| A témához tartozó oldalak: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | Is making random answers in many pairs acceptable, or KudoZ spam? Téma indítója: Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI
|
|---|
| Guessing refers to the level of confidence | Apr 20, 2011 |
Unless I am mistaken, I think it only refers to people who systematically choose "1" as a level of confidence. If someone answers with higher levels of confidence, it will be difficult to accuse them of guessing, however right/wrong their answers are.
Stéphanie
[Edited at 2011-04-20 14:39 GMT]
| | | | | And, one more thing, | Apr 20, 2011 |
Stéphanie Soudais wrote: Unless I am mistaken, I think it only refers to people who systematically choose "1" as a level of confidence. If someone answers with higher levels of confidence, it will be difficult to accuse them of guessing, however right/wrong their answers are. Stéphanie [Edited at 2011-04-20 14:24 GMT]
you cannot attack or criticize anyone in any way based on the entered Confidence Level even if that person is really guessing...
| | | | | Plus ça change........ | Apr 20, 2011 |
Stéphanie Soudais wrote: Unless I am mistaken, I think it only refers to people who systematically choose "1" as a level of confidence. If someone answers with higher levels of confidence, it will be difficult to accuse them of guessing, however right/wrong their answers are. Stéphanie [Edited at 2011-04-20 14:30 GMT]
I was going to add that since 'systematic guessing' would be open to interpretation and since only mods and/or site staff would have the authority to do the interpreting (as with all other rules), more likely than not, this rule will never be used to stop anyone from participating in Kudoz.
| | | | Dave Bindon 
Görögország
Local time: 14:35
görög - angol
Az Ő emlékére: | Random wrongness | Apr 20, 2011 |
I can easily work out who one of the culprits being referred to is!
There is no need for me to insinuate that the member has insufficient knowledge of English to give useful answers where EN is the source or target, as he himself has stated that he CANNOT speak English.
Disagreeing with his answers often results in rude/offensive responses. Indeed, he sent an extremely off... See more I can easily work out who one of the culprits being referred to is!
There is no need for me to insinuate that the member has insufficient knowledge of English to give useful answers where EN is the source or target, as he himself has stated that he CANNOT speak English.
Disagreeing with his answers often results in rude/offensive responses. Indeed, he sent an extremely offensive message to one member but, since he did so via a social networking site, no action was taken.
Since we have been advised to raise a support ticket if we think a member has contravened any site rule, I expect site staff will soon be inundated with support requests. And if nothing can be done based on the current site rules, then I would ask the staff to consider amending the rules. It is evident that the status quo is causing considerable discontent across may of Kudos's language pairs. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
IPtranslate (X)
Brazília
angol - holland
+ ...
| Well, let me put my foot in it....someone has to... | Apr 20, 2011 |
Stéphanie Soudais wrote: Unless I am mistaken, I think it only refers to people who systematically choose "1" as a level of confidence. If someone answers with higher levels of confidence, it will be difficult to accuse them of guessing, however right/wrong their answers are. Stéphanie [Edited at 2011-04-20 14:39 GMT]
I don't agree, and not just because I "feel so", but based on the principle of peer evaluation. It doesn't matter if someone consistently enters worthless proposals with a confidence level of 5; they are still worthless if peers (in that language pair and in that field) say so. If these instances keep ocurring, then - at least in my glossary - I call the actions of such a person "guessing". If the moderator claims he/she cannot judge if these peer evaluations are correct (and not after the first of such negative feedbacks, but after a whole series), the question one should ask is whether they (the moderators) should be moderators. Peer evaluation (statistically, based on sufficient large numbers) is what counts, not "some interpretation of a rule" with the aim of not hurting anyone's feelings. Moderators are not there (or are they?) to safeguard the site; they are there to safeguard the proper functioning of the site....and, of course, now over to the definition of "proper functioning"....
[Edited at 2011-04-20 15:16 GMT]
| | | |
Unless I am mistaken, I think it only refers to people who systematically choose "1" as a level of confidence. If someone answers with higher levels of confidence, it will be difficult to accuse them of guessing, however right/wrong their answers are. Stéphanie
But if they valuate it as "medium" confidence for example, although it is guessing (what else it can concsciously be in such a case?), what about this rule then?
"No action aimed at gaining unfair advantage in KudoZ, the directory or elsewhere, whether taken alone or as a group, will be tolerated."
http://www.proz.com/siterules/general/2#2
Wouldn't an action of mis-presenting a guess as a 50% valid proposal be considered as aimed at gaining unfair advantage?
(Besides, the rule also advises to act under assumption of good faith - imagine if someone perhaps less experienced would choose the answer with the highest confidence / level 3, compared to level 2 of others, assuming it is indicated so in good faith, but it would actually be only a guess.)
| | | |
I assume your support request was about Turkish Guy. Do let us know how you get on.
| | | | | This is a long-standing problem... | Apr 20, 2011 |
for which is have been restricted for some ages now from entering peer comments in any answer posted by a specific colleague.
I never bothered asking the staff to lift this restriction and I, gradually, decided to distance myself from KudoZ. I don't really need the aggrevation especially since I don't use KudoZ to ask questions. The WWW is right there to give me any answer I need if I am patient enough and know how to search for answers.
Tomas Mosler wrote: Well  I see the troublemakers are granted better protection than fair users.
Yes, they are as I learned the hard way (see my reply to Dave's comment below)
Dave Bindon wrote:
I can easily work out who one of the culprits being referred to is!
There is no need for me to insinuate that the member has insufficient knowledge of English to give useful answers where EN is the source or target, as he himself has stated that he CANNOT speak English.
Disagreeing with his answers often results in rude/offensive responses. Indeed, he sent an extremely offensive message to one member but, since he did so via a social networking site, no action was taken.
Since we have been advised to raise a support ticket if we think a member has contravened any site rule, I expect site staff will soon be inundated with support requests. And if nothing can be done based on the current site rules, then I would ask the staff to consider amending the rules. It is evident that the status quo is causing considerable discontent across may of Kudos's language pairs.
A very rude message ending with the extremely polite exclamation "Bitch!" 
And although I am a paying member with quite a history on ProZ and KudoZ and said gentleman is neither, the staff "hid" behind the rules and dismissed my complaint sight unseen. Another reason for my not participating in KudoZ any more even though I see wrong answer being given and quite often selected as correct!!
However, I don't think that submitting support tickets, no matter how justified based on peer comments statistic, will solve the problem as ProZ is just another business and the bottom line is what counts, so who cares about members' discontent and/or frustration?
IPtranslate wrote:
I don't agree, and not just because I "feel so", but based on the principle of peer evaluation. It doesn't matter if someone consistently enters worthless proposals with a confidence level of 5; they are still worthless if peers (in that language pair and in that field) say so. If these instances keep ocurring, then - at least in my glossary - I call the actions of such a person "guessing"............ Peer evaluation (statistically, based on sufficient large numbers) is what counts, not "some interpretation of a rule" with the aim of not hurting anyone's feelings. Moderators are not there (or are they?) to safeguard the site; they are there to safeguard the proper functioning of the site....and, of course, now over to the definition of "proper functioning"....
Thank you, I could not have said it better
As far as I am concerned, KudoZ is no longer a help tool - it is just a way "to be seen" as often as possible irrespective of whether it is for the right reasons or not.
I have been very disappointed and disillusioned and refuse to participate in something I don't believe in any more.
Have a nice day/evening everyone and enjoy your Easter holidays away from KudoZ and anything that could spoil your mood. That's what I plan to do
| | |
|
|
|
enjoy your Easter holidays away from KudoZ
Hear hear! Discouragement of use of the site! Report immediately to the nearest rules course!
| | | | Ildiko Santana
Egyesült Államok
Local time: 04:35
Tag (2002 óta)
magyar - angol
+ ...
MODERÁTOR
Thanks for this link, I feel better, too! Due to recent incidents involving a site user in my language pair who 'systematically' (i.e. consistently, habitually) violates rules 1.3, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.7, I was eager to cast my vote, in case there is still a smithereen of hope that something will actually get done (I doubt it). I do see the option that describes my experiences: "I met a troublemaker, I reported the problem via a support request, but it was not accepted and their bad activity continued". This happens to me nearly every time I report a rule violation. The last two times I did not request action to be taken but instead asked a very simple question (on rule 3.4) "How do you enforce this rule?" The 'answer' was the same as the times before: "The entry is line with the rule" (although any monolingual person could see that it is not). I don't think this is an answer, it is merely a check mark. Ticket closed - next!
I'm afraid the voting is pointless, although amusing. I believe that site rules, and particularly KudoZ rules, are too fuzzy to be enforceable, for the simple reason that it would be against the site's best interest to take action each time a rule is broken. They need every user, especially the paying members, regardless of their conduct. With that, we end up at the same old issue of quantity over quality, discussed ad nauseam in the forums... So, starting a new chapter today, I will vote "I met a troublemaker but I didn't care" - at least this one is constructive.
| | | |
Nice to see the poll could provide some virtual help.
it would be against the site's best interest to take action each time a rule is broken. They need every user, especially the paying members, regardless of their conduct.
Yes, but when the paths collide do they need paying troublemakers more? As if no fair user might terminate the membership in spite of that.
Phil, have I just spotted some auto-censorship?  Or it's been some speculation...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBmAw9eoRJU
Anyway, my support request is pending (after being re-opened with more precise specification).
| | | | | Time for an overhaul, maybe? | Apr 21, 2011 |
Since some of the site rules are not strictly and properly enforced, maybe it's about time to overhaul and get rid of all the useless rules. What do you think?
| | |
|
|
|
| Define useless | Apr 21, 2011 |
Yasutomo Kanazawa wrote:
Since some of the site rules are not strictly and properly enforced, maybe it's about time to overhaul and get rid of all the useless rules. What do you think?
A number of rules have become 'guidelines' which makes them toothless (ie not enforced) but not useless.
| | | | | What's that sound? | Apr 21, 2011 |
Oh yes, it's me banging my head against a brick wall!
SISO - not tarring everyone with the same brush but so often valid.
| | | | Schtroumpf
Local time: 13:35
német - francia
+ ...
| New rule to be considered | Apr 21, 2011 |
Hi everybody,
If there is no "legal ground" to take action against these google-contributors, may I suggest a new rule to be introduced?
If we look up the profile, we see that one of these typical misusers answers in more than 90 language pairs.
Take your breath, re-read the sentence, and then read this confirmation:
YES, over 90 language pairs.
Doesn't it seem fair to restrict the possible number of language pairs to 8, 10, or even 12 if... See more Hi everybody,
If there is no "legal ground" to take action against these google-contributors, may I suggest a new rule to be introduced?
If we look up the profile, we see that one of these typical misusers answers in more than 90 language pairs.
Take your breath, re-read the sentence, and then read this confirmation:
YES, over 90 language pairs.
Doesn't it seem fair to restrict the possible number of language pairs to 8, 10, or even 12 if we want to be generous?
Everything above that cannot possibly be a professional contribution level.
Looking forward to your opinions...
and have a nice day all of you! ▲ Collapse
| | | | | A témához tartozó oldalak: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Is making random answers in many pairs acceptable, or KudoZ spam? | 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! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
