| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | Questions marked as non-pro, are they so classified after a proper application of mind? Thread poster: Narasimhan Raghavan
|
|---|
Paul Cohen 
Greenland
Local time: 23:54
German to English
+ ...
| KudoZ generates traffic -- but at what price? | Oct 11, 2009 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
...Paul's suggestion for restricting access to Kudoz (i.e., more than it already is) is a non-starter, precisely because Kudoz generates so much traffic to the site.
Yes, it's a "non-starter," Robert, primarily because it would limit traffic to the site. But the price to pay for all that traffic is that KudoZ will continue to be plagued by non-pro questions (or easy questions, if you prefer that term). And since KudoZ is directly linked to directory ratings, we will continue to discuss this topic in the future.
Personally, I'd rather see less traffic if it would enhance the quality of the questions asked.
We need to ask ourselves some "tough" questions here -- and I'm not talking about terminology questions. Is it really in the interest of members on the site to offer "free" translations of "tough" terms? What kind of message is that sending to the world about the value of our services?
Is this a site for professionals, as the name "ProZ" implies? Are we really interested in answering easy questions by language learners, young people in school and people who only have a passing interest in a particular language?
Clearly, the owners of the site benefit from this extra "freebie" traffic in the form of extra advertising revenue, etc., but the image of the members of the site actually suffers, in my opinion.
Basically, there is no free hot lunch. If the site offers a service for free ("Ask a professional translator about a term in any language for FREE!"), then there is ultimately a price to pay, in other words, KudoZ, by definition, can never be a uniquely professional environment where professional translators ask other professional translators questions.
Nonetheless, the ranking function of Kudoz means that these questions and answers continue to form the basis of decisions for outsiders looking to find professional translators via the directory. That's problematic.
Here is the quandary, as I see it: As long as KudoZ is open to anyone in the world, the site will have to make some kind of distinction between "pro" and "non-pro" questions -- or else the rating system in the directory will become utterly and completely meaningless.
And, given the quality of many KudoZ questions and answers, one could very well argue that KudoZ is already well on its way to becoming a meaningless system for rating the professionalism and quality of an individual member of the site.
| | | | Polangmar
Poland
Local time: 02:54
English to Polish
+ ...
| Some improvements would be welcome | Oct 11, 2009 |
Yasutomo Kanazawa wrote:
And like I wrote above, there are abusers who intentionally vote or change to Non-pro questions out of reasons for maintaining one's directory ranking in that particular pair, discrimination (a non-native speaker answering a question), or simply the voter doesn't like the answerer.
Apart from the above there are some professionals (experts in their fields) who vote non-PRO because the question is easy for them (funny enough - in this way more than 90% of the questions should be non-PRO - luckily, such behaviors are not too often). Accidentally, they never vote non-PRO when they are the first to answer the question and await (PRO, of course) points.
One of the ways to (at least partially) solve the problem of misjudgments and/or biased/malicious votes could be simultaneous voting, which I described in more detail here: http://tinyurl.com/yhwmnho . If this solution was implemented, at (the very) least the answerer could vote non-PRO, thus increasing the minimum threshold of unreasonable and/or unfair votes to four. I don't think there's a big risk of abuse - there will (almost for sure) be a fourth non-PRO voter if the answerer votes PRO in a really easy question (one can see a similar phenomenon with "disagrees": if a correct answer gets a "disagree", more "agrees" are given than without this "disagree"). And even if this fourth non-PRO vote doesn't appear, will it be a big problem? I have seen thousands of very easy questions which (have) remain(ed) PRO just because nobody (or only one person or only two people) (has) voted non-PRO.
(As a matter of fact, when I answer a not very difficult (easy?) question asked as PRO I have a feeling of taking part in a lottery: will there be three non-PRO votes? Or more precisely: will anybody decides it's easy? - if yes, the next two non-PRO votes are almost guaranteed after some time and there is no chance for four reversing votes from the few people who will visit the question later in the day/night - without the "starter" the question will remain PRO.)
Best regards (awaiting a possible simultaneous-voting feature)
Polangmar
| | | | | But then you're not, at least partly, dependent on ad revenue | Oct 11, 2009 |
Paul Cohen wrote:
Personally, I'd rather see less traffic if it would enhance the quality of the questions asked.
