|   Alle Sprachen   
EN   SV   IS   RU   RO   FR   IT   SK   NL   PT   FI   LA   ES   HU   NO   BG   HR   CS   DA   TR   PL   EO   SR   SQ   EL   BS   |   FR   SK   IS   ES   NL   HU   RO   PL   SV   NO   RU   FI   SQ   IT   DA   CS   PT   HR   BG   LA   EO   SR   BS   TR   EL

Deutsch-Englisch-Wörterbuch

Online-Wörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch: Begriff hier eingeben!
  äöüß...
  Optionen | Tipps | FAQ | Abkürzungen

LoginRegistrieren
Home|New Website|About|Vokabeltrainer|Fachgebiete|Benutzer|Forum|Mitmachen!
Übersetzungsforum Deutsch-Englisch
 cockrobin »
« urgency fee    

English-German Translation Forum

« zurück | Antworten aus- oder einblenden | Diskussion beobachten
Frage:
Discourtesy to verifiers  
von geo255 (US), Last modified: 2015-06-13, 20:48  like dislike  Spam?  
Although there is apparently no specific guideline mandating verifiable sources with each proposed translation, it is simple courtesy to those who attempt to verify these translations to provide some supporting evidence.  Presumably the person offering a translation has spent some time and effort determining the quality of the translation and the result(s) of this is/are of definite utility to all verifiers.

There is a particular user who continues to propose a constant stream of translations without any verifiable sources.  To make matters worse, he (or she) had provided no email contact.  I emailed Paul about this user and he said he would speak to this individual.  Meanwhile, these translations continue to be offered.

I would like to propose that there be a guideline added which states that a good faith effort to provide verifiable sources for every proposed translation be made by the individual offering these translations.

At the present, lacking any other measures, I have taken to putting a comment-deletion in any translation by this user which lacks verifiable sources.  I feel it would be nice if the rest of the community not encourage this user's deficient efforts by voting for these translations.
Antwort: 
This particular user has got a name - wMw -, and most of us are aware of his attitude …  #804617
von parker11 (DE), Last modified: 2015-06-13, 21:42  like dislike  Spam?  
… which is downright poison to this site. His entries and votes are completely ignoring any of our guidelines. His disrespectful attitude in the forum is well known. There's no learning curve to be seen, there's not a sign of even trying to change his behavior. I strongly support geo255's point of view. Delete his entries, outvote his (nonsense) votes, ignore or spam his questions in the forum -  as long as he is not willing to adapt himself to the guidelines and dos and don'ts on dict.cc.

Vielleicht erreicht ja Paul eine Änderung seines Verhaltens.
Antwort: 
I agree.  #804621
von Badger (US), 2015-06-14, 00:06  like dislike  Spam?  
I hope Paul will drop him. His contributions are very annoying.
Antwort: 
unsourced entries   #804622
von Lisa4dict loggedout, 2015-06-14, 01:03  like dislike  Spam?  99.11.162....
There are more culprits that just our most recent irk.  I think it's also the attitude that's putting people off.  I'm moving on as soon as I see that user's Nickname.

But there are a couple of contributors who only source their original find of a term and then make up their own matches without sources.  That's fine if the suggestion does indeed match.  Unfortunately I all too often find misreading, false friends and "exists in both languages, never mind usage doesn't match" pairings.  Writing to those contributors or leaving a comment at the entry is pretty useless IMHO.
Antwort: 
Unsourced entries  #804631
von Catesse (AU), Last modified: 2015-06-14, 03:18  like dislike  Spam?  
Providing a source has always been requested but it was never mandatory.
Years ago, Paul specifically approved unsourced entries that were made using the Build-up facility, and that has always been the case. You cannot make fish of one and fowl of the other.
What I find more disturbing is the practice of approving an entry as long as a source is given, even if the source is dodgy, and even if, when the source is checked, it does not even give the particular translation as correct.
After all, the first contributor gets VPx2 points, and the verifiers get VPx3 points, so they really could be expected to be willing to work for them.
The name that makes me skip a forum entry is of a contributor who asks for help with a host of entries - something like a thousand in total, and multiple requests per day - but has, as far as I can tell - not given any help to anybody on even a single occasion, nor made a single entry or vote on DE-EN. That is sheer exploitation. (If he has in fact given any help or made a vote or entry that I have overlooked, I should be delighted to be referred to it.)
Antwort: 
Catesse:  #804633
von parker11 (DE), 2015-06-14, 06:54  like dislike  Spam?  
"The name that makes me skip a forum entry is of a contributor who asks for help with a host of entries …"

