogance of people who do not substantiate answers - and you are certainly no newbie lacking experience.
So let's keep squarely on point.
Henry was reacting to a translator in your position, i.e. with a few years under the belt.
[Edited at 2007-08-26 13:46]
| | | | CMJ_Trans (X)
Local time: 06:40
francuski na engleski
+ ...
| To return to the original question... | Aug 26, 2007 |
... if you feel that the well-documented answer taught you something and was more helpful than the unsubstantiated reply, then give the points to the former, irrespective of the peer agreement situation. The call is yours. I'm not even sure why you think you have to justify your decision.
If site rules point towards selecting the answer with most peer agreements, that does not have to be a hard and fast approach - remember, people can be collectively wrong. Also there does seem to be a ten... See more ... if you feel that the well-documented answer taught you something and was more helpful than the unsubstantiated reply, then give the points to the former, irrespective of the peer agreement situation. The call is yours. I'm not even sure why you think you have to justify your decision.
If site rules point towards selecting the answer with most peer agreements, that does not have to be a hard and fast approach - remember, people can be collectively wrong. Also there does seem to be a tendency for people to go off in a mad dash to agree with the first answer past the post - sometimes apparently indiscriminately or for reasons that have nothing to do with objective opinions.
More generally, virtually all of the comments made on this forum are valid in their own way and they beg the old, old question of what the site and others of its ilk is all about.
As I understood it, the site was meant to be a venue for translation and related professionals where people could run their OCCASIONAL problems past other professionals when they found themselves faced with a difficulty. This can happen to anybody: you take on a job in your field and find there is a section on a subject you know little or nothing about. But, the site was also supposed, as I understood it, to be a sort of "last resort", i.e. the place one turned to when one had exhausted all other possibilities (Internet, own glossaries, even the ProZ glossary....).
However, and this is why so many contributors are irritated, the site has become increasingly a place where freeloaders go to save themselves the trouble of doing their own research. For such people - and it doesn't take long to figure out who they are - while one may give the answer on occasion, it would be totally wrong to waste precious time giving them lengthy explanations. You give them the ball and it is up to them to run with it. No pain, no gain.
And, last but not least, I agree with Lawyer-Linguist: any translator, however (in)experienced worth his or her salt should be capable of recognising an answer that should be followed up - i.e. by one's own research. Those incapable of doing this - and Heaven alone knows there seem to be the best part of a tidy few hanging around this site - should get out of the profession at once. These are the people who hang on to the coat tails of their more experienced peers and tend to offer rock-bottom rates as the only way of getting business. As I have often said, I am not a freelance translator as such but, for the sake of the profession, such parasites should be weeded out. They drag the rates down and they lower the standards of the profession. Why on earth should I or those with years of experience like me help those people to harm the "real" translators? It is one thing being helpful and not being arrogant. It is another shooting a very worthwhile profession, if practised properly, in the foot.
Sorry to be grotty/angry but sometime you have to talk turkey - pussyfooting arond the issue will get us nowhere.
And, Lia, the above comments are not directed towards you but may go some way towards explaining why - among other things - some of us are happy to help but not prepared to do other people's legwork.
[Edited at 2007-08-26 11:39] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Stranica u temi: < [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 » Answers: a fast/right/undocumented one or a documented one? | 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 » |
| | Wordfast Pro |
|---|
Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
