Answer:

by sephysto (CA/DE), 2007-05-24, 15:38   Spam?  

Answer:

by Dracs (DE), 2007-05-24, 15:40   Spam?  

Answer:

by Falk (DE), 2007-05-24, 15:43   Spam?  

I agree.

Answer:

by Windfall (GB), 2007-05-24, 15:48   Spam?  

I agree with the adjectives thing, but the adverbs thing sounds rather complicated (especially if I'm right in remembering that there used to be some sort of argument about which words were adverbs and which weren't, as English has often used "adverb" as a catch-all "well it doesn't fit into any of the other categories" category. For instance some people seem to classify "not" as an adverb
Google: not adverb
and others classify it as a negating particle
Google: not negating particle. If this has now all been cleasred up then I am the first to confess that I am not familar with all of the latest ruling/opinion and would not like to have to say which words were and weren't adverbs)

Answer:

by Lendo, 2007-05-24, 15:52   Spam?  83.64.9....

Answer:

by Bruno67 (DE), 2007-05-24, 16:04   Spam?  

Answer:

by ghinch (DE), 2007-05-24, 16:22   Spam?  

Answer:

by godesia (DE), 2007-05-24, 16:42   Spam?  

Answer:

by Thorsten1 (DE), 2007-05-24, 16:47   Spam?  

Sounds like common sense to me. I'm surprised to learn it wasn't in the rules already.

4;Laura: For the vast majority of words there's no discussion as to whether they are adverbs or something else, so this shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Answer:

by AnakinCat (CH), 2007-05-24, 16:47   Spam?  

Wie Laura bin ich mit der regelung fĂĽr adjektive einverstanden, aber nicht so wirklich mit der,  fĂĽr die adverbien.
es gibt ja verschieden klassen von adverbien. sollen hier/dort/warum/später/vielleicht/deshalb (und ewig so weiter)..... alle bezeichnet werden müssen?!
die adverbien, die mit adjektiven (oder sonstigem) zu verwechseln sind, macht eher sinn.(wobei 'eher' = adv.  :-))

Answer:

by Thorsten1 (DE), 2007-05-24, 16:48   Spam?  

Ooops . Obviously, I meant "I agree"... ;)

Answer:

by Thorsten1 (DE), 2007-05-24, 16:51   Spam?  

I see what you mean now (and probably Laura, too). I think adverbs should always be marked whenever they can be mistaken for adjectives, since German does not usually distinguish between them. If I'm not totally mistaken this is what Paul intended, too.

Answer:

by tomaquinaten (US/DE), 2007-05-24, 17:53   Spam?  

Mit den Adjektiven habe ich keine Probleme, wohl aber mit den Adverbien, zumindest was die Formulierung betrifft. Engl. Adverbien, die in "ly" enden, brauchen nicht gekennzeichnet zu werden -- dies ist sicher auch nicht gemeint. Adverbien brauchen nur dann gekennzeichnet zu werden, wenn sie mit Substantiven, Verben,  Adjektiven oder sonstigen Partikeln verwechselt werden können. Solche Fälle sind selten, sehr selten besonders wenn mann die Ăśbersetzung dazu rechnet.

Answer:

by Kiskunfelegyhaza (US), 2007-05-24, 17:54   Spam?  

Most the adverbs have been marked anyway, undoing that would be murder! Thanks, Paul!
A.

Answer:

by clavichord (DE), 2007-05-24, 18:12   Spam?  

4;tom, tho - always means always.
And that means that Paul wants all the -ly-words to be tagged adverbs. I find that slightly overdone, but for generalisation's sake so be it.
We should probably vote for an outvote freeze, because us active ones have been guilty one or the other way by adding or deleting adv. tags. I for sure will dive down into the mid-80s. Ah well, it is only a dictionary...
Michael

Answer:

by AnakinCat (CH), 2007-05-24, 18:39   Spam?  

the way i understand 'adverbs should always be marked', is that  each and every adverb is marked no matter what it looks like? and that seems a little too much to me.

Answer:

by brother (DE), 2007-05-24, 19:21   Spam?  

Answer:

by translatosaurus, 2007-05-24, 20:24   Spam?  84.146.214...

Answer:

by JanJK (DE), 2007-05-24, 20:29   Spam?  

Wobei eine spitzfindige Frage habe ich schon. ;)
Paul, Du meinst wohl:

Adjectives should be marked
1) if there is a noun that is spelled the same way OR
2) if they end in -ly.

oder? ' ;)

Answer:

by Draks (EH), 2007-05-24, 20:36   Spam?  

Aber: Bei Adverbien ist die Grenze zu anderen Wortarten wie Konjunktionen oder Interrogativpronomen nicht immer leicht zu bestimmen, weil es eine ganze Reihe von Adverbien gibt, die aus Ableitungen entstanden sind (z.B. mittags), oder zu den Modalpartikeln zählen, was zu weiteren Unklarheiten führen kann ... but that shouldn't be too much of a problem.
Thanks, Paul

Answer:

by clavichord (DE), 2007-05-24, 21:54   Spam?  