I see your point. But at least this guy doesn't mess up the dictionary. And he says "Thank You" a lot. ;-)
Chat:     
I agree with parker11.  #804638
von romy (CZ/GB), 2015-06-14, 07:51  like dislike  Spam?  
There is nothing wrong about using only one or two features of the dict website, as long as the person is courteous and respectful and appreciates the assistance provided.
Chat:     
Free translation service  #804645
von Catesse (AU), 2015-06-14, 08:45  like dislike  Spam?  
I agree with parker and romy in part. Always polite, almost always returns thanks. Quite likely a very nice person. However, if all these smallish bits were packaged into larger bundles, they would attract a snarl from some contributors that dict is not a free translation service and the enquirer is taking the bread out of the mouths of translators who rely upon paid work.
All "take" and no "give" is not a good look.
Chat:     
wMw - "weißMannwer"  #804647
von Wenz (DE), Last modified: 2015-06-14, 08:52  like dislike  Spam?  
Funktioniert eigentlich das "Report this User"-Feature noch. D.h. wird ein 2er-Voter automatisch (= ohne "Begutachtung" durch Paul, ob die Sperre gerechtfertigt) gesperrt nach Report von 3 Personen?
((Bei Mitmachern ab Voting Power 3 geht es ja nicht mehr automatisch.))
Chat:     
Re-open  #804652
von Catesse (AU), 2015-06-14, 09:33  like dislike  Spam?  
How is it that I cannot get back to the Edit page of this entry in order to re-open it?
http://contribute.dict.cc/?action=show-history&id=1292388
This entry, along with a number of others, was deleted simply because no bilingual source was given. So a perfectly correct entry for the useful and not uncommon term "airport chaplain = Flughafenpseelsorger" does not exist in dict now.
http://www.nzz.ch/spezial/tsunami2004/eine-katastrophe-wie-keine-an...
Ca 1800 entries for "Flughafenseelsorger".
Wikipedia(EN): Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom
Over 1,000 entries for "airport chaplain".
This automatic "deletion" reaction for obviously correct entries, just because you don't like the attitude and manners of the contributor, cannot possible be for the good of dict.
Antwort: 
von ddr (AT), Last modified: 2015-06-15, 10:32  like dislike  Spam?  
 #804657
I agree with Catesse. The main criterion should be, if an entry is correct and useful. If somebody is a nuisance, we can - as an 'educational' method or out of sheer disgust with his manners  - leave his or her entries unverified until someone verifies them sometime by chance, but to delete correct entries is contraproductive for the dict. (Formal mistakes should be amended anyway, otherwise other newbies might verify such entries as they are.)
I don't agree with Catesse regarding people from 'third countries'. How is a student of German from ... or a German teacher from ... supposed to 'help' English or German speakers with their translation problems? And if somebody is willing to assist, it's his or her decision to do so, even if this is not the main purpose of the forum.
Antwort: 
Naja, alles gut und schön ... aber wMw will scheints gar nicht dazulernen!  #804663
von Wenz (DE), Last modified: 2015-06-14, 11:16  like dislike  Spam?  
http://contribute.dict.cc/?action=edit&id=1292564&p=1&o...

Und es ist ja so, daß wir eigentlich schon geduldig mit Neuankömmlingen umgehen und ihre Fehler (GL-bezogen) korrigieren. Früher waren viele dieser Neuen auch recht dankbar für die ersten Starthilfen.
[Aber nach 2 Monaten Einarbeitung mit fast 600 Votes und über 300 Inputs ... hallo, hallo!]

Deshalb finde ich einen "Denkzettel" einer Kurzsperre für angemessen. Dann kann wMw entscheiden, ob er weiterhin Vokabular ins dict einbringen will.
Ich bin 100% sicher, daß er diese Beschwerde (und auch die vorherige als Contribute) gelesen hat. Zudem ist er sehr häufig im Forum unterwegs, auch falls er die Contribute-Benachrichtigung deaktiviert hat.

Also zusammenfassend: Wir sind keine bösen Menschen. Wer nicht hören will, muß fühlen :)

Nachtrag: Die Überschrift hätte auch lauten können: Leck mich am Arsch! - mich interessiert es nicht die Bohne, wennn ihr hier über mich rummosert
Und ich glaube zu wissen, wer wMw ist ... es gibt ein Muster an das ich mich erinnere.
Antwort: 
von ddr (AT), Last modified: 2015-06-14, 11:41  like dislike  Spam?  
 #804674
Gegen eine Sperre habe ich nichts gesagt. Wenn jemand sich nicht einfügen will, ist das vielleicht ein angemessenes Mittel. (So wie vor die Türe stellen (früher) in der Schule :)). Ich finde es nur nicht sinnvoll, richtige Einträge 'zur Strafe' für den Eingeber rauszuwerfen. Wer gibt sie denn dann wieder ein? Und wann? (Und ich finde es auch nicht richtig, die Qualität von Einträgen immer an den sources zu messen und gebe Catesse auch diesbezüglich recht. Wenn es so weitergeht und demnächst nur noch Einträge mit 5 zweisprachigen sources akzeptabel sind, können wir alte Worte, regionale Ausdrücke, seltene Worte etc. bald vergessen. Außerdem hasse ich die Klickerei!)
Chat:     
ddr: vielleicht ein anderer? Vielleicht keiner? Und dann? Geht dict daran zu Grunde?  #804676
von parker11 (DE), 2015-06-14, 11:31  like dislike  Spam?  
Antwort: 
von ddr (AT), 2015-06-14, 11:42  like dislike  Spam?  
 #804678
Wenn es egal ist, was ist dann der Sinn von dict.?
Chat:     
free translation service  #804715
von uffie (GH/KI), 2015-06-14, 12:53  like dislike  Spam?  
has happened before and people got upset because the account was closed after no more help was needed in translating the book.
Chat:     
von ddr (AT), 2015-06-14, 13:07  like dislike  Spam?  
 #804719
Yes, this bit of forum history annoyed me much more than the occasional German or English learner. The books were actually published!
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2015-06-14, 13:14  like dislike  Spam?  
 #804721
I think specifically requiring links in all inputs would not really help. There are too many possibilities to post links that don't help at all.
As far as I can see, wMw doesn't violate any guidelines, except maybe for the politeness rule. But what exactly should that mean? Having to say "thank you" for each answer in the forum? I don't think forcing people to do that would make the forum a friendlier place.

Das Report-this-User-Feature funktioniert noch - es hat auch jetzt funktioniert. Eine Begutachtung durch mich gibt es allerdings immer - sobald ich das nächste Mal meine Mails checke. Ich überlege mir dann, ob ich einen solchen Rauswurf begründen kann und wenn ich das nicht kann, wird die Sperre wieder aufgehoben. Das bedeutet aber nicht, dass ich mit allem einverstanden bin, was wMw macht. Übrigens, Wenz: Ich denke nicht, dass Du wMw kennst - außer Du weißt mehr als ich.

4;Catesse, regarding http://contribute.dict.cc/?action=show-history&id=1292388 :
You need to click the "Undelete" link in the "Currently visible" section to reinstall the entry.

Was mir in letzter Zeit sehr häufig als Teil des Problems erscheint, ist die Möglichkeit, eine Kontaktaufnahme völlig abzulehnen. Ich überlege, ob es nicht besser wäre, nur dann bei der Wortschatzpflege mitmachen zu können, wenn man auch bereit ist, direkte Mitteilungen zuzulassen.
Antwort: 
von uffie (GH/KI), 2015-06-14, 13:26  like dislike  Spam?  
 #804723
wir hatten die Diskussion ja schon mal, aber bei fast 3000 nicht verifizierten Übersetzungsvorschlägen könnte man sich schon mal eine Art Filter überlegen.