Impressions = £
Edited as I credited the wrong person with writing the above.
[Edited at 2009-10-11 18:15 GMT]
| | | | Jessica Noyes
United States
Local time: 20:54
Member
Spanish to English
+ ...
| a) Filter out non-pro b) two distinct sections a solution | Oct 11, 2009 |
Most of you probably know this, but you can filter out on your proz dashboard the non-pro questions, and avoid helping the "I love you"-in-Icelandic folks.
We could keep up traffic to the site by having one section of KudoZ questions posted by non-members of ProZ, and another to which only members could post. Members would be free to answer questions in either section, perhaps earning one point for helping the non-pro group, and four for Pro questions.
Thus lots of traff... See more Most of you probably know this, but you can filter out on your proz dashboard the non-pro questions, and avoid helping the "I love you"-in-Icelandic folks.
We could keep up traffic to the site by having one section of KudoZ questions posted by non-members of ProZ, and another to which only members could post. Members would be free to answer questions in either section, perhaps earning one point for helping the non-pro group, and four for Pro questions.
Thus lots of traffic would still come to ProZ, some translators might still be glad to help out the general public, and others might prefer to tangle only with the knotty questions plaguing talented colleagues. Another options would be that the non-pro section could accept answers from non-members as well, and become more like other public word reference web sites. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 20:54
Spanish to English
+ ...
| To Paul, plus some suggestions | Oct 11, 2009 |
You make some good points and you frame the quandry well. I also sympathize with much of what you say. But I don't see any prospect of proz.com become an exclusively professional venue, mainly for financial reasons. Commercial issues aside, I'm not sure that it would be the best idea for Kudoz to become a completely closed forum.
Here are some things that can be done that might make the Kudoz forum more professional.
1.
Enforce the distinction between "pro" and "... See more You make some good points and you frame the quandry well. I also sympathize with much of what you say. But I don't see any prospect of proz.com become an exclusively professional venue, mainly for financial reasons. Commercial issues aside, I'm not sure that it would be the best idea for Kudoz to become a completely closed forum.
Here are some things that can be done that might make the Kudoz forum more professional.
1.
Enforce the distinction between "pro" and "non-Pro." Set the bar low enough so that controversy will be minimized, but maintain and enforce the distinction.
2.
Award zero points for non-Pro questions. This would help break professional translators of the bad habit of racing to provide a translaton to a term that can be easily found in a dictionary.
3.
Encourage moderators to reclassify a question as "non-Pro" when it clearly falls into that category. It was recently announced by a site staffperson that this reclassifying privilege would be taken away. I think, on the contrary, that it should be retained, but perhaps by designated moderators only.
4.
Do not allow voting re reclassification. This is a distraction and no one has any idea of the qualifications of the person doing he voting. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to count on moderators to make the distinction (based on very conservative criteria) in a fair and equitable way.
5.
Allow moderators to change classification within, say, one hour of posting.
6.
Encourage moderators to provide constructive feedback to "serial abusers" of the Kudoz forum. By "serial abuser" I mean someone who identifies him/herself as a professional translator but continually and frequently posts terms (week after week, month after month) in a way that makes it obvious that no real effort is being made to acquire and utilize basic research skills, or to even take a stab at translating a string of words that on the face of it doesn't appear difficult. Again, I am talking about repeat offenders over a prolonged period of time, posting dozens, and even hundreds, of questions. The idea is not to nitpick single instances, or even a string of queries on a single day that might look questionable.
These kinds of practical improvemnents would make the forum more constructive and professional, and less enabling and prurient.
[Edited at 2009-10-11 20:34 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Sounds like an excellent idea.
| | | | Paul Cohen
Greenland
Local time: 23:54
German to English
+ ...
| @Robert: unconvincing proposals | Oct 11, 2009 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
I don't see any prospect of proz.com become an exclusively professional venue, mainly for financial reasons.
I'm sorry to hear that you don't see any prospect of "ProZ" becoming an exclusively professional venue. You're probably right, though. The financial incentives are enormous. Nonetheless, I think we certainly pay enough money in membership fees to expect a site called "ProZ" to be dedicated to professionals, and not just anyone off the street. I also think it would be better for the site in the long-run, as well.
