| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] > | Entering 'See comment...' in answer box Thread poster: Tony M
|
|---|
Tony M
France
Local time: 05:10
Member
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER SITE LOCALIZER
NancyLynn wrote:
I, for one, did not have *you* in mind when I made my remark, Dusty, I hope you know that!
Thanks for that, Nancy! I rather hoped not, though you had me worried for a moment there! It's true, maybe we have posted materially the same answer occasionally --- only goes to show that great minds think alike (and simultaneously!)
 Dusty
| | | | Tony M
France
Local time: 05:10
Member
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER SITE LOCALIZER | Correction --- members editing glossary | May 11, 2005 |
As I understand (and have observed it), certain members are allowed to edit glossaries --- to wit, the Asker and the provided of the accepted answer.
Whenever I see one of my own answers accepted, I usually go and check the glossary entry, and perhaps make some minor tweaks in order to try and render it as useful in the future as possible; and this is the point at which I often add 'Ref... See more As I understand (and have observed it), certain members are allowed to edit glossaries --- to wit, the Asker and the provided of the accepted answer.
Whenever I see one of my own answers accepted, I usually go and check the glossary entry, and perhaps make some minor tweaks in order to try and render it as useful in the future as possible; and this is the point at which I often add 'Refer to question for fuller details / discussion / explanation' or whatever, for that very purpose of indicating to future users that additional options or information are available. I like to think that in this way I am contributing to the usefulness of the glossary, and in a macro kind of way, doing something to avoid the kind of mess everyone is so afraid of.
Why, only yesterday I went back and suggested a modification to the glossary entry for a question I'd answered (but not been accepted) way back in 2001 --- 2036 answered questions ago!
[Edited at 2005-05-11 07:23] ▲ Collapse
| | | | SirReaL 
Germany
Local time: 05:10
English to Russian
+ ...
| Let me go back to some of Kirill's thoughts | May 11, 2005 |
I missed out on discussing a lot of interesting points (the different time zone is to blame). I would like to second the thoughts expressed, in particular, by Kirill Semenov.
Oftentimes askers and peers do not look past the answer title. Summarizing or distilling several paragraphs of thoughts and arguments into one concise answer, while desirable, is simply detrimental to the chances of being correctly and fully understood. I often enter many potential translations for the asked te... See more I missed out on discussing a lot of interesting points (the different time zone is to blame). I would like to second the thoughts expressed, in particular, by Kirill Semenov.
Oftentimes askers and peers do not look past the answer title. Summarizing or distilling several paragraphs of thoughts and arguments into one concise answer, while desirable, is simply detrimental to the chances of being correctly and fully understood. I often enter many potential translations for the asked term/sentence, along with comments, references, pondering, etc. I don't want people to overlook all that just because they think they already know what my answer contains from the answer title.
Also, in the process of discussion and ***providing (receiving) context*** by/from the asker, understanding and insight may improve. Will my answer title be appropriate after that process has taken its course? Quite often it is not. Why fit yourself into these rigid limitations when viable alternatives abound?
Having said that, I admit that care needs to be exercised. Personally I do my best to enter a translation, when the circumstances provide for one short and sweet equivalent. I wish everyone would do the same.
Mike
P.S. While we are at it, something does need to be done about the glossary. It is a mess! ▲ Collapse
| | | | Tony M
France
Local time: 05:10
Member
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER SITE LOCALIZER | Greater priorities | May 11, 2005 |
It seems odd to me, since so many of us (if not all) are agreed that translation is scarcely a precise art, and one-to-one word equivalence is fairly rare, especially with thorny translation problems worthy of KudoZ, that there should be so much support for a move destined to lead to over-simplifcation ad absurdum. Especially when the 'crime' at worst penalizes the answerer (in terms of reducing the chance of gaining points for the answer), and will have a significant effect on the glossary if, ... See more It seems odd to me, since so many of us (if not all) are agreed that translation is scarcely a precise art, and one-to-one word equivalence is fairly rare, especially with thorny translation problems worthy of KudoZ, that there should be so much support for a move destined to lead to over-simplifcation ad absurdum. Especially when the 'crime' at worst penalizes the answerer (in terms of reducing the chance of gaining points for the answer), and will have a significant effect on the glossary if, and only if, that answer is accepted. I've checked back at some of my own 2000+ answers, and the proportion with 'improper' headers that were also accepted is actually quite small. The vast majority of KudoZ users are not affected in any way by use of a 'non-standard' header.
Surely a much more anti-social priority for sanction would be those careless, lazy or sloppy Askers who either fail to check the glossaries first, or who get language pairs and / or fields wrong, or who enter unhelpful things in the question box --- like a recent very irritating spate of 'American term' headers from one particular asker.
In such cases, a lot of people's time and energy is wasted; first, through being sent and having to read through wrongly-targetted questions (I get loads every day), and also, through going to look at questions on a wild goose chase. OK, everyone has the choice not to, but the whole point of KudoZ is to do so, after all. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Jaroslaw Michalak
Poland
Local time: 05:10
Member (2004)
English to Polish
SITE LOCALIZER | Examples and whatnot... | May 11, 2005 |
andycw wrote:
It will not have escaped your attention that to attack a particular example rather than the principle behind it is not only silly but also the sign of a weak argument.
Dear Andy,
If you try hard to read my example again, you might understand how it questions the very principle that your "silly mid on" example was based on. Had I known that you would fail to see the logic behind, I would put the appropriate "see below" comment with a long-winded explanation. I thought it obvious that one would read beyond my simple example and see why the original example was invalid. After all, generalizing principles from examples is what is called reasoning, isn't it? And it's as essential for translators as imagination.
I still refute the idea that many or most terms or expressions cannot be put into the target language in concise and understandable form. This would mean that they are practically untranslatable and would make translation of any text either impossible to write or to read. Translations of novels do not come with tons of footnotes, do they? While I admit that there might be some concepts that are very difficult to convey into another language, they are rare. Of course, finding the right equivalent is often very hard, but that's what we're paid for. In money AND in KudoZ.
From my observations Askers come for the translation of the term. Not for lengthy explanations, warnings, musings and deliberations. They are fun, I indulge myself into them too, from time to time, but first of all I try to provide an expression that the desperate, sleepless, bleary-eyed, deadline-haunted Asker might put into his text and forget about it. I know the feeling. I've asked KudoZ questions, too.
| | | | Tony M
France
Local time: 05:10
Member
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER SITE LOCALIZER | In a perfect world... | May 11, 2005 |
Jabberwock wrote:
I still refute the idea that many or most terms or expressions cannot be put into the target language in concise and understandable form. This would mean that they are practically untranslatable and would make translation of any text either impossible to write or to read.
Your argument presupposes that the question is perfect; in practice, most of the problems arise because Askers simply do not give enough context, and the term is one that is highly context-dependent. An explanation and list of options from which Asker can choose is less time-wasting for an answerer than the to-and-fro of 'Ask the Asker' trying to prise out of them a few precious words of vital context.
Going to the extreme case, obviously if I had Asker's entire document in front of me, I would know what term to suggest (or I'd shut up!). So the responsibility for concise communication rests initially with the Asker, and a well-posed question is likely to elicit an answer that is succinct and to the point.
I take the strongest exception to the suggestion that I, or others like me, indulge in lengthy explanations for our own 'amusement'; I think there are very many Askers out there who are extremely grateful for the detailed and informative replies that I sometimes give when called for. It would be interestinng to hear from people who have been helped by my answers, to know if they'd rather I didn't give so much empowering detail. I suspect they're perfectly happy with my answers, certainly judging by the many private e-mails of thanks I regularly receive.
The other type of question that causes problems is one where the question itself is not about a single term, but rather about a whole phrase or sentence, or ones that start with "Am I right in thinking that..." --- although at least in the latter case, Yes / No / Maybe will fit nicely in the answer box!
| | | | Jaroslaw Michalak
Poland
Local time: 05:10
Member (2004)
English to Polish
SITE LOCALIZER | True as well... | May 11, 2005 |
Dusty wrote:
I take the strongest exception to the suggestion that I, or others like me, indulge in lengthy explanations for our own 'amusement'; I think there are very many Askers out there who are extremely grateful for the detailed and informative replies that I sometimes give when called for. It would be interestinng to hear from people who have been helped by my answers, to know if they'd rather I didn't give so much empowering detail. I suspect they're perfectly happy with my answers, certainly judging by the many private e-mails of thanks I regularly receive.
I've never implied that you or anyone else does that for amusement; I was talking about myself, as I do sometimes tend to get to philosophical on some questions. Your work is certainly helpful and appreciated.
The other type of question that causes problems is one where the question itself is not about a single term, but rather about a whole phrase or sentence, or ones that start with "Am I right in thinking that..." --- although at least in the latter case, Yes / No / Maybe will fit nicely in the answer box!
Again you are right here, these questions should be explained in as much details as possible.