Es ist und bleibt für die Regelmäßigen frustrierend, dauernd Quellen finden zu müssen, da gebe ich geo Recht. Es gibt kein Gleichgewicht zwischen den vielen Leuten, die Vorschläge machen und den wenigen, die aktiv mitarbeiten.

Alleine das sorgfältige Überprüfen bestehender Quellen benötigt seine Zeit. Selbst welche finden zu müssen (für beide Seiten) ist noch um einiges aufwendiger.

Irgendwann einmal wird in der Praxis der Punkt erreicht sein, an dem die Flut an Einträgen überhaupt nicht mehr zu bewältigen ist. Wann das ist, ob bei 5.000 oder 10.000 unverifizierten Einträgen, ist schwer vorherzusagen.
Antwort: 
The other major problem with wMw's entries is/was that...  #804731
von Lllama (GB/AT), 2015-06-14, 14:08  like dislike  Spam?  
they often had more than one translation on one side, which then had to be corrected before it could be verified. He/she also 'corrected' a number of correctly formatted entries by adding other terms to the entry.

This could be classed as a beginner's mistake, but it carried on for a long time - I'm not sure when the last entry like this was.

Interestingly, wMw started posting here after someone called wmw stopped posting on LEO - https://dict.leo.org/forum/previewPersonsPostings.php?lp=ende&l...

These threads are interesting:
https://dict.leo.org/forum/viewUnsolvedquery.php?idThread=1285510&a...
https://dict.leo.org/forum/viewUnsolvedquery.php?idThread=1285732&a...
https://dict.leo.org/forum/viewUnsolvedquery.php?idThread=1285758&a...
Antwort: 
von ddr (AT), 2015-06-14, 14:17  like dislike  Spam?  
 #804738
Das sorgfältige Bereitstellen von Quellen benötigt mindestens so viel Zeit wie das sorgfältige Prüfen vorhandener Quellen oder das Suchen nach Quellen, falls keine vorhanden sind, meist aber mehr, wenn es kein 0/8/15 Wort ist. Die meisten Ideen für Einträge hat man doch außerem bei Lektüre, und man muss schon ein Meister an Organisation sein, um ohne aus dem Lese-Fluss zu kommen die Fundstücke mit Quellen im dict. einzugeben. (Eigene Paperbacks verunstalte ich mit Unterstreichungen und Eselsohren, bei gebundenen Büchrn ist das schon schwieriger.)
Unverifizierte Einträge werden IMHO vor allem nicht verifiziert, weil sie niemanden interessieren - bei mir ist es zumindest so - oder weil sie in ein Fachgebiet gehören, in dem sich niemand genügend auskennt. Oft sind sie auch 'patschert', und niemand hat Lust sie zu verbessern, oder es gibt schon so viele Verbesserungsvorschläge, dass keiner mehr Lust hat daran zu rühren. Aber unverifizierte Einträge sind ja zumindest da, und bringen jemanden vielleicht auf eine Idee. Gelöschte sind einfach weg.
Chat:     
von uffie (GH/KI), 2015-06-14, 14:21  like dislike  Spam?  
 #804741
good find Lllama. I think Harald summed it up nicely:
Ich sehe da überhaupt keinen Grund zu einem vermeintlichen Triumph. Wie ich Dir heute schon an anderer Stelle geschrieben habe, ist es Deine Sache als Fragesteller, dem Forum zuzuarbeiten.

Das ist übrigens mit einem Link zur Quelle längst nicht immer erledigt. Je nach Art des Textes wird von Dir erwartet, dass Du den angefragten Text in Deiner Anfrage ausreichend charakterisierst, so dass für die Lesern hier im Forum ausreichned eingeordnet ist. Ein Link ergänzt das, aber er ersetzt das nicht in allen Fällen.

