| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11] > | Kudoz - Leader list - A good moment to sort by usefulness rate too? Thread poster: Tomás Cano Binder, BA, CT
|
|---|
| Let's hope for further action... | Jun 22, 2009 |
I hope and trust that Tomás at some point at least will get an answer to his support ticket. (The times I have submitted a support ticket, I have always gotten a reply very promptly).
And I also hope that the suggested poll will be run at some point so a greater part of the community can express their opinion about this. Apart from that, it would indeed be nice to also hear the staffs views on this matter.
| | | | | Some considerations | Jun 23, 2009 |
Sorry for the delay all. Here are my thoughts on this.
KudoZ is about helping the asker. I think changes to the way lists are ranked or sorted should take this into consideration.
Consider, for instance, a question where an answer is posted and has already received agrees, and another potential answerer has a different, possibly more helpful answer. On a system where a reliability ratio is used for sorting/ranking, it could be a good strategy to avoid answering at al... See more Sorry for the delay all. Here are my thoughts on this.
KudoZ is about helping the asker. I think changes to the way lists are ranked or sorted should take this into consideration.
Consider, for instance, a question where an answer is posted and has already received agrees, and another potential answerer has a different, possibly more helpful answer. On a system where a reliability ratio is used for sorting/ranking, it could be a good strategy to avoid answering at all in this case.
If that example is realistic, and I believe that it is, there is probably a bit more of weighing to be done before something like this were to be implemented (if at all).
A possible middle-of-the-road solution could be to allow members to optionally show certain KudoZ statistics in their profiles. I realize this doesn't address the entire concern presented here, but gauging whether to implement a reliability ratio on the lists based on larger, more representative numbers (KudoZ participants who choose to show their statistics and those who choose not to) would involve a larger portion of the community in the process.
Best regards,
Jared ▲ Collapse
| | | | | One wrong assumption, one misread fact | Jun 23, 2009 |
Jared wrote:
Consider, for instance, a question where an answer is posted and has already received agrees, and another potential answerer has a different, possibly more helpful answer. On a system where a reliability ratio is used for sorting/ranking, it could be a good strategy to avoid answering at all in this case.
Sorry Jared, but this is based on a wrong assumption. This situation happens to me all the time, and I can tell you that I get tons of tasty points in these situations, simply by explaining the matter, reporting my knowledge and experience about it, and giving solid examples (which is easy to do if you really know what you are talking about).
Tons of points are made and can be made in these cases, as askers are not stupid and clearly favour a solid answer in this scenario. So I don't think this is a valid argument.
Jared wrote:
KudoZ is about helping the asker. I think changes to the way lists are ranked or sorted should take this into consideration.
But Jared, I think the whole forum posting (apart from the probably misleading title) revolves around the idea of adding an OPTIONAL list. Kudoz point system stays. Normal list stays. Everything stays. This is about adding an optional list just to reflect data that is calculated anyway in each profile. I don't see how adding an alternative, non-default, non-exclusive list can damage the current flow of answers in Kudoz. More the opposite: I can think of many people who would feel very encouraged to contribute to the community if such alternative existed.
| | | | Yaotl Altan 
Mexico
Local time: 16:01
Member (2006)
English to Spanish
+ ...
| That's why.. | Jun 23, 2009 |
Jared wrote:
...
Consider, for instance, a question where an answer is posted and has already received agrees, and another potential answerer has a different, possibly more helpful answer. On a system where a reliability ratio is used for sorting/ranking, it could be a good strategy to avoid answering at all in this case.
...
That's why I consider Kudoz split as another useful function.
It's incredibly we've got this very polite "No" to Tomas' 17:1 proposal.
| | |
|
|
|
Hello Tomás,
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote: Jared wrote:
Consider, for instance, a question where an answer is posted and has already received agrees, and another potential answerer has a different, possibly more helpful answer. On a system where a reliability ratio is used for sorting/ranking, it could be a good strategy to avoid answering at all in this case. Sorry Jared, but this is based on a wrong assumption. This situation happens to me all the time, and I can tell you that I get tons of tasty points in these situations, simply by explaining the matter, reporting my knowledge and experience about it, and giving solid examples (which is easy to do if you really know what you are talking about). Tons of points are made and can be made in these cases, as askers are not stupid and clearly favour a solid answer in this scenario. So I don't think this is a valid argument.
The concern my example was meant to voice was that an option such as this could run the risk of dissuading answerers under certain conditions. I understand that the more experienced KudoZ participants may not have reason to hesitate in the situation I mentioned.
To respond to Yaotl's comment: I hope I was polite, I don't think it was a "No", but I would be interested in seeing, as I said, larger, more representative numbers, and I think giving members the option to show their own statistics would give some insight on this. Would you be against that course?
Best regards,
Jared
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 15:01
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Option to show KudoZ statistics in their profiles | Jun 23, 2009 |
Jared wrote:
A possible middle-of-the-road solution could be to allow members to optionally show certain KudoZ statistics in their profiles.
I strongly support this option.
| | | | Nikki Graham
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:01
Spanish to English
| Still don't think it is a valid argument | Jun 23, 2009 |
Jared wrote: Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote: Jared wrote:
Consider, for instance, a question where an answer is posted and has already received agrees, and another potential answerer has a different, possibly more helpful answer. On a system where a reliability ratio is used for sorting/ranking, it could be a good strategy to avoid answering at all in this case. Sorry Jared, but this is based on a wrong assumption. This situation happens to me all the time, and I can tell you that I get tons of tasty points in these situations, simply by explaining the matter, reporting my knowledge and experience about it, and giving solid examples (which is easy to do if you really know what you are talking about). Tons of points are made and can be made in these cases, as askers are not stupid and clearly favour a solid answer in this scenario. So I don't think this is a valid argument. The concern my example was meant to voice was that an option such as this could run the risk of dissuading answerers under certain conditions. I understand that the more experienced KudoZ participants may not have reason to hesitate in the situation I mentioned.
Sorry, Jared, but I still fail to see why you have a valid argument there, unless, of course, the reliability ratio would be based on agrees (which, of course, would be a dreadfully unfair idea). If I go to a question now and see that one person's answer has lots of agrees, I may decide not to bother, especially if I think the asker is likely to be persuaded by the majority.
[Edited at 2009-06-23 22:48 GMT]
| | | | | social dynamics etc | Jun 24, 2009 |
IMO some askers may prefer to award points to peers they have confidence in, rather than to newcomers and outsiders ... that's a fact of life IMO.
It can take time to build up a reputation. Would this mean that a 'reliability ratio' might need to be interpreted carefully, in the light of the particular dynamics of each community, and the circumstances of the answerer ...
[Edited at 2009-06-24 00:04 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Response to Nikki | Jun 24, 2009 |
Hi Nikki,
I may not be stating my view clearly enough (whether that view is valid or not is up to those who read it, of course).
Knowing that others may view me based on my "usefulness" or "reliability" ranking would make me reconsider providing an answer I felt might be helpful in an instance where an answer has been provided which, to my eyes, has a strong chance of being chosen. Providing my answer anyway, I run the risk that it is not chosen, taking me that much fu... See more Hi Nikki,
I may not be stating my view clearly enough (whether that view is valid or not is up to those who read it, of course).
Knowing that others may view me based on my "usefulness" or "reliability" ranking would make me reconsider providing an answer I felt might be helpful in an instance where an answer has been provided which, to my eyes, has a strong chance of being chosen. Providing my answer anyway, I run the risk that it is not chosen, taking me that much further from a reliability ratio of 100%.
That answer which I think has a strong chance of being chosen may, or may not, be the most helpful answer to the asker of the question. Given that KudoZ is about helping the asker, I would hesitate to introduce a feature which may dissuade answerers from answering.
Best regards,
Jared ▲ Collapse
| | | | Yaotl Altan
Mexico
Local time: 16:01
Member (2006)
English to Spanish
+ ...
| Another point of view | Jun 24, 2009 |
Jared wrote:
...Given that KudoZ is about helping the asker, I would hesitate to introduce a feature which may dissuade answerers from answering.
Best regards,
Jared
I see it differently. I would not hesitate to introduce a feature which will dissuade bad answerers from supplying band answers and will foster good answers from good answerers. 
Kind regards!
| | | | | ProZ should curtail inaccurate answers | Jun 24, 2009 |
A case in point is point chasers who reduce the quality of the KudoZ general glossary by responding 20 questions per day, all within 5 minutes of being posted, with the first translation that comes to their mind. Not all point chasers are bad answerers, but if a question has already been answered, there is a greater chance that it will be bypassed by other responders. Then, the asker receives only one answer, which may prove entirely inadequate. This could be aggravated by the misconstrued belie... See more A case in point is point chasers who reduce the quality of the KudoZ general glossary by responding 20 questions per day, all within 5 minutes of being posted, with the first translation that comes to their mind. Not all point chasers are bad answerers, but if a question has already been answered, there is a greater chance that it will be bypassed by other responders. Then, the asker receives only one answer, which may prove entirely inadequate. This could be aggravated by the misconstrued belief that “the first answer is golden, why bother answering.”