You've made some interesting proposals, Robert, but I'm a bit confused and still unconvinced:
1.
Enforce the distinction between "pro" and "non-Pro." Set the bar low enough so that controversy will be minimized, but maintain and enforce the distinction.
How do we define "setting the bar low enough"? Isn't the current official definition on the ProZ site sufficiently low?
2.
Award zero points for non-Pro questions. This would help break professional translators of the bad habit of racing to provide a translation to a term that can be easily found in a dictionary.
I don't see how this would change much of anything. The pointZ received now for non-pro questions currently have no influence on a member's ranking in the directory and, as has been pointed out here, the ranking is the greatest motivating factor for answerers.
3.
Encourage moderators to reclassify a question as "non-Pro" when it clearly falls into that category. It was recently announced by a site staffperson that this reclassifying privilege would be taken away. I think, on the contrary, that it should be retained, but perhaps by designated moderators only.
Interesting! Another area where the moderators' wings are being clipped? If moderators could no longer re-classify questions, who would have the authority to reclassify a question? Would it be by voting?
4.
Do not allow voting re reclassification. This is a distraction and no one has any idea of the qualifications of the person doing the voting. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to count on moderators to make the distinction (based on very conservative criteria) in a fair and equitable way.
Ah, so you propose that moderators be allowed to reclassify questions, but not members via voting. I strongly object to this proposal. Voting is not a "distraction" for me. Given the strict limits that are imposed on us by the ruleZ, voting a question as "non-pro" is virtually the only recourse that I have when someone asks an easy question where the answer can be found in a dictionary or on Google in 11 nanoseconds.
5.
Allow moderators to change classification within, say, one hour of posting.
Why the one-hour time limit?
6.
Encourage moderators to provide constructive feedback to "serial abusers" of the Kudoz forum.
Sorry, if it seems like I'm nitpicking, but how would "serial abusers" be defined? Would there be an official definition, or would it be left to the individual judgment of each moderator? I think ProZ has clearly shown in the past that it is basically unwilling to police askers but only too willing to police answerers.
I don't think we need moderators to educate so-called abusers. If we had more freedom on the site to call a spade a spade, it would be possible for members of this site who are language professionals and experts in the field to provide this kind of constructive feedback.
These kinds of practical improvements would make the forum more constructive and professional, and less enabling and prurient.
I'm afraid I remain unconvinced, Robert. Essentially, it sounds to me like you want the moderators to somehow ensure that KudoZ questions and askers meet standards. Is that a fair assessment? In my opinion, that's just passing the buck and placing the problem in the lap of the moderators.
[Edited at 2009-10-11 19:09 GMT]
| | | | | One point I can't agree to | Oct 12, 2009 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
4.
Do not allow voting re reclassification. This is a distraction and no one has any idea of the qualifications of the person doing he voting. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to count on moderators to make the distinction (based on very conservative criteria) in a fair and equitable way.
[Edited at 2009-10-11 20:34 GMT]
I have to totally disagree to what Robert wrote above. This is not practical, since some of the non-logged in visitors DO ask pro level questions, even though they are not translators. And of course, these questions are classified as Non-pro automatically from the beginning, and I believe we've all seen similar cases where people think that it's appropriate to change to (vote for) Pro for these questions.
By the way, a bit off-topic, but I noticed someone misunderstanding my posting on this forum regarding Kudoz abusers, and s/he took one's precious time to overreact, access my profile and the Kudoz questions I answered, and politely entered a "disagree", which is not that person's working language. I believe I must have upset that person by my posting. There is some unhappy person who is having imaginations and hallucinations that someone is verbally attacking him/her.
| | |
|
|
|
Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 01:54
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| the question is: was it a good question to ask/answer? | Oct 12, 2009 |
B D Finch wrote:
I really disagree with the idea that one is wasting one's time with KudoZ if the answer doesn't improve one's ranking.
It's really sad if we can't give a minute of our time to help others - for free
Voting a question as Non-Pro seems like a useful way of avoiding cluttering the KOG with trivia, but also a way of discouraging groups of people who are just trying to win points from posting silly questions for their friends to answer.