"Wenn Du Dich fragst, warum das nicht anderen ebenfalls abverlangt wird: Bei Gelegenheitsgästen geht man anders vor als bei "Power-Teilnehmern", die wöchentlich mehrere Dutzend Anfragen produzieren.

Natürlich gibt es auch Anfragen, die ohne weiteren Kontext gestellt werden können. Leider zeigt die Erfahrung, dass Dir das treffsichere Urteil darüber, welche Anfragen welche Art von Kontext benötigen, sehr schwer fällt. Letzterem ist wohl schlechterdings nicht abzuhelfen. Ich fürchte, ich muss Dich deshalb dringlich bitten, dass Du Dich stets bemühst, Deine Anfragen ausführlich zu erläutern."

He/she didn't do that and was limited to read only. Not a bad idea....
Chat:     
ddr  #804773
von Catesse (AU), Last modified: 2015-06-14, 15:50  like dislike  Spam?  
People from "third countries", i.e. working from one foreign language to another, can often be quite helpful. I can and have given some useful help in German to Polish (although I can seldom manage in the other direction), and I have had some good Polish to English help from a German native speaker. I think I could even manage some fairly simple Dutch to Italian, if it happened to be relevant.
By the way and a bit beside the point: did anybody ever hear anything regarding the fate of a mediaeval film in connection with which some of us gave a massive amount of help several years ago?
4; Paul: I might try out that "Undelete" method later. It seems that I may never have undeleted anything in the past, because I had never noticed this problem before. (It is just on midnight here now, and I am tired.)
Antwort: 
Paul  #804799
von uffie (GH/KI), Last modified: 2015-06-14, 17:43  like dislike  Spam?  
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2015-06-14, 18:23  like dislike  Spam?  
 #804806
wMw kann sie per Revoke zurückziehen oder ändern, sonst gibt es halt Outvotes.
Antwort: 
Uffie  #804807
von ddr (AT), 2015-06-14, 18:24  like dislike  Spam?  
Einfach für den Original-Eintrag voten, und weg ist die Ergänzung. Vorher vielleicht noch einen Blick drauf werfen, ob beim Originaleintrag vielleicht irgendetwas fehlt.
Chat:     
von uffie (GH/KI), 2015-06-14, 18:34  like dislike  Spam?  
 #804809
ah, danke ddr. Werd ich machen.
Antwort: 
von ddr (AT), 2015-06-14, 18:36  like dislike  Spam?  
 #804810
Sorry, ich hab gerade bemerkt, dass es nicht immer funktioniert.
Chat:     
von uffie (GH/KI), 2015-06-14, 18:37  like dislike  Spam?  
 #804811
bei dem down and out Eintrag hab' ich eh starke Zweifel, beim anderen hat's funktioniert.
Antwort: 
A GL on Verifiable Sources for a Translation Equation and how to enforce it  #804813
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), 2015-06-14, 18:42  like dislike  Spam?  
Too often Dict.ler are inclined to accept as verifiable sources only links to online bilingual dictionaries, where the translation equation as such will directly be found. This, however, is obviously TO DEMAND TOO MUCH: many very good translations cannot be found as such in any existing online dictionary, but instead they are created by experienced, professional or semiprofessional translators, who, taking their starting-point from the text they are currently working on, proceed (on the basis of their personal general command of both languages  supported by consultation of major monolingual dictionaries or special glossaries -- often available only in print-form -- as well as  by their own professional experience in the field under discussion) they create an entirely new translation equation appropriate to the context of the text on which they are working. In doing so, they often  find useful inspiration for their translation proposals in online bilingual souces like Linguee and similar text-corpora or Google-researchs, although these obviously do not of themselves justify the proposal. Then, to share the results of their often tedious research and reflection with others, such Dict.cc-ler then proceed to enter their proposed "creative" translation-equation as a new entry in Dict.cc, fully aware that it need NOT be considered to be the "best translation" valid for all possible contexts. but should ratheh be seen as a potentially useful translation, aleast in a particular context, which they would do well to explain in the comment box.
    Thus, instead of requiring contributors to spend hours searching for online bilingual sources that often do not exist or, as Paul and others have pointed out, are of dubious quality even when they do exist, what we need is a GL that requires contributors to justify their entries
   -- EITHER with the URL of a reputable bilingual dictionary
   -- OR with the URL for a reputable monolingual dictionary for the term on each side of the proposed
            translation equation with a brief explanation of the context in which the proposed translation
            equation is appropriate, e.g.:
                 "Compare:
                    DE: Duden and/or DWDS
                    EN: Oxford, Collins, Macmillan, MerriamWebster, RandomHouse (at Dictionary.com)."
                            NB. It is best to cite the "Advanced learner's" versions of these dictionaries, which
                                  contain more detailed definitions and explanations designed to make the meaning
                                   and use of the term clearer to non-native speakers. Unfortunately, for German there
                                   is no online version of the Langenscheidt Learner's dictionary, but only a CD.
             I                Also,
                                   In the case of such freely created translation equations, it often suffices to explain
                                   the context  where the proposed translation is applicable by calling attention to the
                                   corresponding example sentences offered by Linguee or a monolingual thesaurus or
                                  text-corpus, for which the specific URL should be given.
.
It is hardly too much to demand this kind of justification, since these monolinrgual sources are easily consulted and comparing the definitions, synomyms, and example sentences given there will not put unreasonable demands on voters, even those without native competence.
  Obviously, however, , such universal monolingual  sources often will not contain technical terms. In that case, one could give the URLs of the corresponding Wiki and Wictionary entries for each language.

