Suggestion: Abolish Kudoz glossaries Thread poster: Erik Freitag
|
|---|
Erik Freitag 
Germany
Local time: 10:07
Member (2006)
Dutch to German
+ ...
Dear colleagues,
A suggestion I've made in this thread (http://www.proz.com/forum/kudoz/242950-should_the_kudoz_points_system_be_abolished.html ) was a bit off-topic, but I think it might be worth considering.
Let me reapeat here what I've said in the other thread:
[quote]
It seems that many of the complaints about Kudoz focus on the quality of the glossaries emerging from Kudoz questions.
For exactly the same reason, I never ever consult the Kudoz glossaries. Beside glossary entries, the Kudoz search function offers the individual Kudoz questions as well, which imho are a much more reliable source of information.
A Kudoz glossary entry usually is no more than a source and a target term together with more or less detailed information about the subject field - basically: the chosen translation stripped from most of the information that (i) you need to evaluate the validity and (ii) already exist in form of the contributions to the relevant Kudoz question. This information includes, amongst others: other suggestions that have been discarded, substantiations (or lack of them), discussions, or hints that enable me to judge the credibility of the participants to that individual Kudoz question. This way, I can quite reliably judge whether a given suggestion is worth checking against other sources.
So why not completely get rid of the Kudoz glossaries? People will still be able to find what they're looking for, except in a far more valuable form. Glossaries give the impression of being authoritative, while presenting information in shape of the related discussion will (i) push the translator to think twice before using a translation and (ii) not leave as bad an impression as the existing glossaries do.
[\quote]
So, what do you think: Would it be a good idea to loose the Kudoz glossaries altogether?
| | | |
[quote]efreitag wrote:
Glossaries give the impression of being authoritative
[\quote]
I agree in part with your post. However I believe that KudoZ suffers from the same malaise that plagues the Internet. Anyone can write something, put it on an Internet site and call it "authoritative". The Internet has Justin Bieber fans self-harming in a bid to stop him from smoking pot. Certain Facebook pages will have you believe that raw food cures AIDS and Type 1 diabetes, and I recently discovered a quote "by" Leonardo Da Vinci doing the rounds on various sites, all attributing these words to him when they were actually written by Freud.
The Internet is a strange, wonderful beast. Take the good, leave the bad, and know how to distinguish one from the other.
| | | | | Why abolish them and leave Kudoz questions in place? | Feb 10, 2013 |
The glossaries are just the extended arm of Kudoz. Just like Kudoz questions, they are a minefield. Those who aren't able to detect mines will be blown out of existence and those who have enough knowledge will be able to maneuver around the mines and find a safe path.
Of course the glossaries are now a serious source of embarrassment when they show up on the www -as they are supposed to do- but they are no more embarrassing than Kudoz questions have now become.
I personally don'... See more The glossaries are just the extended arm of Kudoz. Just like Kudoz questions, they are a minefield. Those who aren't able to detect mines will be blown out of existence and those who have enough knowledge will be able to maneuver around the mines and find a safe path.
Of course the glossaries are now a serious source of embarrassment when they show up on the www -as they are supposed to do- but they are no more embarrassing than Kudoz questions have now become.
I personally don't see any point in 'abolishing' them. Hiding them (and Kudoz questions) from Google's prying eyes would be better imo. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 09:07
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| I always consult the KudoZ question | Feb 10, 2013 |
efreitag wrote: A suggestion I've made in this thread ( http://www.proz.com/forum/kudoz/242950-should_the_kudoz_points_system_be_abolished.html ) was a bit off-topic, but I think it might be worth considering.
...
I never ever consult the Kudoz glossaries. Beside glossary entries, the Kudoz search function offers the individual Kudoz questions as well, which imho are a much more reliable source of information.
So, what do you think: Would it be a good idea to loose the Kudoz glossaries altogether?
I've always checked the actual question, never the glossaries alone. I would never consider using KudoZ any other way, though I do find it useful.
My answer is a resounding: YES
| | |
|
|
|
| Certainly not - edit them instead! | Feb 10, 2013 |
I would vote NO!
I consult the glossaries regularly, and in my language pair they are actually a very valuable source of information that is not easily found elsewhere.
Like Sheila, I never use a term without looking at the discussion, and then perhaps moving on to check somewhere else.
In the languages I know, KudoZ still functions more or less as it was intended to, and most answers are serious and reasonable. Of course some are way off, and I apologise f... See more I would vote NO!
I consult the glossaries regularly, and in my language pair they are actually a very valuable source of information that is not easily found elsewhere.
Like Sheila, I never use a term without looking at the discussion, and then perhaps moving on to check somewhere else.
In the languages I know, KudoZ still functions more or less as it was intended to, and most answers are serious and reasonable. Of course some are way off, and I apologise for my own contributions to those. I leave most of them, disagrees and all, as a warning to others. I have learnt from the disagrees too, and in that way even the wrong answers can be useful.
In the majority of cases, the selected answer is possible, at least 'in this context', as one frequent asker regularly writes, and then you are warned: the translation here will not fit every time.
PLEASE DO NOT abolish the glossaries in Scandinavian languages! The vast majority of answers are sober and justifiable in the asker's context. Of course they have to be checked, but I think the KudoZ glossaries are far better than their reputation.