To increase the helpfulness of the KudoZ system, the point-chasing, improvised-answer loophole should be patched and a good place to start is to use a different ranking system. Under the current points system, occasional answerers with few points have no chance to make it to the top. And if points is all they want, this discourages their participation and reduces traffic to the site.
An accuracy-based ranking systems could improve the quality of the answers. Answerers would be encouraged to properly research their submissions, providing quality over quantity, and would welcome the chance to quickly escalate in the ranking ladder. Furthermore, a larger percentage of quality-answers could also mean more ProZ traffic and income, as I suspect some askers may be discouraged by a lack of good answers and never re-visit the site or sign up as paying members to overcome the daily limit.
As for the following statement:
Jared wrote:
The concern my example was meant to voice was that an option such as this could run the risk of dissuading answerers under certain conditions. I understand that the more experienced KudoZ participants may not have reason to hesitate in the situation I mentioned.
Similar assertions were made when ProZ evaluated whether to include or not the red “P” next to the answerer’s name. It was said that the red “P” would discourage non-PRO members from answering. I don’t have the statistics, but this does not seem to have happened, and it’s even possible that it has actually increased the number of PRO answers.
In summary:
• Reliability ranking fosters better answers
• Better answers equal more traffic and more paying members
Regards,
Daniel ▲ Collapse
| | | | | If points is what we want... | Jun 24, 2009 |
Daniel Grau wrote:
To increase the helpfulness of the KudoZ system, the point-chasing, improvised-answer loophole should be patched and a good place to start is to use a different ranking system. Under the current points system, occasional answerers with few points have no chance to make it to the top. And if points is all they want, this discourages their participation and reduces traffic to the site.
I think Daniel has a good point here. The question here is whether points is all we want.
Jared, when you see that a big bunch of perfectly trained and experienced professionals don't post answers to each and every question as some others do, you think that it is because we fear our acceptance rate can suffer. That is a very unfair assessment.
The true fact is that, WE WANT TO HELP --and, WE HELP A LOT--, although our idea of help does not match your idea of help. Our concept of help means a) making sure that the question is properly defined, by requesting vital missing information, and b) supplying an accurate, insightful explanation and solid examples on the matter. Most questions in which we share our insight in this way are awarded points.
It is very unfair that our effort in improving both questions and answers is not important to you guys at Proz.com. We "slow answerers" make a vital contribution to the current and long-term importance of Kudoz. You have a very easy way of showing some recognition of our hard work with an alternative list that can give us that tiny bit satisfaction!
| | |
|
|
|
Erik Freitag
Germany
Local time: 00:01
Member (2006)
Dutch to German
+ ...
Jared wrote:
That answer which I think has a strong chance of being chosen may, or may not, be the most helpful answer to the asker of the question. Given that KudoZ is about helping the asker, I would hesitate to introduce a feature which may dissuade answerers from answering.
I don't really understand this reasoning. If I think another answer will be the most helpful, but I still would like to contribute, there is the reference section. If I think my answer is better, I can post an answer in such a convincing manner (explanations, references, examples) that it gets chosen over the other as the most helpful one. If I don't think my answer (or explanation, reference, example) is good enough, then why bother to post?
Regards,
Erik
| | | | | You haven't tried | Jun 24, 2009 |
Jared, how can be sure about whether an additional list by acceptance rate will be detrimental for Kudoz's flow of anwers?
You have never tried as far as I can remember. After 10 years of Kudoz, and after all the favourable opinions, isn't it about time you tried? If after some months the flow of answers has decreased, you can surely report it to the community and suggest the removal of the list, can't you? We are sensible people Jared!
| | | | tazdog (X)
Spain
Local time: 00:01
Spanish to English
+ ...
| some comments | Jun 24, 2009 |
I agree with Erik's post, and also with Daniel's and Yaotl's observations.
I also agree with the idea that members should, at the very least, be given the option to make their Kudoz statistics visible to the public. Jared, you said "certain" statistics. Which ones were you thinking of? Why not just the info. relating to questions answered that's in our "Stats" tab (answer statistics, answer statistics by language pair, answer statistics by specialty)?
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Kudoz - Leader list - A good moment to sort by usefulness rate too? | 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! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