Das sind 500, und damit sind wir erst bei breezily.
Rethink?
Michael

Answer:

by buaya, 2007-05-24, 22:48   Spam?  85.178.199....

Thanks, Paul.

Answer:

by wobinichhier (DE), 2007-05-24, 23:12   Spam?  

Dass es neu ist, ist mir allerdings neu. War es nicht immer schon so?

Answer:

by Wuffke (DE), 2007-05-25, 01:01   Spam?  

Answer:

by nitram (GB), 2007-05-25, 01:11   Spam?  

Einverstanden.

Answer:

by polarjud (US), 2007-05-25, 01:37   Spam?  

I'll conform to whatever the group decides, of course, but stare decisis should be our guiding principle.  Tidiness is a secondary virtue to respecting the efforts of past contributors and making wise use of our talents.  If we do adopt this, I really would like to see it done in conjuction with a requirement for 20 votes to approve revisions to previously verified entries.  That would at least give us old-timers more opportunity to be on the right side of the re-votes.  There may be thousands of my old votes that get reopened.

Answer:

by polarjud (US), 2007-05-25, 02:11   Spam?  

On re-reading this history, I noticed that some appear to be unaware of the current guidelines as Paul has posted them.  Here they are in English and German.  I find them to be much better than the newest suggestion.  (But then I wrote them.)

{adj} und {adv}
kennzeichnen Adjektive und Adverbien. Diese Kennungen sollten hinzugefügt werden, wenn die Verwendung des Begriffes ansonsten unklar wäre. Bitte sparsam verwenden - nur für unklare und schwierige Fälle! Bereits existierende Kennzeichnungen sollten nicht korrigiert werden. Bei Neuvorschlägen möglichst am Originaleintrag orientieren.

{adj} and {adv}
identify adjectives and adverbs. These labels should be added if the correct application of the term would be unclear otherwise.

Add the {adj} and {adv} tags sparingly. They are superfluous information to the vast majority of users. Please reserve them only for the most ambiguous and difficult cases. Also, please do not "correct" verified entries by either adding or subtracting these tags. In reviewing new cases, the choice of the submitter regarding the use of the tags should generally be respected.

Answer:

by Kiskunfelegyhaza (US), 2007-05-25, 04:24   Spam?  

Keep in mind that only the past 500 votes one has cast figure into one's voting percentage. Any vote before the 500th most recent one may be changed, but won't alter one's percentage, so I don't see how this could be a worry.
(Damit Qualitätssteigerungen sichtbar werden, werden nur die letzten 500 Votes zur Bewertung herangezogen.)
And now that we have a proposal for a consistent rule to apply and a reason for making changes to render the dictionary more consistent, demanding that each change require twice the usual votes strikes me as utterly counterproductive. This would be a bad idea.
A.

Answer:

by polarjud (US), 2007-05-25, 04:34   Spam?  

How many adjectives without tags?

Answer:

by clavichord (DE), 2007-05-25, 07:22   Spam?  

Das sind 5507 -ly-Einträge, von denen die meisten ein {adv}-Tag verpasst bekommen sollen. Von mir aus, aber wer soll das machen? Das ist Praktikantenarbeit und nichts für Profis. Da sollte man jemanden dransetzen, der ein paar Euro verdienen will und die Änderungen aus der Outvote-Statistik raushalten. Ich selbst habe bestimmt keine Lust, hunderte von {adv}-Tags zu setzen.'
Michael

Answer:

by Kiskunfelegyhaza (US), 2007-05-25, 09:49   Spam?  

Most of the adverbs Clavi found already have the {adv} tag added. There really are not so many that still require the tag. Adding them is no emergency. Again, I don't see this as an enormous problem, on the contrary.
A.

Answer:

by Ivy (DE), 2007-05-25, 10:10   Spam?  

obwohl ich der Meinung bin, dass eine Kennzeichnung der Adverben, die auf -ly enden, eigentlich ĂĽberflĂĽssig ist. Andererseits ist es natĂĽrlich besser, eine einheitliche Regelung zu haben.

Answer:

by Windfall (GB), 2007-05-25, 10:24   Spam?  

in the past for following the guidelines (by people who'd made up their own), I'm not actually expecting future rules to be followed anyway. By the way, should we be rating people on their ability to follow the guidelines? I think some people who I currently have a +3 for as their rating because they're good at correct translation between the two languages may actully deserve -3's for ignoring the guidelines. On the other hand, if I give out enough -3's, my rating will no longer count anyway in accordance with the current rating system.

Answer:

by clavichord (DE), 2007-05-25, 11:35   Spam?  

