
Tyrannical editors
Thread poster: Derek Gill Franßen

Derek Gill Franßen  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 21:14
German to English
+ ...
Mar 11, 2006

This may be rather specific, but as a so-called "editor," I have the right to change a question from "Non-PRO" to "PRO" and vice versa. I think it is useful and I do make use of it occasionally.

Sometimes, however, I would rather vote instead and see if my colleagues agree. The problem is that I can't: I'm forced to be a tyrant.

I wouldn't mind keeping the right to edit the questions (it's fun being a tyrant sometimes), but is there any way of also giving editors the possibility to vote?

Thanks,
Derek


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Prawi  Identity Verified
Austria
Local time: 21:14
German to Italian
I see your point Derek, Mar 11, 2006

but I'm afraid we can only change it or leave it.... As for me, I change only questions that are decidedly pro - if they're marked non- pro - and I usually don't have to think long about it (mostly difficult questions asked by outsiders). More difficult is to decide whether the question is really non - pro, in this case it would be undobtedly useful to know what other colleagues think about it (or another editor?) because it's " eine heikle Frage". On the other hand: we work in different pairs and I don't know how it looks like in GE /EN, but in my pairs (DE/IT) I've noticed that very few colleagues make use of the option "vote pro /non pro".


Liebe Grüße und schönes WE

Paola


Direct link Reply with quote
 
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 20:14
French to English
Sounds reasonable Mar 11, 2006

While not an editor myself, I think your suggestion is sounds good, and I would not think it was technically difficult to implement.

I confess I am sometimes a little perplexed by certain editor decisions to switch a Q from Pro to non-Pro. Personally, I think that in order to do this, the editor should be obliged to either agree to an answer already posted or, if there are no answers, to post a (presumably trivially obvious) answer before being allowed to make a Q non-Pro. However, I can see this might be a bit trickier to write the code for....


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Prawi  Identity Verified
Austria
Local time: 21:14
German to Italian
Another useful change Mar 11, 2006

I happened just now to help a colleague who posted a "wrong" question, ( she wrote "yx" instead of "xx"). Obwiously this changed the whole meaning of the word. I tried to edit it, but it was not possible, so she asked me to squash it and she posted the question once more. ( She hadn't become any answers at the moment ) Wouldn't have been much easier, if she could have changed it by herself? Or if I could have done it for her? This was not the first time it happened.

Ciao

Paola


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Victor Dewsbery  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 21:14
German to English
+ ...
Mystery changes - and an exonerated tyrant Mar 11, 2006

Charlie Bavington wrote:
I confess I am sometimes a little perplexed by certain editor decisions to switch a Q from Pro to non-Pro.


I have experienced this, too.
In my view, questions are often wrongly classed as non-PRO by askers, so I rarely see any problem when they are reclassed as PRO. But the other way round is often a mystery. Last time I saw a question changed to "non-PRO", it attracted about 8 answers and plenty of discussion. Made me wonder if anyone had read the explanation in the KudoZ rules.

But I must spring to Derek's defence. Earlier today he changed a question from non-PRO to PRO, but I had already checked the "Vote PRO" button. So if Derek is a tyrant, I am the tyrant's assistant.
I can only **vote** on the Pro/non-Pro classification, but to my surprise I can **edit** the language pair if the asker has made a mistake. That is as a non-member, but with over 1000 KudoZ points.


Direct link Reply with quote
 

NancyLynn
Canada
Local time: 15:14
Member (2002)
French to English
+ ...

MODERATOR
She should contact a moderator for this Mar 12, 2006

Prawi wrote:

I happened just now to help a colleague who posted a "wrong" question, ( she wrote "yx" instead of "xx"). Obwiously this changed the whole meaning of the word. I tried to edit it, but it was not possible, so she asked me to squash it and she posted the question once more. ( She hadn't become any answers at the moment ) Wouldn't have been much easier, if she could have changed it by herself? Or if I could have done it for her? This was not the first time it happened.

Ciao

Paola


The moderator can do this with a click, especially in the case where there are already answers offered.

Nancy


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Alison Schwitzgebel
France
Local time: 21:14
Member (2002)
German to English
+ ...
Why not contact a moderator for a second opinion Mar 12, 2006

Derek Gill Franßen wrote:

Sometimes, however, I would rather vote instead and see if my colleagues agree. The problem is that I can't: I'm forced to be a tyrant.


Hi Derek!

I know I've hung up my moderator hat for a while but I'm still lurking in the background. If you need a second opinion you can always contact a moderator.

Best,

Alison


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Prawi  Identity Verified
Austria
Local time: 21:14
German to Italian
Hallo NancyLynn Mar 12, 2006

thanks for your answer. Yes, I know she could have contacted a moderator, but it was quite late in the evening and I happened to see her question short afterwards. In this case there was no problem, because there were still no answers, otherwise I wouldn't have squashed it, of course. But I still don't understand why we can change nearly everything and not edit a "wrong" question - provided it hasn't been answered yet and the asker her/himself seeks for help. It was just a typing error, nothing more, and I've seen enough questions that remained unanswered because of this. And I know that moderators have other worries... Is there a particular reason for not allowing editors to edit a question in such cases?

Direct link Reply with quote
 
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 20:14
French to English
We're getting off the point here but... Mar 12, 2006

Prawi wrote:

Is there a particular reason for not allowing editors to edit a question in such cases?


... do you think it might be because the Asker can, if they have made a mess of a question, simply "Close without grading" and then re-post the question correctly?

I'm all in favour of improving the system, but the issue you are talking about can be handled perfectly well by the system as it stands.

Whereas Derek's original post was about adding something genuinely new, to allow editors to simply 'vote' like us lesser mortals, rather than being forced to decide either to change the level of a question or leave well alone.


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Prawi  Identity Verified
Austria
Local time: 21:14
German to Italian
@Charlie Mar 12, 2006

I wasn't talking of the askers, but of the editors. But you'r right, off the point.

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 »

Tyrannical editors

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 »
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 »



Forums
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search
https://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/43643-tyrannical_editors.html
www.proz.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-43
127892
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:2WJZEFFAT536RWXI2FBGWNXJIA46X3ZK
<urn:uuid:2a5c0f5a-c2b6-43a1-819f-2690ce89c856>
2017-10-23T19:14:19Z
96.47.67.50
text/html
sha1:NMNMUKCYJYYT66OLDNA4ULRWHZFO4EX6
<urn:uuid:0330db78-8d1a-4bb1-b110-7b1d0d86dc92>
https://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/43643-tyrannical_editors.html
response
<urn:uuid:fb69e403-457a-409e-b1c2-98417d1fc648>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-142-178-101.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-43
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf