| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] > | "Mini-contest" launched (on new "beta" contests platform) Thread poster: Henry Dotterer
|
|---|
Also, I would like to suggest that during the qualification phase one would see the ratings his or her entry already got from other users.
If it's not possible during this contest, please consider this for future contests.
| | | | | Thanks, Roland | Oct 24, 2012 |
Roland Nienerza wrote:
1,- I hacked a lot around to find my own piece in the rating phase. I applied the search function to look for special words. But all I could do was to click on "includuing yours" in the text on the right side. - Before, all entries were listed, and one's own was highlighted, even with picture, and marked "yours". - Now one's own entry is out and one cannot see the progress of voting for it...
The former system was clear enough. - All entries listed in their numbered order - one's own at it's number place, highlighted and not for rate by oneself, but showing the rating as it goes on and always ready for reference.
Thanks. This was an oversight. We'll add display of your own entry (without ability to rate.)
2,- I cannot consider it otherwise than as a strange joke that one gets first the option to rate the entry as a whole - and then can rate all the entries separately.
This is, sorry Henry, nonsense. - How would this be with a normal prose text, other than isolated witty - or not so witty - sentences like in this source? - Also sentence by sentence? - Well.!? -
It seems clear that the two methodologies will be more or less applicable, depending on the nature of the source text. (And possibly also the languages involved.)
And of course one had, as needed, the possibility to comment on each piece directly in it's entirety as well as any detail in one go.
We plan to restore this functionality (tagging) before the next edition of the contests. I agree it is important.
3,- It comes again and again. - How can one rate "translation" and "accuracy" separately? - How can a piece be "inaccurate" but a "good translation"?
I think you may have read that too fast. The two categories for rating are actually "accuracy of translation" and "quality of writing". This is as it has been for maybe the last six or seven contests. The approach has been broadly supported.
Thanks for your feedback, and for catching that "bug".
| | | | | Plenty don't vote for their own | Oct 24, 2012 |
Alexander Onishko wrote: Henry Dotterer wrote:
When you rank your own, the points you give to your own will not apply... but the ones you give to the others will.
The reasoning is that if you could not rank yours in the top three, when you feel that it really is, you might choose to refrain from ranking at all. (This is what we heard from people in previous contests.) So feel free to pick the top three, even if yours is among them, resting assured that you won't be granting any points to your own entry. Hi, Henry! This is one approach  But maybe own points should still apply?  Everyone will vote for his or her entry as best - but all will be in the same conditions, any way
Enough people don't vote for their own. (Maybe we'll get some %s at the end, if anyone is interested.) So I think the your-own-points-don't-count approach has made sense in practice.
| | | | | How is it useful to see the ratings you are getting? | Oct 24, 2012 |
Alexander Onishko wrote:
Also, I would like to suggest that during the qualification phase one would see the ratings his or her entry already got from other users.
Thanks for the suggestion / request. In what way did you find this useful? (Roland also commented.) Is it just as a matter of interest?
| | |
|
|
|
| Negative Votes | Oct 24, 2012 |
All votes are positive.
If you dont vote then that means your approach is neutral.
Why there is not any negative (minus) vote in the contest?
All approaches should be positive, neutral and negative.
If you put only positive and neutral, you create inequality.
| | | |
Henry Dotterer wrote: Alexander Onishko wrote: Henry Dotterer wrote:
When you rank your own, the points you give to your own will not apply... but the ones you give to the others will.
The reasoning is that if you could not rank yours in the top three, when you feel that it really is, you might choose to refrain from ranking at all. (This is what we heard from people in previous contests.) So feel free to pick the top three, even if yours is among them, resting assured that you won't be granting any points to your own entry. Hi, Henry! This is one approach But maybe own points should still apply? Everyone will vote for his or her entry as best - but all will be in the same conditions, any way Enough people don't vote for their own. (Maybe we'll get some %s at the end, if anyone is interested.) So I think the your-own-points-don't-count approach has made sense in practice.
In this case this should be written on the voting page in big red letters
*** If you vote for your own entry the points will not be taken into account. ***
Because not all people read this forum.
And if they will not know this fact
and they will vote as follows:
1. own entry
2. somebody else's entry A
3. somebody else's entry B
then they will be simply giving additional points to their competitors thus worsening own score.
[Edited at 2012-10-24 17:32 GMT]
| | | |
Henry Dotterer wrote: Alexander Onishko wrote:
Also, I would like to suggest that during the qualification phase one would see the ratings his or her entry already got from other users. Thanks for the suggestion / request. In what way did you find this useful? (Roland also commented.) Is it just as a matter of interest?
Yes, sure. If you participate you are of course interested to see how the others rate your entry
I think it is not technically difficlut to show the entry's owner information like:
Average points from those who rated:
Quality of writing 4.96
Accuracy of translation 4.98
[Edited at 2012-10-24 17:21 GMT]
| | | | | Thanks, Alexander | Oct 24, 2012 |
Alexander Onishko wrote: Henry Dotterer wrote: Alexander Onishko wrote:
Also, I would like to suggest that during the qualification phase one would see the ratings his or her entry already got from other users. Thanks for the suggestion / request. In what way did you find this useful? (Roland also commented.) Is it just as a matter of interest? Yes, sure. If you participate you are of course interested to see how the others rate your entry
OK, fair enough.
