| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | What is the purpose of the disagree option? Thread poster: Gerardo Comino
|
|---|
| Purpose of the disagree option | Sep 25, 2005 |
Fuad Yahya wrote:
I can hardly think of a good time to use the "disagree" vote, except perhaps in those instances when an asker has chosen an answer too hastily and incorrectly.
The declared purpose of the disagree vote is like the declared purpose of the agree vote: to help the asker choose the right answer, because, by definition, the asker does not konw. If the asker know, he would not have asked.
That is the declared purpose. But the actual use seems to be somewhat different. In most of the situations I have seen, the disagree vote is used as a stinging indictment of an answer that is found to be not just incorrect, but totally out of place, such as an answer given by someone who does not know the language pair involved. The disagree vote, in these instances, is an expression not only of disagreemnt but also of disapproval.
Hi Fuad,
We're on the same sheet of music when it comes to abusive KudoZ ASKERS. You, I and many others have fought for a more professional workplace for many years. We want an open, friendly place for working translators to share their expertise with one another and would rather not have the KudoZ question page cluttered with "how do I say car in French" and a long series of questions posed by someone trying to get paid for a job he's not qualified to do.
But our workplace is sometimes also under assault by unprofessional ANSWERERS, and I see the "disagree" option as an important and necessary way to control the harmful effects such people can have on KudoZ. Over the five years I've been using KudoZ, I have seen participants who have done a lot of damage as serial answerers jumping from one language pair to another, with nary a concern about whether they are proficient in the language pair or know anything about the subject matter. We've had some tricky salesmen, selling their "product" with every tool at their disposal, including abusing the confidence bar and providing phony or misleading justifications for their answers.
Wouldn't you agree that the "disagree" vote is the only defense we now have against this kind of abuse? Don't you think we should all "disapprove" of this kind of fraud?
| | | | | The many faces of abuse | Sep 25, 2005 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
our workplace is sometimes also under assault by unprofessional ANSWERERS....
Wouldn't you agree that the "disagree" vote is the only defense we now have against this kind of abuse?
At the present time, it may very well be. Unfortunately, the disagree vote also gives rise to a third category of abusers: abusive voters.
The reason the disagree vote is our only recourse at the present time (other than administrative action, such as hiding an answer or blocking an abuser, in blatant, eggregious cases) is that we have not opened up the possibility of voteless comment. If we open up this option, we will be able to give abusive answerers a piece of our mind in clear an certain terms, without having to label the answer in any way. Here are some choice comments we can use:
- The answer you provided has already been posted. If you agree with it, you should vote for it, not copy it and present it as your own answer.
- Which online machine translation web page did you use to get this translation? It is clear that you have no translation-level knowledge of Russian, at least none in the field of life sciences.
- Your answer may very well be correct, but without some convincing support, how can the asker tell if your answer is any better than the other answers suggested already?
- The information you included about CheapWorld is tantamount to advertising and as such it is a form of abuse.
- The asker needs help with the term "abortion," not religious or moral guidance. You are entitled to your values, but this is not the place to peddle them.
- Your answer may be correct, but it is unsavory to criticize the competing answers in the manner that you did.
- If all you can offer is copied and pasted dictionary listings, it would be better to give the asker the link to the page you used or show him how to do his own search.
In contrast to voteless comments, such as the above, the disagree vote penalizes the answerer by counting as a negative vote, i.e., subtracting from the total agree votes. I believe no one should have the power to do that to any answer, because such a power makes it so easy to sabotage anybody's answer in a vidictive way, and there is no way to undo the damage.
Many members are already aware of this problem, and, out of consideration for the consequences of a disagree vote, they often vote "neutral," even though their comment is critical. I appreciate their sensitivity to this issue, but we can spare them the need to use a euphemistic "neutral" vote by eliminating the disagree and neutral votes altogether and opening the possibility of voteless commenting.
Voteless comments would be mathematically neutral, but without the "neutral" label, because the content of comments can be laudatory, critical, neutral, or any combination of these. No labeling is needed for any comment. The comment should speak for itself.
Abuse has many faces, and there is no way to completely eliminate it, but some system features just invite abuse. The disagree vote is one such feature. The "decline" button is another -- but that is another topic.
| | | |
Fuad Yahya wrote:
If they think they know the correct answer, they should participate by suggesting the correct answer instead of voting against the "wrong" answer. If the answer they consider correct has already been posted by someone else, they should participate by voting for the correct answer instead of voting directly against the wrong answer.
A situation can arise where the query is in my native language and a solution in my non-native language is sought. Through native understanding of the source, I am aware that a proposed solution is incorrect (or even that they are all incorrect), but my skills in my non-native language are insufficient to propose an answer. This can happen sometimes with those tricky "untranslatables." If others are mistakenly supporting these wrong answers, should I let the asker select one of them, failing to alert her simply because I'm not able to propose a solution? I suggest not.
| | | | | I support alerting the asker or entering any other kind of comment | Sep 26, 2005 |
GoodWords wrote:
If others are mistakenly supporting ... wrong answers, should I let the asker select one of them, failing to alert her simply because I'm not able to propose a solution? I suggest not.
I was not suggesting that you maintain silence in these or other situations at all. On the contrary, I am suggesting that you be given greater input opportunity.
I believe you should be given the opportunity to make a signed comment on any of the proposed answers without being required to label your comment with a vote, positive, negative, or neutral. Comments are often mixed, and their content should speak for itself.
If you wish to support a particular answer, then you should have the opportunity to vote for it, anonymously, apart from any signed comment that you have made or that you might make later. I only object to giving peers the power to pointedly vote against a particulare answer. It is the label and the negative-weight value of the vote that I find objectionable, not the comment.
I also believe that one should have the opportunity to enter multiple signed comments (but not multiple votes), and that the askers should be able to comment on the answers (but not vote on them).
| | |
|
|
|
juvera 
Local time: 12:56
English to Hungarian
+ ...
Fuad Yahya wrote:
Voteless comments would be mathematically neutral, but without the "neutral" label, because the content of comments can be laudatory, critical, neutral, or any combination of these.
Neutral comments are neutral, mathematically or else.
Your voteless comments could be laudatory, critical, etc. So you could criticise, but nobody could blame you for taking a vote away.
At least "neutral" reminds us to try to be neutral. I am not for more restrictios generally, but your suggestion would simply remove the middle ground, and give way to a somewhat ill-defined category of comments, quite likely to be less, than neutral.
And to carry on about the system...
What we have at the moment is fairly simple and straightforward. Agree, neutral, disagree. They are a well-balanced lot. Reminds me of something my granny used to have in the kitchen. Given us an aid to measure things.
We don't have time to check every question and answer, let alone every comment. So the system gives us an indication at a glance, what the general consensus is, and see, whether it is worth to read on. I am much more likely to read on, if I see a mixture of comments to an answer, than 20 agrees. That means something challenging enough to attract opposite views.
If the answer is clearly wrong, then it is better to say so, than letting it ride on.
That is not vindictiveness. Rejecting an incorrect answer is standing by your knowledge or convictions, and trying to help to clarify the answer, just as giving an agree vote to the one you believe or know is correct.
| | | | | In favor of simplifying the system and expanding the middle ground | Sep 27, 2005 |
juvera wrote:
your suggestion would simply remove the middle ground, and give way to a somewhat ill-defined category of comments, quite likely to be less, than neutral.
Actually, my suggestion would expand the middle ground by expanding the opportunity to post comments and by removing the present restriction that forces you to label your comment.
There is nothing ill-defined about comments. We all know what comments are. They are remarks, reflections, and reactions that one feels called to contribute to help the asker, and we already make them. If you have not seen them, here is a description of what they include:
- a laudatory reaction to the virtues of the answer provided
- additional information that would further help the asker
- correction to some of the information in the answer or the way it was stated
- an issue about the certainty of the information presented or its sources
- objection to the manner of participation by the answerer, with a reminder about the rules of participation.
etc.
The point is that on many occasions, the comment could include any number these types of remark, not just one type. Because of that, I am not in favor of being forced to label my comment as agree, neutral, or disagree.
juvera wrote:
What we have at the moment is fairly simple and straightforward. Agree, neutral, disagree. They are a well-balanced lot. Reminds me of something my granny used to have in the kitchen.
My granny loves your granny, but she would have thought that the current system is pretty complicated. Speaking for myself, I am in favor of simplifying the current system to just one type of vote: Agree.
If you have misgivings about any of the answers, including the one you voted for, you can post a comment to tell us whay your misgivings are.
juvera wrote:
We don't have time to check every question and answer, let alone every comment. So the system gives us an indication at a glance, what the general consensus is, and see, whether it is worth to read on.
I see. If that is the case, then the current system is worse than I thought. It is contributing to the vice of hasty grading by the askers. I didn't realize how bad it was. Thank you for pointing this out.
juvera wrote:
I am much more likely to read on, if I see a mixture of comments to an answer, than 20 agrees. That means something challenging enough to attract opposite views.
Exactly. That is why it is so important to expand the commenting opportunities, remove the present restrictions that forces you to vote as you comment, and tilt the system towards the qualitative input of the comments. They are much richer and more inviting than votes.
juvera wrote:
If the answer is clearly wrong, then it is better to say so, than letting it ride on. That is not vindictiveness. Rejecting an incorrect answer is standing by your knowledge or convictions, and trying to help to clarify the answer, just as giving an agree vote to the one you believe or know is correct.
I am fully in favor of the opportunity to state your opinion regarding any answer, to oppose it, to object to it, to provide a corrective. But I am not in favor of giving any peer the power to lower the vote count that an answer has received. Additionally, removing the "disagree" label will help remove any ill feelings that may arise, and do often arise, from any critical comment.
[Edited at 2005-09-27 01:14]
| | | | juvera
Local time: 12:56
English to Hungarian
+ ...
| Rationalisation is not hastiness and not labelling. | Sep 27, 2005 |
Fuad Yahya wrote:
1./
juvera wrote:
your suggestion would simply remove the middle ground, and give way to a somewhat ill-defined category
of comments, quite likely to be
less, than neutral.
There is nothing ill-defined about comments. We all know what comments are. They are remarks, reflections, and reactions that one feels called to contribute to help the asker, and we already make them. If you have not seen them, here is a description of what they include:
- a laudatory reaction to the virtues of the answer provided
- additional information that would further help the asker
- correction to some of the information in the answer or the way it was stated
- an issue about the certainty of the information presented or its sources
- objection to the manner of participation by the answerer, with a reminder about the rules of participation.
etc.
The point is that on many occasions, the comment could include any number these types of remark, not just one type. Because of that, I am not in favor of being forced to label my comment as agree, neutral, or disagree.
2/
juvera wrote:
What we have at the moment is fairly simple and straightforward. Agree, neutral, disagree. They are a well-balanced lot.
I am in favor of simplifying the current system to just one type of vote: Agree.
If you have misgivings about any of the answers, including the one you voted for, you can post a comment to tell us whay your misgivings are.
3./
juvera wrote:
We don't have time to check every question and answer, let alone every comment. So the system gives us an indication at a glance, what the general consensus is, and see, whether it is worth to read on.
I see. If that is the case, then the current system is worse than I thought. It is contributing to the vice of hasty grading by the askers. I didn't realize how bad it was. Thank you for pointing this out.
4./
juvera wrote:
I am much more likely to read on, if I see a mixture of comments to an answer, than 20 agrees. That means something challenging enough to attract opposite views.
Exactly. That is why it is so important to expand the commenting opportunities, remove the present restrictions that forces you to vote as you comment, and tilt the system towards the qualitative input of the comments. They are much richer and more inviting than votes.
juvera wrote:
If the answer is clearly wrong, then it is better to say so, than letting it ride on. That is not vindictiveness. Rejecting an incorrect answer is standing by your knowledge or convictions, and trying to help to clarify the answer, just as giving an agree vote to the one you believe or know is correct.
I am fully in favor of the opportunity to state your opinion regarding any answer, to oppose it, to object to it, to provide a corrective. But I am not in favor of giving any peer the power to lower the vote count that an answer has received. Additionally, removing the "disagree" label will help remove any ill feelings that may arise, and do often arise, from any critical comment. [Edited at 2005-09-27 01:14]
You totally misnderstood me.
1. I didn't say ill-defined comments, I said ill-defined category. Big difference. Yes, I know, what comments are, so does most people.
2. You failed to notice they irony. The point is balance, and if there is only one way to go, to give points, then there is no balance. See also comment further down.
3. This is the biggest misunderstanding, - by hasty reading.
My comment has nothing to do with the asker in this respect. If somebody reads the answers hastily to the questions they pose, they won't be able to make the right decision, or they made up their mind already. There is nothing you can do about that.
Too bad.
I was commenting on the person generally interested to see, what questions come up, and see, if there are any the person may know of something or interested in. In other words, to have some positive input. By positive I also mean commenting on answers, which are clearly wrong, and saying so. That is positive input towards solving the answer the right way.
4./
If there are 20 agrees, then my input as an observer is superfluous, so I probably just go and see the next question without spending time to read every comment.
If there is a mixture of agrees and disagrees, then I stop and see, if it is something I may have some knowledge or interest in, and spend the time to read each and every answer, hopefully more thoroughly, that you read mine.
What would happen, if we accepted the plus point only system?
Perhaps there would be a number of comments to a number of answers. We would have to wade through them to see, whether they are 1.laudatory, 2.additional, 3.correction, 4.issue of certainty, 5.objection to manner (but the answer could be still perfectly valid!) etc. and try to decide, whether your additional comment is supporting the answer or actually saying "it is not quite like this, but I don't want my comment labelled".
I would probably give up at that point.
The next thing would be, that somebody would suggest that because the system doesn't work, let's have a six point system, so we coud grade our comments according to how much we support (or not) the answer.
| | | | | 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 » What is the purpose of the disagree option? | 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 
