Mobile menu

Compulsory explanation
Thread poster: Rad Graban

Rad Graban  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:11
English to Slovak
+ ...
Mar 12, 2008

Do you think that there should be a compulsary "reason" field for peer comments (agree,disagree,neutral)?

[Subject edited by staff or moderator 2008-03-12 20:07]


Direct link Reply with quote
 
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 15:11
French to English
In theory, and in practice Mar 12, 2008

In theory: yes for disagree, probably for neutral, can't see the point for agrees.

In practice, people would just put smilies or rows of dots or some of the other myriad variations used by geniuses when providing answers that require absolutely no explanation.



[Edited at 2008-03-12 20:15]


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Rad Graban  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:11
English to Slovak
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
And again Mar 12, 2008

After about 15 minutes of being unable to load ProZ page, here I go again.
I'm currently discussing a term (SK>EN) in KudoZ. There is the answer with three "agree(s)" which I'm 99% possitive is wrong. There is still one percent and as I'm not native speaker, I would like to know the reason for "agree" peer comments so I can learn from it.


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Henry Hinds  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 08:11
English to Spanish
+ ...
Ask Mar 12, 2008

In your case, Rad, put a note asking for some explanation for those agreeing, it will go to them and those willing to do so can reply to your concerns.

It also may be that the CONTEXT is not sufficient and if you could help with more, that could clear it up. That can be a problem, because you see the entire CONTEXT but they may not have enough to get a handle on it, and they may or may not even realize that.


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Rad Graban  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:11
English to Slovak
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Only when... Mar 12, 2008

Henry Hinds wrote:
It also may be that the CONTEXT is not sufficient and if you could help with more, that could clear it up. That can be a problem, because you see the entire CONTEXT but they may not have enough to get a handle on it, and they may or may not even realize that.


I only post a peer comment when I have the explanation why I "agree", "disagree", or my opinion is " neutral". I don't mind that much (and don't give it myself) having no reason given for "agree" peer comment when the original reply covers it.


Direct link Reply with quote
 
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 15:11
French to English
You can only go with what's there ! Mar 12, 2008

Rad Graban wrote:
I'm currently discussing a term (SK>EN) in KudoZ. There is the answer with three "agree(s)" which I'm 99% possitive is wrong. There is still one percent and as I'm not native speaker, I would like to know the reason for "agree" peer comments so I can learn from it.

You can only react to the info there on the page.
Post a neutral (or even disagree!) giving your reasons, and with any luck, the Answerer will provide further details which will enable you to become 100% certain either way.
And if YOU are the one that is mistaken, you can always change the neutral to an agree.
And if you're not, then the Asker will, it is hoped, be jolly grateful!

That is all looking at the wider picture.

Ultimately, it's up to the Asker and Answerer to decide if the answer matches the question 100%, and the fact that we bystanders may seek to glean info from the exchange is, ultimately, a side issue


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Roy Williams  Identity Verified
Austria
Local time: 16:11
German to English
Good idea Mar 13, 2008

I like Henry's idea. Simply asking for more information is a good solution. I think most ProZ users/members would be more than happy to oblige. Personally, I try to provide an explanation or possible variation when I post an agree. If I disagree, I post the best possible suggestion I can give if any, rather then posting a disagree. Then I take my lumps accordingly.

Direct link Reply with quote
 

Jack Doughty  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:11
Member (2000)
Russian to English
+ ...
Agreeing without comment to an answer the asker has already accepted Mar 13, 2008

I can't see much point in this apart from browniz-hunting.

Direct link Reply with quote
 

JaneTranslates  Identity Verified
Puerto Rico
Local time: 11:11
Member (2005)
Spanish to English
+ ...
Jack's slightly off topic but I think it's valid. Mar 13, 2008

Jack Doughty wrote:

Agreeing without comment to an answer the asker has already accepted:
I can't see much point in this apart from browniz-hunting.


I hope Rad doesn't think we're straying from his topic, but surely it's closely related.

Jack, I fully agree. If the question is already closed, simply slapping another "agree," without comment, onto the chosen answer appears to me to be a cheap way to get BrowniZ. However, on rare occasions I have commented after a question was closed, when a) I felt I had something useful to add to the discussion; or b) the answer was so beautiful, so ingenious, so elegantly constructed that I felt compelled to compliment the answerer. In either case, I add an explanation of my comment.

Jane


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Nicole Schnell  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 07:11
English to German
+ ...
And there is more Mar 13, 2008

JaneTranslates wrote:

However, on rare occasions I have commented after a question was closed, when a) I felt I had something useful to add to the discussion; or b) the answer was so beautiful, so ingenious, so elegantly constructed that I felt compelled to compliment the answerer. In either case, I add an explanation of my comment.

Jane


I fully agree with Jane on this one.

This also benefits colleagues when looking up terms in the glossary. Way too often questions are closed prematurely and peers weren't even given a chance to comment.

So, you are looking up a specific term, find it in the glossary and the asker (who needed help in the first place...) picked an answer without waiting for colleagues. How can you be sure that it is correct now?

I appreciate the effort from colleagues who give agrees and comments after the question was closed. I appreciate comments from colleagues when obviously the wrong answer was chosen even more.

The concept of BrowniZ-grabbing is new to me, but hey..)


Direct link Reply with quote
 


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Compulsory explanation

Advanced search






LSP.expert
You’re a freelance translator? LSP.expert helps you manage your daily translation jobs. It’s easy, fast and secure.

How about you start tracking translation jobs and sending invoices in minutes? You can also manage your clients and generate reports about your business activities. So you always keep a clear view on your planning, AND you get a free 30 day trial period!

More info »
PerfectIt consistency checker
Faster Checking, Greater Accuracy

PerfectIt helps deliver error-free documents. It improves consistency, ensures quality and helps to enforce style guides. It’s a powerful tool for pro users, and comes with the assurance of a 30-day money back guarantee.

More info »



All of ProZ.com
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
http://www.proz.com/forum/kudoz/99557-compulsory_explanation.html
www.proz.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-04
94120
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:EQRM7YIXCPKIWNZAMASVYDE3NPCFSYAW
<urn:uuid:d3ff16d9-d9aa-4a42-9200-9d6685d1b2b4>
2017-01-16T15:11:05Z
66.193.29.150
sha1:ASFBAPNMJXL5ZFKMKSWNR733DWYZFQNN
<urn:uuid:940abfc8-b8d4-45e9-a942-f674307a80a9>
http://www.proz.com/forum/kudoz/99557-compulsory_explanation.html
response
<urn:uuid:f196ab51-8993-43d0-98bf-bdb54dcd3429>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-171-10-70.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-04
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf