Glossary-building KudoZ (GBK): a new kind of KudoZ question

Enrique wrote:
As usual, your feedback is much welcome.

Mary Georgina Hardinge wrote:

Copy-pasted links did not seem to be accepted when I tried posting an answer so I eventually gave up and posted a discussion message instead.

Mirra_ wrote:

GBK is thought to yeld a standardized glossary trasnlation of specific 'PRO' terms
so
why the fill-in process allows the users to 'jump' the steps?

If you/we want to create a reliable glossary, all entry fields should be completed.
It will be quite simple, I guess, to modify the setting to oblige the Answerer to complete one step to be allowed to go on to the next one.

kind regards

Enrique wrote:

The answering interface should take you page after page, and you should provide all required information before moving into the next page. Maybe there is a problem here. What are the steps you are able to "jump"?

Mirra_ wrote:




Dear Enrique,

I saw it happen in more than one GBK. Like this one:
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/english_to_italian/forestry_wood_timber/2963920-understory.html

As you can see there are only two example sentences (instead of three) and the first of them has got no link. Also, there is no explanation.

So it seems to be possible to jump some steps, or, part of them...

Adele Oliveri wrote:
a. GBK entries should really be "PRO" level. Of the terms posted in the EN > IT combination so far, quite a few of them (digital divide, mudslinging, behaviorism, informed consent, etc.) were not "PRO" level questions at all. They could have easily been answered by anyone with a good knowledge of the English language and a general dictionary

b. There are terms for which no "BEST" solution exist. While the correct translation of "behaviorism" is "comportamentismo", "mudslinging" admits at least three or four slightly different and equally correct translations into Italian. It is simply NOT possible to choose THE BEST translation without context; there's a heated discussion going on about this (indeed, it makes little sense to have a glossary entry at all in this case). To solve this problem, either multiple translations should be admitted or answerers / peers should be able to vote NOT to include the term in the glossary (since no single BEST translation exist).

c. People who have a subject in their "WORK" field should be given a chance to vote and grade questions. There's no reason for limiting answers to people who say they "specialize" in a given field, since the questions I've seen posted so far could have been answered by anyone with a good knowledge of the English language.

d. GBK questions should only be posted occasionally and at times of low traffic (e.g. the week-end), to avoid "crowding out" requests for help (which should indeed be the main priority of Kudoz). On the same token, a colleague has kindly pointed out to me that GBK questions feature very prominently on the proz.com homepage, way above the normal Kudoz questions. Why is it so? Why GBK questions should deserve so much more visibility than the questions of people asking for help (which often raise far more interesting linguistic issues than GBKs)?

e. GBK questions should not overlap with entries already in the Kudoz glossary. What's the point of having a new GBK question if an identical term is already in the glossary (either Kudoz or personal) and correct translation has already been provided? It would be much better to clean up the existing glossary and ONLY afterwards start adding the GBK. Maybe we will find there is no need for an additional GBK glossary after all

f. As a final suggestion, maybe it would be a lot better to implement the GBK answer interface (term + definition + references, etc.) for the Kudoz section, dropping GBKs all together. If answerers were "forced" to conform to a given standard when answering questions (providing definition, providing links and references, etc.), you would get a "cleaner" Kudoz section which would automatically generate nice accurate glossaries.

P.S. I almost forgot to mention. The GBK interface did not accept the following link:

http://www.centrostudifinanza.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=103:la-crisi-finanziaria-mondiale-dalla-deregulation-alla-re-regulation&catid=48:varie&Itemid=40

Although it was a perfectly valid link.

Dr. Matthias Schauen wrote:

My personal feedback: While I like sharing my opinion with colleagues in need of help via the old KudoZ system, I am reluctant to make my expert knowledge - what I consider one of my unique selling points - freely available to customers and competition.

Enrique wrote:



On the other hand, the example without a link is not in line with the required information, and it should not have been allowed by the system. We will investigate this.