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


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

Übersetzungsforum Deutsch-Englisch
 einspuren = einordnen (im Verkehr) »
« articles    

English-German Translation Forum

« zurück | Antworten aus- oder einblenden | Diskussion beobachten
Undelete rules  
von polarjud (US), 2018-09-30, 00:16  like dislike  Spam?  
Several of my recent delete votes have resulted in substantive changes in the pair— contrary to guidelines. This makes a delete vote a real act of courage. I deeply respect ddr, but she is probably the most likely to disrespect the rule of when a delete vote is valid. If we are going to say that a delete vote is never valid, then let’s be clear about it. Otherwise, can we play by the posted rules, please?
Geöffnet für Mail-Benachrichtigung  #897737
von wenz-closed, 2018-09-30, 08:35  like dislike  Spam?  46.244.236....
Paßt dieses CONTR hierher? #895933  #897741
von wenz-closed, 2018-09-30, 09:13  like dislike  Spam?  46.244.236....
von ddr (AT), 2018-09-30, 09:45  like dislike  Spam?  
I'm not a very rule-abiding person, that's true.  
My attitude is that we work on the dict. in the interest of potential users, so if one side of an entry looks useful and interesting, but the other seems incorrect or not ideal, I try to improve it. I'm just too lazy, I suppose, to delete the entry and make a new one with a trans that I consider better. Also, I believe in cooperation and I think in working together we have created many useful translations, even if the original input was far from perfect. If every flawed entry would be deleted without prior efforts to improve it, we would miss out on a lot of useful stuff.
P.S.: Thanks for your respect, it's mutual.
polarjud: Several of my recent delete votes have resulted in substantive changes in the pair— contrary to guidelines.   #897747
von wenz-closed, 2018-09-30, 10:05  like dislike  Spam?  46.244.236....
Ohne konkrete Beispiele können wir keinerlei Stellung nehmen. Möglicherweise verstehst du die GL immer noch falsch.
Correcting defective entries is usually easier and m0re effective than deleting them and replacing them by a new entry.  #897799
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2018-09-30, 23:00  like dislike  Spam?  
GL 3, Fine print 3 says in effect, a defective entry need NOT be deleted IF it can "be corrected just by adding or changing information in square brackets or by correcting simple spelling, punctuation and/or formatting errors. A [del] vote for lack of documentation only is not binding".
This is a sensible and economic rule precisely for the reasons ddr states to justify  her practice. It is easier to make such corrections to an existing entry than to delete the original defective entry and make an entirely new one, thereby wiping out the information contained in the history of the original entry. This is especially the case, when the defect is found on only one side of the translation equation.
One example of many   #897808
von polarjud (US), 2018-10-01, 03:10  like dislike  Spam?  
This entry was totally changed on the English side while I slept. Absolutely contrary to this rule.
polarjud;  The letter VS the spirit of GL 3,3 -- resolving the conflict between deleters and salvagers  #897810
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), Last modified: 2018-10-01, 07:25  like dislike  Spam?  
Thanks for supplying a concrete example, polar -jud. In the case you cite, strictly speaking, you are right in claiming that cameron-c's re-opening goes against the letter of GL 3,3, which I cited above. Replacing, on the EN side, the words "the audacity" by the words "enough courage" is a substantial, not a trivial change. But for an English speaker, at least, making such an idiomatic improvement comes to mind so quickly when confronting this entry, that I can easily understand why cameron-c felt justified in making it.

GL 3,3 represents an efficient way to dispose quickly of junky one- or two-word entries, but applying it to  longer, multi-word phrases becomes increasingly problematical with the length of the phrase. Simply deleting such an entry may be a quick way to reduce the backlog of unverified entries, but only at the cost of eliminating entries that, after correction on one or the other side of the translation equation, would constitute a valuable contributions to It is cumbersome to delete the original entry and then immediately make a new entry for the corrected version, all the more so because doing this automatically destroys valuable information contained in the comment history of the original entry.

IN SHORT, I plead for a flexible application of GL 3,3 to multi-word entries, taking due account of the difference between the outbound and the target sides of the proposed translation equation. IF the outbound expression is correct and represents a useful contribution to the dictionary, AND IF the target expression can easily be corrected EITHER by making the minor changes specified by the letter of GL 3,3   OR -- in keeping with the spirit of the rule -- by making more substantial changes, e,g, by substituting more semantically correct or more  idiomatic terms OR by improving grammar and syntax, THEN making such corrections rather than deleting should be permitted.
    Of course, no one is obliged to make such improvements instead of deleting. But if an experienced believes it possible to salvage flawed but otherwise valuable entries by changing rather than deleting, they should be allowed to do so, even if that means re-opening a previously deleted entry. To put this matter in context, it is important to note that these conflicts, for the most part, occur within a small circle of with solid VP 5 status, who need not fear losing status by being outvoted. Within this circle of highly motivated and experienced voters, some -- perhaps by temperament -- are more inclined to delete flawed entries, whereas others are more inclined to salvage them, at least when they judge them to be of value after correction. Thus, instead of continuously bickering about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of one or the other approach, I suggest we end the fruitless bickering between deleters and salvagers : both have a legitimate place and role in our community; together we make better than if only one or the other party alone were to set the tone. Deleters expedite the verification process; salvagers improve the quality and quantity of the verified entries. We need both!!!
Where is the enforcement of rules?  #897851
von polarjud (US), Last modified: 2018-10-02, 03:50  like dislike  Spam?  
I like playing games with rules. I also understand that there are stated and unstated rules in any game. Kind people who see value in one side of a pair an have a better language understanding than the submitter will try to rescue it. I do so myself on occasion, but once a delete vote has been cast, I honor the delete vote and decline to rescue the half translation. That is our stated rule.  Why is it not being followed?
polarjud: Strictly speaking, you are right in criticizing such re-openings!   #898003
von tomaquinaten (US/DE), 2018-10-03, 16:38  like dislike  Spam?  
Once a proposed translation has been deleted, it should NOT be re-opened UNLESS there are serious grounds for criticizing the deletion as illegitimate* ; anyone who wants to salvage it should INSTEAD make a new entry correcting the faults of the original. That said, the question arises, what to do when someone (out of ignorance or malice) breaks this rule and re-opens the original rather than making a new entry. My own reaction would be to be lenient. I would warn the re-opener that he/she should have made a new entry, but then proceed to vote on it (or on a corrected version of it) anyway. I do not believe in using the voting procedure as a form of discipline or punishment, so if the re-opener is a notorious offender, I would recommend disciplinary action by paul. In any case, whenever a new entry is made to replace a deleted entry IT IS IMPERATIVE to connect the new entry to the older deleted one by citing the entry number of the deleted one in the commentary justifying the new entry. This is the only way to ensure that valuable information contained in the original discussion not get lost.
no clear rule  #898305
von teadrinker (AT/DE), 2018-10-08, 08:07  like dislike  Spam?  
The rule is not so clear as you think. It does not say, that the addition of something is forbidden.

There could be a change in the program which automatically puts an UNDELETE as a new entry. The former person who did the entry has not the time to always make a new entry with the same thing. And other voters will get an OUTVOTE for a correct entry. This is wrong.

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 - 2020 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