Conflict of interest between KudoZ contributors? Or not? Thread poster: Laurent Di Raimondo
|
|---|
Dear Colleagues,
As we all know, KudoZ forum is a valuable source of intellectual enrichment and a vivid opportunity to share altogether our respective points of view, analysis, materials and sometimes our experience on specific or technical foreign terms. In that respect, I find KudoZ forum is irreplaceable.
However, since I share my humble contributions and shoot the bull with other contributors, I've noticed that few of them give some respect to what I call "conflict... See more Dear Colleagues,
As we all know, KudoZ forum is a valuable source of intellectual enrichment and a vivid opportunity to share altogether our respective points of view, analysis, materials and sometimes our experience on specific or technical foreign terms. In that respect, I find KudoZ forum is irreplaceable.
However, since I share my humble contributions and shoot the bull with other contributors, I've noticed that few of them give some respect to what I call "conflicts of interest".
Indeed, I've noticed for long that a lot of contributors who are used to posting a "proposed translation" on a given topic, in the mean time don't hesitate to score (agree) or unscore (disagree) other translations proposed by their counterparts on the same topic - maybe with the aim of raising their final score and sweep the board for their KudoZ points account.
Of course, I'm not jealous about KudoZ points hunters and I don't either consider KudoZ forum a battlefield. But I think that, as a fundamental rule, you can not be both a judge and a party. In any contest.
That's why I tend to think that colleagues who post a "proposed translation" should refrain from scoring - or unscoring most of the time - their fellow colleagues and reserve their further comments on the "discussion" dialog box on top of the topic especially designed for that.
I'm just talking about what seems to me elementary and fundamental rules of good conducts. I'm just talking about respect between us.
But maybe I'm wrong... That's why I would be glad to share your thoughts and comments about what I call "conflicts of interest".
Best to you.
[Modifié le 2021-05-09 20:23 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
I couldn’t agree more. This is also one of the reasons I no longer take part in the translation contests. The idea that a contestant can rate fairly other contestants' entries is ludicrous for the lack of a better word. This is a very clear example of conflict of interest!
| | | |
In my language pairs I see a modicum of professional courtesy: if an answerer disagrees with another answer, the comment is usually posted as "neutral" rather than "disagree" unless that answer is obviously and dangerously wrong.
Furthermore, the effect of KudoZ points on member's rank builds up quite slowly, so most KudoZ leaders are long-standing honest contributors anyway. The point hunters and clowns are clearly visible in individual answers but much less so in the rankings. <... See more In my language pairs I see a modicum of professional courtesy: if an answerer disagrees with another answer, the comment is usually posted as "neutral" rather than "disagree" unless that answer is obviously and dangerously wrong.
Furthermore, the effect of KudoZ points on member's rank builds up quite slowly, so most KudoZ leaders are long-standing honest contributors anyway. The point hunters and clowns are clearly visible in individual answers but much less so in the rankings.
On the other hand, there is an easy way to discourage point hunting by changing the formula for the total score so that good answers are rewarded and bad ones are penalised. For example, subtract points for rejected answers, or divide the total points accumulated for accepted answers by that member's total number of answers. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Dabbling, and do as I say, not as I do... | May 10, 2021 |
Anton Konashenok wrote:
In my language pairs I see a modicum of professional courtesy: if an answerer disagrees with another answer, the comment is usually posted as "neutral" rather than "disagree" unless that answer is obviously and dangerously wrong.
I posted a "neutral" on someone else's answer in a question I recently answered. The other answerer was what I call a "dabbler" (someone who doesn't work with the language concerned and clearly hasn't even learned it), she had based her nonsensical answer on a badly translated website; those are legion in the language concerned. In reality, I disagreed, but I didn't quite have the heart to post an angry-looking red "disagree"! (Maybe we should change the colour?! Or at least use a paler shade of red... just kidding!) And I probably should have done that, despite my "vested interest" in the question. No one else contributed to it, so there was no one else to point the obvious error out. The asker - not a native speaker of EN - could easily have taken the "dabbler's" answer as gospel just because she is a native EN speaker, although as it turned out, that didn't happen. So I'm all in favour of being allowed to comment on other answers when you have answered a question. If you have a useful observation to make about someone else's answer, and if you believe you're competent to answer the question, then I see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to point out a flaw in someone else's answer. Bias is not your only possible motivation. The other answerer has a right of reply, so if your argument holds no water, they can point that out and the asker will have the final say.
And it works both ways; I've seen lots of very sporting "agrees" posted by one answerer on another answerer's answer. (That would make a good tongue-twister!) And I think that's lovely, long may it continue!
Anton Konashenok wrote:
On the other hand, there is an easy way to discourage point hunting by changing the formula for the total score so that good answers are rewarded and bad ones are penalised. For example, subtract points for rejected answers, or divide the total points accumulated for accepted answers by that member's total number of answers.
I've thought about this idea myself. I think a person's "success rate" is definitely a meaningful indicator, but I also think it would be best to combine it with other factors, because otherwise, people might be tempted to take the hyper-cautious approach that I now take to answering. I'll usually only answer a question if (a) the asker has a proven track record of closing questions and grading answers (not everyone does), and (b) I feel that the source term only has one possible translation. If I feel there are two or more, I won't answer, as I know my chances of success are likely to be no more than 50%. Maybe that's silly! I take that approach because I like to maximise my success rate, but if everyone did likewise, people might shy away from answering questions with more than one possible answer, and that would be a shame for the askers of these questions.
I also think that the number (as opposed to percentage) of successful answers is meaningful. If someone has answered 10 questions and gets points for all 10, their success rate is 100%; but have they contributed more to the site than someone who has earned points for 300 out of 400 answers? I would say not. The latter person's success rate is only 75%, but I would still argue they have made a far bigger contribution to KudoZ than the first answerer. So I do think the number of successful answers should be a factor in the equation if the system were to be changed.