I think it is not technically difficlut to show the entry's owner information like: Average points from those who rated: Quality of writing 4.96 Accuracy of translation 4.98
Is that composed of all own ratings?
Just kidding, I know from past contests you get good ratings from others!
| | |
|
|
|
Henry Dotterer wrote: Alexander Onishko wrote: Henry Dotterer wrote: Alexander Onishko wrote:
Also, I would like to suggest that during the qualification phase one would see the ratings his or her entry already got from other users. Thanks for the suggestion / request. In what way did you find this useful? (Roland also commented.) Is it just as a matter of interest? Yes, sure. If you participate you are of course interested to see how the others rate your entry OK, fair enough. I think it is not technically difficlut to show the entry's owner information like: Average points from those who rated: Quality of writing 4.96 Accuracy of translation 4.98 Is that composed of all own ratings? Just kidding, I know from past contests you get good ratings from others!
Thanks, Henry!
| | | | | Segment rating - display bug (truncation problem) | Oct 24, 2012 |
I am not sure whether this was mentioned (I don't have time to read everything), but on the page where you can rate each segment, the actual translated segments are truncated, it seems the final punctuation and/or quotation marks are cut off. It may not be a big deal, but I can imagine that in same cases there was more text after the closing quotation mark, especially if it is a dialog, e.g. "Please fix it" - asked Katalin.
Thanks
Katalin
| | | | | Re: Segment rating - display bug (truncation problem) | Oct 25, 2012 |
Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
I am not sure whether this was mentioned (I don't have time to read everything), but on the page where you can rate each segment, the actual translated segments are truncated, it seems the final punctuation and/or quotation marks are cut off. It may not be a big deal, but I can imagine that in same cases there was more text after the closing quotation mark, especially if it is a dialog, e.g. "Please fix it" - asked Katalin.
Thanks
Katalin
I agree with Katalin: truncation is not good. However, as I understood, the punctuation was truncated on purpose, as was stated on the contest page (I object to that decision, but am unable to find the exact quote).
| | | | Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 19:19
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Some more comments | Oct 25, 2012 |
G'day Henry and other site developers
The new rating system looks interesting, although I have to add a few comments.
1. I agree with what others have said about segmentation. In this particular contest it was easy to segment the text because each saying is a separate saying that has nothing to do with the other sayings. But in normal paragraph text you would not be able to segment the text... and even if you did, segmenting it may not be appropriate.
I r... See more G'day Henry and other site developers
The new rating system looks interesting, although I have to add a few comments.
1. I agree with what others have said about segmentation. In this particular contest it was easy to segment the text because each saying is a separate saying that has nothing to do with the other sayings. But in normal paragraph text you would not be able to segment the text... and even if you did, segmenting it may not be appropriate.
I remember when I translated in a previous contest, the text simply did not lend itself to translating every sentence with a single sentence, and actually in one case I reversed the sequence of thoughts inside a paragraph. If your system had attempted to segment that, it would have misaligned the sentences. If a paragraph has three sentences and I move the third sentence to the top of the paragraph in my translation, then three sentences will be misaligned in the review stage, and anyone reading my "translations" on a per-segment basis would think that I had blundered. Segmenting by paragraph is no guarantee either, because it is not unheard of to merge e.g. 3 source paragraphs into 2 target paragraphs that overlap in a splitted kind of way.
So if a contest is about separate segments, e.g. a collection of unrelated short poems or a collection of sayings, then such segmentation is fine, but otherwise the text should not be segmented. If you want to collect comments on a per-segment basis (e.g. if that is how the system needs to be designed, in order to position comments appropriately), then let people type add their comments to a source text pane that accompanies each whole translation.
2. I'm neither for nor against the current design that shows all translations for a given sentence all together, but it is still problematic that I need to comment on the various entries as a whole. Whenever I find a specific translation to be quite good, and I wish to say it, I have to figure out a way to refer to it, knowing that (a) not everyone will be able to see that entry and (b) the entries are not in the same sequence on my screen as on everyone else's screens. If the translations were numbered, I could refer to entries by number, at least.
My opinion is that once you're in the entry rating phase (that we're now in), the main focus should be on rating the entry as such, and not on rating the entry as it compares with other entries. I'm not saying that comparisons should not be possible, but at this time I can't comment on a single entry as a whole. I can only comment on how that entry compares to all the other entries.
Perhaps if you want people to give comparison comments, you can have a week at the start of the entry rating phase where people can give comparison-related comments, but after that the main thrust of comments should be on rating entries as whole units of text.
3. There is a "Click here to rate segments" link underneath each entry, but they all go to the same page. Having these links next to each entry creates the impression that you'd be able to comment on that entry alone.
4. Oh, and in the section where we comment on each segment, my translation is not visible. I don't want to comment on my own translation, but I would prefer to be able to see it, to see if I had done something similar or not.