Maybe I overstated my point a bit (I am not used to personal imputations questionining my abilities as a translator, as Andy was kind to do). I do indeed fully support giving as much reference and explanations as possible. However, I somewhat object to giving lenghty deliberations on the subject without pointing the answer that is _considered_ to be best suited (although it might not be, in fact). Again, I do not mean your answers here, or anybody else's who posted in this thread, as you simply don't work in my language pair.
Which position, if I understand it correctly, is incidentally shared by Henry.
| | | | Tony M
France
Local time: 05:10
Member
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER SITE LOCALIZER | Sometimes it just isn't possible to choose between alternatives... | May 11, 2005 |
Jabberwock wrote:
However, I somewhat object to giving lenghty deliberations on the subject without pointing the answer that is _considered_ to be best suited...
That's all well and good, but in the kind of examples I'm thinking of, where there are several possible answers, and the amount of context given by Asker really does not make it possible to decide between them, and the total of all of them is too long to put in the answer header box, I think it is daft to toss a coin to decide which one to put in...
At the end of my explanations, I (like certain other answerers) do often sum up with something like: "So my final suggestion would be..." --- at that point, it would be lovely to be allowed to go back and edit the header box, but alas, this facility is not available!
[Edited at 2005-05-12 06:36]
| | |
|
|
|
| When clarifying the source term, "see explanation" is the ONLY answer | May 11, 2005 |
My "translation specialty" is translating English into English ... I've been giving explanations of the English terms to give the translator a better chance of picking the right words in the target language. English can be cryptic, even to native speakers.
Take "flight pitch", for example, which is one thing in aviation and another thing entirely in conveyors. I doubt that either term has a direct equivalent in Portuguese or Polish ... the translator probably will have to use a ... See more My "translation specialty" is translating English into English ... I've been giving explanations of the English terms to give the translator a better chance of picking the right words in the target language. English can be cryptic, even to native speakers.
Take "flight pitch", for example, which is one thing in aviation and another thing entirely in conveyors. I doubt that either term has a direct equivalent in Portuguese or Polish ... the translator probably will have to use a definition, as I have to do when explaining who my "concuño" is in English (he's the brother of my brother- or sister-in-law, and English has no word for that relationship). ▲ Collapse
| | | | two2tango
Argentina
Local time: 01:10
Member
English to Spanish
+ ...
Dusty wrote:
I often find myself taken to task for breaking the KudoZ rules, because I often put things like 'See comment...' or 'See explanation...' in the KudoZ answer box, and I freely admit I am probably one of the worst offenders in this respect.
Hi Dusty,
A lot of the above postings point to exceptional situations where the asker finds it difficult to offer a translation in the box provided to that effect. Yet the above posting seems to imply that you do this rather often, not so exceptionally.
I think the asker should answer as required by the system, and only in very special cases resort to the "please see below" way out.
I really think there are a lot more serious crimes to worry about, like careless Askers wasting people's time with wrong language pairs / duplicated questions / wrong fields / context that has to be prized out of them like a winkle from a shell.
I'd like to see a lot more courtesy, respect and thoughtfulness from Askers before you start taking to task those poor answerers who are only trying to do their best to help...
Sorry but I don't see the relationship between other areas to be improved in KudoZ and following a rule in particular.
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | Andy Watkinson
Spain
Local time: 05:10
Member
Catalan to English
+ ...
| Hi Jabberwock | May 12, 2005 |
I see that Dusty has already set you straight on certain things which were confusing you; points which, had you properly read his initial post would not have warranted any further comment.
You write:
"I still refute the idea that many or most terms or expressions cannot be put into the target language in concise and understandable form".
No need to refute it Jabber, because nobody said that in the first place.
Please re-read Dusty's initial post. He... See more I see that Dusty has already set you straight on certain things which were confusing you; points which, had you properly read his initial post would not have warranted any further comment.
You write:
"I still refute the idea that many or most terms or expressions cannot be put into the target language in concise and understandable form".
No need to refute it Jabber, because nobody said that in the first place.
Please re-read Dusty's initial post. He's referring to those occasions on which to put something in the "answer box" simply "for the sake of it" is not only pointless but misleading.
My understanding is that we answer in order to inform the asker, whatever form such information may take. A direct translation, preferably and if possible - or an explanation.
I really don't see your objection to this.
You write:
"Translations of novels do not come with tons of footnotes, do they?"
No. Not "tons" but many novels do come with footnotes. Never seen a novel with "Translator's notes"?
You write:
"From my observations Askers come for the translation of the term. Not for lengthy explanations, warnings, musings and deliberations"
Well, again I recommend you re-read Dusty's examples. As he said several posts ago, many askers choose not the translations they’re offered but explanations as their preferred answer.
I hope you're not suggesting that they're also misguided.
ProZ norms clearly state that the “right” answer is not the “best translation” but the “answer which is most helpful to the Asker” (or words to that effect). You might wish to question this.
I don’t.
You write:
"I am not used to personal imputations questionining my abilities as a translator, as Andy was kind to do"
Mistaken here again, I'm afraid.
I was not questioning your "abilities as a translator", although I reserve the right to question your abilities as a thinker.
What I was trying to explain was that your reasoning is flawed - all Aristotelian syllogisms are flawed.
That’s why I used one.
You write:
“Maybe I overstated my point a bit “
Quite.
Andy ▲ Collapse
| | | | Can Altinbay
Local time: 23:10
Japanese to English
+ ...
In memoriam | Place one or two out of several possible choices in the title and get a "disagree" | May 12, 2005 |
Dusty wrote:
That's all well and good, but in the kind of examples I'm thinking of, where there are several possible answers, and the amount of context given by Asker really does not make it possible to decide between them, and the total of all of them is too long to put in the answer header box, I think it is daft to toss a coin to decide which one to put in...
At the end of my explanations, I (like certain other answerers) do often sum up with something like: "So my final suggestion would be..." --- at that point, it would be lovely to be allowed to go back and edit the header box, but alas, this facility is not available!
I know what I've often seen when you do place one or two out of a number of choices into a title, and the rest in the explanation field... Someone comes around and gives you the coveted "disagree", because s/he doesn't like the ones you put in the title, then throws in one of your other choices.
| | |
|
|
|
Mats Wiman
Sweden
Local time: 05:10
Member (2000)
German to Swedish
+ ...
In memoriam | See below a way to avoid disagrees?? | May 12, 2005 |
Can Altinbay wrote:
I know what I've often seen when you do place one or two out of a number of choices into a title, and the rest in the explanation field... Someone comes around and gives you the coveted "disagree", because s/he doesn't like the ones you put in the title, then throws in one of your other choices.
Just as it happens hundreds of times every day.
Is 'See below' a way to avert disagrees? Then the object of the exercise is forgotten:
To help the asker by suggesting answers (accepted or not accepted).
Mats
| | | | LJC (X)
France
Local time: 05:10
French to English
+ ...
| I appreciate Dusty's answers enormously | May 12, 2005 |
Dusty wrote:
I take the strongest exception to the suggestion that I, or others like me, indulge in lengthy explanations for our own 'amusement'; I think there are very many Askers out there who are extremely grateful for the detailed and informative replies that I sometimes give when called for. It would be interestinng to hear from people who have been helped by my answers, to know if they'd rather I didn't give so much empowering detail. I suspect they're perfectly happy with my answers, certainly judging by the many private e-mails of thanks I regularly receive.
I very rarely ask a question but when I do, I'm grateful for any help I can get. Dusty has been enormously helpful on occasion and I would not like to see him forced to change his ways. In my opinion, his answers are some of the most valuable on the site (at least, in my language pairs).
If an asker hasn't got the nouse to enter something meaningful in the glossary, please don't blame the answerer. I don't understand why some of you appear to be slamming down on an answerer's goodwill. Carry on like that and sooner or later all goodwill will be lost.
Dusty, I appreciate your answers enormously. Thank you, and please carry on helping us in your own inimitable fashion.
Lesley
| | | | Tony M
France
Local time: 05:10
Member
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER SITE LOCALIZER | I think you've missed Can's point | May 12, 2005 |
Mats Wiman wrote:
Is 'See below' a way to avert disagrees? Then the object of the exercise is forgotten...
Mats
I think you've missed the point here, Mats. Can was objecting to the all-too-common (and irritating) discourtesy of other answerers 'disagreeing' with your header words, but then offering one of the other words proposed in your explanation as their own answer. Whilst they may well have chosen the right word as Asker's context turns out, it is irksome in the extreme, as well as seemingly contradictory, for them to propose ONE (of several) terms from an answer with which they have 'disagreed'.
In such a circumstance, I personally prefer to either 'agree', adding a comment as to with WHICH of the words I agree (though running the risk that Asker will not take the time to read the comment, and so will take the agree as relating to the header word with which I do not necessarily agree), or better perhaps, put 'neutral', and then explain which of the words I would support.
On rare occasions, I have even been guilty of this myself; sometimes, when I have very strong feelings about the inappropriateness of the header word in particular, I do 'disagree' and then go on to extract my suggested preferred alternative from the other answer's explanation; but in such circumstances, I am always careful to make it clear that I am only picking up on the other Answerer's suggestion, and that any credit should go to them and not me.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Entering 'See comment...' in answer box | 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 » |
| | 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 