And by the way, what is the term (if there is one) for people who participate in KudoZ in any way? KudoZZers? Contributors? "Players"?(!) It would be handy to know that for future reference! If there isn't one, can anyone suggest one?
[Edited at 2021-05-10 09:24 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Right or wrong | May 10, 2021 |
Laurent DI RAIMONDO wrote:
Indeed, I've noticed for long that a lot of contributors who are used to posting a "proposed translation" on a given topic, in the mean time don't hesitate to score (agree) or unscore (disagree) other translations proposed by their counterparts on the same topic - maybe with the aim of raising their final score and sweep the board for their KudoZ points account.
I can't speak for anybody else, but if I disagree with a proposed answer on KudoZ, it's not because I'm trying to sabotage the person who proposed it, or because I'm trying to earn points for myself so as to raise my position in the rankings.
It's because I think it's wrong.
Isn't that the point of it all?
[Edited to correct typo]
[Edited at 2021-05-10 04:54 GMT]
| | | | | Your wish is my command | May 10, 2021 |
Peter Shortall wrote:
And by the way, what is the term (if there is one) for people who participate in KudoZ in any way? KudoZZers? Contributors? "Players"?(!) It would be handy to know that for future reference! If there isn't one, can anyone suggest one?
Those who ask: SpongerZ
Those who guess: KlownZ
Those who know: MugZ
| | | | Robert Forstag 
United States
Local time: 00:45
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Letter and Spirit, WannabeZ and Serial OffenderZ | May 10, 2021 |
The rules for Kudoz allow a contributor to post a suggestion and disagree with other answers to the same query. As a matter of courtesy, most contributors in my main pair refrain from doing this, and I myself generally follow this practice. The only time I deviate from this is when, as Anton writes, a suggestion is obviously or dangerously wrong (especially when said answer is accompanied by a high CL). I also tend to be less courteous with serial offenders.
It is one thing f... See more The rules for Kudoz allow a contributor to post a suggestion and disagree with other answers to the same query. As a matter of courtesy, most contributors in my main pair refrain from doing this, and I myself generally follow this practice. The only time I deviate from this is when, as Anton writes, a suggestion is obviously or dangerously wrong (especially when said answer is accompanied by a high CL). I also tend to be less courteous with serial offenders.
It is one thing for a "dabbler" to post an obviously wrong suggestion. It is quite another for a frequent contributor to do so - day after day, month after month, and year after year. It is even more alarming when such suggestions are accompanied by high confidence ratings and explanations that are so incoherent and impoverished as to raise questions about the mental status of the contributor.
[Edited at 2021-05-10 15:56 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Points earned are a helpful indicator, but many good answers do not earn points! | May 10, 2021 |
Peter Shortall wrote:
...
And it works both ways; I've seen lots of very sporting "agrees" posted by one answerer on another answerer's answer. (That would make a good tongue-twister!) And I think that's lovely, long may it continue!
... I think a person's "success rate" is definitely a meaningful indicator, but I also think it would be best to combine it with other factors, because otherwise, people might be tempted to take the hyper-cautious approach that I now take to answering. ... if everyone did likewise, people might shy away from answering questions with more than one possible answer, and that would be a shame for the askers of these questions.
I also think that the number (as opposed to percentage) of successful answers is meaningful. If someone has answered 10 questions and gets points for all 10, their success rate is 100%; but have they contributed more to the site than someone who has earned points for 300 out of 400 answers? I would say not. The latter person's success rate is only 75%, but I would still argue they have made a far bigger contribution to KudoZ than the first answerer. So I do think the number of successful answers should be a factor in the equation if the system were to be changed.
...
In my language pairs KudoZ is not so active as it used to be, and nor am I, but contributors usually gave helpful comments and agrees. Actual disagrees were rare, politely explained, and well deserved!
The number of points earned gives some indication of how much a person has contributed, but a lot of answers that do not earn points are still very valuable contributions to the discussion. I still go back and search for terms, and find them helpful.
I have asked lots of questions myself and often had a hard time allocating the points. This was especially true when I actually asked for synonyms for an over-used word, and used more than one of them in a translation. I sometimes awarded them to the answerer who had fewest if I could not choose in any other way between two answers!
Sharing points has been suggested more than once, but never implemented, and perhaps it would make things unnecessarily complicated.
There has just been a call for volunteers to test the directory ranking tool in another thread, so perhaps there will be developments.
| | |
|
|
|
| Don't think Kudoz schemers can beat the proz | May 11, 2021 |
Anton Konashenok wrote:
In my language pairs I see a modicum of professional courtesy: if an answerer disagrees with another answer, the comment is usually posted as "neutral" rather than "disagree" unless that answer is obviously and dangerously wrong.
Makes me think about how the Kudoz system works: I am a fairly new Kudoz contributor (with zero experience as an asker), but I have encountered, and commented on, a handful of entries where an answer that made no sense would get the points (at least based on my own research into the subject-matter combined with my own best judgment as a translator), and sometimes, the only thing that seemed to have gone into the award decision was the confidence and Agree score (i. e. no specific rationale was offered). Do the askers have the ultimate decision power, or are there other mechanisms at work? I have noticed that many askers tend to stay within the asker crowd, which means that they are the kind of people who like to have decisions made for them. Anyway, I do not think I ever committed an offence like the one described by the topic starter; any replies I post in addition to my own translation proposals are usually neutral and always have an explanation to them (once I even posted an "Agree" to a proposal I liked better than mine own, and it ended up getting the points)
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Conflict of interest between KudoZ contributors? Or not? | 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 » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