5. There seems to be some comments on the ability to vote for your own entry. Well, my biggest gripe with the previous system was that I had to vote for the "best" entry before I could vote for the 2nd and 3rd best entries. This meant that if I regarded my own entry as the best, I could not give the 2nd and 3rd vote to anyone unless I also give the 1st vote to someone. I understand the logic of not being able to vote for 2nd place without first voting for 1st place, but that's what you get.
6. The stars rating is a little confusing. Perhaps it is a perception problem. When I give an agency on the BB a "2" entry, I don't mean that they are good -- I mean that they are bad. But if I'm asked to give "stars" to an entry, the I won't give 2 stars to an entrant that is bad. To me, one star is actually positive (it is not as fantastic as five stars would have been, but it is a STAR, so it must be good). Two stars (out of 5) is not the same as a grading of 2 (out of 5). I'm not sure if this is cultural, but for me "two stars" is not something to be UNhappy about, but on a rating scale where "1" means very bad and "5" means very good, a rating of "2" is not something to be happy about at all.
If you want to use grading widget that you currently have, I suggest replacing the 5 stars with two (or more) unhappy faces and two (or more) happy faces, with a neutral face in the middle that is selected by default.
==
7. What I had envisaged (without much thought, admittedly) is that one might have something that looks like two frames, side by side. The left frame contains the source text. The right frame contains e.g. 5 target texts, side by side. So you'll have a horizontal scroll bar in the right frame, sure, and you'll be able to see only 1 or 2 translations at once (without scrolling left or right), unless you have a very wide screen, because you should be able to read the texts naturally.
I'm not sophisticated, but if I were to design such a system for a smaller group of translators, I would make it so that users can select a piece of text they want to comment on, then click "Quote selected text", and then that selected text would appear in the comment box underneath the text (quoted) where the user can type his comment (e.g. up to 1000 characters per comment). And then you can have KudoZ-style agree/neutral/disagree fields underneath each comment (with a character limit of e.g. 100), where people can agree or disagree with a comment. If there is a moderator, he can make sure people don't comment extensively on comments instead of the actual translation (and the "Quote selected text" option would not be available for comments).
A variation of such a system would be one in which you can select up to 5 (or 10?) translations using check boxes that you wish to be included in the side-by-side comparison. In other words, instead of placing five random entries next to each other, you can scroll through a longer list of entries and select the ones that you wish to include in the side-by-side comparison, which then loads in the next page. Similar things exist on many ecommerce sites (select products, then click a button to compare them side by side).
[Edited at 2012-10-25 11:37 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Good point, Samuel! | Oct 25, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
1. I agree with what others have said about segmentation. In this particular contest it was easy to segment the text because each saying is a separate saying that has nothing to do with the other sayings. But in normal paragraph text you would not be able to segment the text... and even if you did, segmenting it may not be appropriate.
Perhaps segmentation could be done in paragraphs, then?
At least computers should handle it quite easily, since CAT-tool-type segmentation varies considerably, and can even be configured within the same program.
Since we are not rating translator tests on "acceptable: yes/no?", but sorting them over a continuum, it's better to do it by parts, still leaving room for final, overall adjustments, considering that sometimes the composite assessment of the parts for one contestant may add up to more - or less - than their mathematical sum.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 19:19
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Segmented rating | Oct 25, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
I agree with what others have said about segmentation. ... In normal paragraph text you would not be able to segment the text... and even if you did, segmenting it may not be appropriate. Perhaps segmentation could be done in paragraphs, then?
Segmentation by paragraph during the marking stage would only be appropriate if the translators knew upfront that their text would be marked by paragraph and that they are expected to keep paragraphs separate and treat them as separate minitexts.
| | | | | 17 more pairs "live". Preparing for final phase | Oct 26, 2012 |
I sent out last-minute invitations, and the response was great. (Thanks to those who set aside work briefly to help out!) We reached the minimum required number of entries (three) in the following additional 17 languages:
- Albanian
- Thai
- Tagalog
- Armenian
- Finnish
- Estonian
- Belarusian
- Marathi
- Swahili
- Telugu
- Georgian
- Gujarati
- Icelandic
- Esperanto
- Friulian
- Javanese
... See more I sent out last-minute invitations, and the response was great. (Thanks to those who set aside work briefly to help out!) We reached the minimum required number of entries (three) in the following additional 17 languages:
- Albanian
- Thai
- Tagalog
- Armenian
- Finnish
- Estonian
- Belarusian
- Marathi
- Swahili
- Telugu
- Georgian
- Gujarati
- Icelandic
- Esperanto
- Friulian
- Javanese
- Lao
That makes a total of sixty "live" pairs in this mini-contest.
The pairs we did not reach three entries in are:
- Maltese
- Latin
- Letzeburgesch
There was also an entry in "Simple English".
My apologies to those who offered translations in those pairs. If you try again next time, I'll try to get word out further, earlier. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » "Mini-contest" launched (on new "beta" contests platform) | 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 » |
| | 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 