To make an end to private logic. It is a pain in the rear to add all those {adv.} tags, but at least nobody can introduce variants of one's own anymore. Adverbs are marked as such finito, even if one could dispute the necessity of this in the most obvious cases. Normal dictionaries like DUDEN et al do it all the time, it adds redundancy, and in a dictionary that is a positive and reasserting feature.
Michael,
who still thinks paid help should do the tag insertions.

Answer:

by Windfall (GB), 2007-05-25, 12:05   Spam?  

I was more thinking "If they didn't read the guidlines before, why would they start reading them now?" and also that other users might take the view "Oh look, by making up our own rules, we got the guidelines changed, I wonder what other rules I have in my head that are better than the rules in the guidelines, so that the guidelines can be changed to match these too?" Don't forget, the attachment of tags to everything is a relatively new movement.

Also, I have always argued that the attachment or non-attachment of tags (or capital letters and punctuation) shouldn't affect your voting rating, it's the spelling, translation (and accuracy of m/f/n/pl.) that matters. The rest is a matter of opinion. Btw, I include capital letters in that because of the difference in view between those who consider things phrases (to be recorded without capital letters or full stops) and those who consider them sentences (with the works).

Answer:

by clavichord (DE), 2007-05-25, 12:28   Spam?  

Rating is very much a matter of private preference for what you are rating. One shouldn't make rules for that imo. Making people aware of the guidelines is very much necessary with newcomers, who often print well-meant but crude stuff with private comments added etc. I typically will put such a newcomer on zero, correct the entry, and inform the newcomer on the why and how of the correction. Usually that works very well, and I track these people, and I adjust the rating quickly in most cases.
While I do rate people, I sympathise with colleagues who abstain (like Virag3 while she was with us RIP) or have ceased to rate (Don and Paul if I see correctly).
Anyhow, there is Paul's new system underway, and it will be interesting to see the results.
Michael

Answer:

by NiTriPan (ID), 2007-05-25, 17:03   Spam?  

Answer:

by NickM (US), 2007-05-25, 17:42   Spam?  

Answer:

by Paul (AT), 2007-05-26, 21:41   Spam?  

As almost everybody agrees to the suggestion, I changed the guidelines today.
Additionally, as requested by lots of users over time, I changed the voting accuracy algorithm to ignore common tags like {adv}. This way the current guidelines change will not hurt anyone's rankings.

Answer:

by polarjud (US), 2007-05-29, 06:00   Spam?  

It would be ironic if facilitating this {adj}/{adv} change resulted in less consistency.  Certainly, I think that there should continue to be a penalty for getting the German gender wrong.  I also think that the care we put into labels like [sl.], [coarse], [coll.], and [vulg.] was useful. These would be very difficult for most nonnative English speakers to know unless we tell them.  To my way of thinking, there were only two pretty much useless tagging conventions that might make sense to drop from the voting accuracy.  Those were the {adj}/{adv} tags and the order of [] objects.

Answer:

by Paul (AT), 2007-05-29, 10:58   Spam?  

From news page:
---
Labels, as displayed next to the input / review forms (like [Am.], {adj}, {adv}) will not be taken into account when calculating the voting accuracy index. Exceptions: {m} {f} {n} {pl}.
---
This means, all labels (=in brackets) from the input form (buttons and "more" menu), except for gender tags, are removed from each entry before comparing.

Answer:

by polarjud (US), 2007-05-29, 14:08   Spam?  

From GERM101 in relation to absolute=allgemeingĂĽltig: >>it [absolute] does exist as a noun in philosophy, but it's a noun derived from the adjective, as in "the absolute = das Absolute" (we have this entry). I don't see us having an entry of absolute nakedly as a noun by itself, thus I see no need to mark any of them adjective, the noun and adjective entries wouldn't show up together in the same area to cause confusion in my book. I say simplify and keep adj. tags off of "absolute."<<

There are over 2.2 million google hits on "absolutes."  As you all know, these are not adjectival hits.  

Google: "absolutes"

Answer:

by polarjud (US), 2007-05-30, 05:41   Spam?  

Paul,

Given the wonderful new functionality of the forum for discussions on the structure of the dictionary, why not open this up for discussion as well?  I think you may have loosened up the criteria too much.  I'd like to see how others feel about which tags are worthy of being considered in the algorithm.  

--Dave

Answer:

by Paul (AT), 2007-05-30, 11:01   Spam?  

Polarjud,
For me, and for the time being, the current algorithm would be ok. But if you think it would be better to change it, feel free to start a discussion about that.

I'm thinking about sending notification emails whenever a new forum discussion tagged "contribute" is started, maybe with an option to turn it off.

Answer:

by Fressi (US), 2007-06-16, 17:24   Spam?  

Answer:

2007-07-10, 01:47   203.162.27...