The KOG is not meant to be an online dictionary. If it's a question with an obvious and/or easily-discovered answer, then it shouldn't be in the KOG, whether it was asked by a professional translator or a casual visitor to the site. On the other hand, if the casual visitor poses a really thought-provoking question, why not put the resulting discussion and proposed answers in the KOG for others (possibly pro translators) to benefit from?
One could, if one accepts Narasimhan's argument, equally suggest that there is no point in answering "not for points" questions.
and that would be a sad state of affairs, IMO
| | | | | I beg to differ B.D. Finch | Oct 12, 2009 |
Indeed I started a topic on the not-for points questions too, see: http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom:_translator_coop/133492-thoughts_on_questions_marked_as_being_not_for_points-page2.html
If you at least answer a question and at the same time vote it Non-pro, I might yet understand. But I refer to a Pro... See more Indeed I started a topic on the not-for points questions too, see: http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom:_translator_coop/133492-thoughts_on_questions_marked_as_being_not_for_points-page2.html
If you at least answer a question and at the same time vote it Non-pro, I might yet understand. But I refer to a Pro question being voted Non-pro and the voter not even bothering to answer that question. One example would be the question http://www.proz.com/kudoz/hindi_to_english/other/3492481-दीपक_राम_जी_हमसे_ख़फ़ा_क्यों_रहते_हो.html
This question required translation for a collection of sentences and took up time to formulate them. Now some person comes along, votes it Non-pro and goes his way happily without even bothering to answer the question. This is what I object to in the first place.
And I am told that some members get the privilege of getting the right to vote, I do not seem to have it.
B D Finch wrote:
One could, if one accepts Narasimhan's argument, equally suggest that there is no point in answering "not for points" questions.
I really disagree with the idea that one is wasting one's time with KudoZ if the answer doesn't improve one's ranking. I also have to admit to having voted questions as Non-Pro, including ones that I have answered myself. I answer questions to help other translators and the community and also for reasons that are probably similar to those that make some people do crossword puzzles. Ranking is a useful spin off. However, when I see a KudoZ question that I could easily and confidently answer, posted by an Asker who I don't want to help, e.g. because I think they are incompetent, I don't bother answering it even if it would be points for old rope. On the other hand, if somebody provides a better answer than my one, I have learned something.
Voting a question as Non-Pro seems like a useful way of avoiding cluttering the KOG with trivia, but also a way of discouraging groups of people who are just trying to win points from posting silly questions for their friends to answer.
Regards,
N. Raghavan ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Reclassification requires 3 votes now - perhaps there is a bug? | Oct 12, 2009 |
As far as I understand, Narasimhan was talking about cases when a single person changed the classification of the question, and he found it subjective and unjust.
According to this posting by Enrique in a recent thread, KudoZ editors and moderators cannot singlehandedly change the Pro vs. Non-Pro classification anymore. They would vote just as equals, so a question should have 3 independent votes for reclassification before it is actually done.
See the announcement here:
... See more As far as I understand, Narasimhan was talking about cases when a single person changed the classification of the question, and he found it subjective and unjust.
According to this posting by Enrique in a recent thread, KudoZ editors and moderators cannot singlehandedly change the Pro vs. Non-Pro classification anymore. They would vote just as equals, so a question should have 3 independent votes for reclassification before it is actually done.
See the announcement here:
http://www.proz.com/forum/kudoz/145903-mods_and_pro_no_pro_distinction.html#1220147
Now, the question he posted a link to shows a change by an editor on October 10. I am not sure whether it means the system does not work as it is supposed to, and editors can still singlehandedly change the classification, or the third vote happened to be that person's vote, and therefore the system shows his/her name. It shouldn't be either way, so it may worth submitting a support ticket about it.
Katalin
[Edited for typo.]
[Edited at 2009-10-13 13:16 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Thank you Katalin, you have captured my point admirably | Oct 13, 2009 |
This arbitrariness is what I object to. I feel that whoever votes to change the classification has to justify it as well. In the event of voting an existing pro-question as non-pro, he should at least answer it.