In the case of newbies and those who refuse to  observe this or other GLs, simply automatically deleting their entires is hardly an appropriate response. Often their formally incorrect and inadequately justified entries or votes contain* valuable translations which should not be thrown out in an effort to "punish" or "educate" their authors.* In that case, it is better o correct them and supply the missing justification in the manner proposed. This is the way I have personally responded to wMw's' annoying postings, whenever I found them useful and repairable. Instead of "punishing" or "educating" individuals at the cost of the Dict.cc users, we should leave this task to Paul, who has much more effective instruments at his command.
Antwort: 
von ddr (AT), 2015-06-14, 20:07  like dislike  Spam?  
 #804816
Fully agree with you, Tom. Thank you.
Antwort: 
Exactly  #804838
von Catesse (AU), Last modified: 2015-06-15, 06:28  like dislike  Spam?  
Spot on, Tom. A couple of years ago, somebody on a minor site (not Polish this time) self-deleted over 100 perfectly good entries before flouncing off in a tantrum. I retrieved and re-entered a few, but I was not particularly interested in that site, so I did not run through all of them.
The already deleted correct entries by wMw should be re-opened. I might do a few, but I am still in a disorganised and sometimes confused state, so I may not have the time or energy.
(Otherwise, no more harm can be done at present, and it is a case of "shape up or ship out". I have not been taking up arms to defend wMw, but trying to minimise damage done to dict. by knee-jerk-reaction deletes.)
The one problem with Tom's suggestion is that the computer can recognise only that something has been entered in the Comment field; it cannot recognise whether it is sensible or relevant. That is  up to us humanoids.
Antwort: 
I apologize for my inappropriate deletions.  #804843
von Badger (US), 2015-06-15, 06:30  like dislike  Spam?  
Though my feelings remain the same. I agree that my reflex deletions were inappropriate.
Chat:     
Badger  #804845
von Catesse (AU), 2015-06-15, 06:35  like dislike  Spam?  
Bravo. And I do understand the feelings that led to the deletions.

Optional: Login | Registrieren 
  Frage beantworten oder Kommentar hinzufügen
Please log in to post an answer to this thread - or post a new question.
nach oben | home© 2002 - 2024 Paul Hemetsberger | Impressum / Datenschutz
Dieses Deutsch-Englisch-Wörterbuch basiert auf der Idee der freien Weitergabe von Wissen. Mehr dazu
Enthält Übersetzungen von der TU Chemnitz sowie aus Mr Honey's Business Dictionary (Englisch/Deutsch). Vielen Dank dafür!
Links auf dieses Wörterbuch oder einzelne Übersetzungen sind herzlich willkommen! Fragen und Antworten
Werbung