With due caveats, the KudoZ glossaries in some language pairs at least are a great tool. A lot of effort has gone into building them up, and they would be sorely missed.
________________________
What happened to KudoZ Editors?
I am still able to make some edits to a glossary entry.
At some point people stopped becoming Editors automatically on grabbing 500 points and answering a short questionnaire.
A few were invited, even though they had less points. (We discussed this when I was a Moderator.)
Maybe staff could comment, and we could run a campaign to tidy up the glossaries and remove the obviously wrong answers and less useful dicussions.
But abolishing the glossaries altogether would in my opinion be far too drastic.
[Edited at 2013-02-10 16:39 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Only Mods were once able to edit glossaries | Feb 10, 2013 |
Christine Andersen wrote:
What happened to KudoZ Editors?
I am still able to make some edits to a glossary entry.
At some point people stopped becoming Editors automatically on grabbing 500 points and answering a short questionnaire.
A few were invited, even though they had less points. (We discussed this when I was a Moderator.)
Afaik, Kudoz editors have never been able to edit glossary entries. That used to be done by moderators back in the days when they were considered to be language experts and not just site cops.
That ended when the role of Mods changed and afaik, only Askers and Answerers can change the gloss. But since they are the ones who put in the bogus entries to begin with........
There are no officially designated language experts on Proz. Every Asker/Answerer is now an expert when it comes to their own glossary entries. And posting a warning that the gloss entry isn't trustworthy or is wrong (as people used to do) will now incur the wrath of the powers that be. So nothing can be done anymore to correct/improve glossary entries. Which leads us back to the topic of this forum.
| | | | The Misha
Local time: 04:07
Russian to English
+ ...
Personally, I couldn't care less. I never use them. With a little research skill, you can always find what you want googling. However, there's probably plenty of folks out there who find these glossaries useful, so why take them away? If they bug you so much, just disregard them, and that's it. Case closed, everyone happy.
| | | | almacarle
Local time: 10:07
English to Italian
+ ...
hi everyone
I want them:-)
I like them:-)
I need them:-)
they are very helpful, even if not always perfect
there are important links for research
long life to glossaries, and a kindly request to you all to improve them and to make them bigger and richer
thanks a lot
kind regards
almacarle
ps if someone complains that they are full of errors, how to correct them?
is it possible?
... See more hi everyone
I want them:-)
I like them:-)
I need them:-)
they are very helpful, even if not always perfect
there are important links for research
long life to glossaries, and a kindly request to you all to improve them and to make them bigger and richer
thanks a lot
kind regards
almacarle
ps if someone complains that they are full of errors, how to correct them?
is it possible?
in any case, as we all know very well, translation is not an exact science:-(
sometimes there are so many versions...... ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| You can always post a 'disagree' with an explanation | Feb 10, 2013 |
On checking, I can see that I can only move an entry to a different subject area or change the language pair.
However, even after a question has been closed, it is still possible to add agrees, or disagrees, which must be explained.
I have added agrees with new reference links when I have found the original reference does not exist any more.
It is also possible to add new answers or explanations in the discussion section, where there is more space for a full expla... See more On checking, I can see that I can only move an entry to a different subject area or change the language pair.
However, even after a question has been closed, it is still possible to add agrees, or disagrees, which must be explained.
I have added agrees with new reference links when I have found the original reference does not exist any more.
It is also possible to add new answers or explanations in the discussion section, where there is more space for a full explanation.
As long as these are linguistic, and do not directly criticise the original answers, they will be allowed, I'm sure. Simply offering a different answer is criticism in itself.
[Edited at 2013-02-11 00:48 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | neilmac
Spain
Local time: 10:07
Spanish to English
+ ...
| A curate's egg | Feb 10, 2013 |
Despite the many faults and sometimes laughably naff entries, I have often found the glossaries useful, even if only to cross-check with other sources. Why do away with a freely available resource just because it's not totally perfect?
I sometimes think people take everything a bit too seriously...
[Edited at 2013-02-10 18:41 GMT]
| | | | | Take the good, leave the bad... | Feb 10, 2013 |
Fiona Peterson wrote:
The Internet is a strange, wonderful beast. Take the good, leave the bad, and know how to distinguish one from the other.
Very well put Fiona. A good translator must have excellent research skills, and this will include dealing with resources as chaotic as the ProZ glossary, which, nevertheless, contains much of great value.
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 10:07
French to English
Noni Gilbert wrote: Fiona Peterson wrote:
The Internet is a strange, wonderful beast. Take the good, leave the bad, and know how to distinguish one from the other.
Very well put Fiona. A good translator must have excellent research skills, and this will include dealing with resources as chaotic as the ProZ glossary, which, nevertheless, contains much of great value.
While I do agree with this reasoning, however I see no reason for a website that's supposed to be for professional translators to wilfully continue to add to the bad once its bad nature has been pointed out.
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 16:07
Chinese to English
| Agree - and agree that it's not a major issue | Feb 11, 2013 |
I agree with this. I don't think the glossaries add any value over and above the value of the archived Kudoz questions themselves. They're just a random assortment of the questions where the asker remembered to click the "make a glossary entry" button. If we wanted to turn them into an authoritative resource, they'd have to be properly curated.
Having said that, Misha and Neil are right - it's not a major issue.
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Suggestion: Abolish Kudoz glossaries | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
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 