Regards,
N. Raghavan
Katalin Horvath McClure wrote: As far as I understand, Narasimhan was talking about cases when a single person changed the classification of the question, and he found it subjective and unjust. According to this posting by Enrique in a recent thread, KudoZ editors and moderators cannot singlehandedly change the Pro vs. Non-Pro classification anymore. They would vote just as equals, so a question should have 3 independent votes for reclassification before it is actually done. See the announcement here: http://www.proz.com/forum/kudoz/145903-mods_and_pro_no_pro_distinction.html#1220147 Now, the question he posted a link to shows a change by an editor on October 10. I am not sure whether it means the system does not work as it is supposed to, and editors can still singlehandedly change the classification, or the third vote happened to be that person's vote, and therefore the system shoes his/her name. It shouldn't be either way, so it may worth submitting a support ticket about it. Katalin
| | |
|
|
|
| Hit right on the spot | Oct 14, 2009 |
Polangmar wrote: Yasutomo Kanazawa wrote:
And like I wrote above, there are abusers who intentionally vote or change to Non-pro questions out of reasons for maintaining one's directory ranking in that particular pair, discrimination (a non-native speaker answering a question), or simply the voter doesn't like the answerer. Apart from the above there are some professionals (experts in their fields) who vote non-PRO because the question is easy for them (funny enough - in this way more than 90% of the questions should be non-PRO - luckily, such behaviors are not too often). Accidentally, they never vote non-PRO when they are the first to answer the question and await (PRO, of course) points. Polangmar
Polangmar, you hit right on the spot. Yes, there are experts who vote Non-pro because the question is easy for them. And these experts look down upon the "subcreatures" who posted the question and the answers, but 99%, these experts NEVER answer the question or even post a reference to the question. It seems they enjoy watching what kind of wrong or totally out of track answers these subcreatures post, and the peers who agree to them.
I, same as you, do not vote for Non-pro even if the question is in my special field. Not all translators work only in their special field due to various reasons, and if you are a real specialist or an expert in that field, I believe you should share your expertise with them without discrimination. I firmly believe this is called a genuine professional attitude.
| | | | Gina W
United States
Local time: 20:54
Member (2003)
French to English
| I agree with your points | Oct 14, 2009 |
Narasimhan Raghavan wrote:
My points are 2 fold.
1. An asker classifying his question as non-pro has no business to ask that question in the first place. If the question were so easy, why should he ask it in the first place?
2. What do the persons voting a pro-question as non-pro question think they are doing? To the extent I saw, these after-the-fact voters did not bother to answer the question itself. If I were paranoid, I would say they are spoil-sports out to spoil someone's day.
Regards,
N. Raghavan
[Edited at 2009-10-10 02:59 GMT]
I agree with the above.
Also, regarding the 3 votes versus an editor unilaterally changing questions...first of all, I hope there is not a bug and I hope that at the very least, 3 votes are required. That being said, I still see cases where there were 3 votes but the idea of "Non-Pro" was nonsense.
| | | | Gina W
United States
Local time: 20:54
Member (2003)
French to English
| Here's where I agree and disagree on the points Robert made | Oct 14, 2009 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
1. Set the bar low enough so that controversy will be minimized, but maintain and enforce the distinction.
2. Award zero points for non-Pro questions.
3. by designated moderators only.
4. Do not allow voting re reclassification.
5. Allow moderators to change classification within, say, one hour of posting.
6. Encourage moderators to provide constructive feedback to "serial abusers" of the Kudoz forum.
Point #1, if you're going to have a "Non-Pro" classification, yes the bar should be set low enough so that there is no question. I don't see that happening now.
I just recently inquired about point #2. Why should an answerer then receive 4 points for an allegedly "Non-Pro" question? It's so easy to answer but the person keeps the 4 points that the Asker awarded?
However, that being said, there's also a chance that if you remove all points for "Non-Pro", then that just further encourages certain 'voters' to vote Non-Pro, for just that purpose - preventing an answerer from receiving points.
Points #3 and #4 I am most likely to agree with unless someone can give me an argument against either or both of these things.
Point #5, I agree with in theory but in practice, a moderator being a volunteer (or even if s/he wasn't, being human and having a life outside the site) can not and should not be expected to be available 24/7. But within a certain time frame is a good idea.
Point #6, yes I think "serial abusers" should be addressed. I also think that those users and/or members who regularly participate and follow the site rules should never be made to feel as if they have nerve posting, just because there are "serial abusers". I think sometimes there is a tendency to lump in good users/members with those who actually do abuse the system.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Questions marked as non-pro, are they so classified after a proper application of mind? | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
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 
