|Here is the exact wording of the rule|
A [del] vote is considered a correct posting if no previous posting (input, vote or comment) contained a correct version of the entry and the entry can't 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.
My interpretation is that this means that no substantive changes to either side of a pair are allowed after a delete vote has been cast unless the suggestion was already in a comment. It would be great, Paul, if you could start to enforce this rule. Or remove it, if you don't mean it.
|Was heißt das übersetzt ins Deutsche genau: unless the suggestion was already in a comment.||#898052|
Bitte um Beispiel
|Wrong interpretation of the rule by polarjud||#898057|
Polarjud, your interpretation that "this means that no substantive changes to either side of a pair are allowed after a delete vote has been cast" is the opposite of what the rule itself says from my point of view.
The rule says explicitly that a delete vote is okay if "the entry can't be corrected just by adding or changing information in square brackets" etc. This means that additions in square brackets can be added at any time by the poster or any voter and can save the entry. It also says that "a [del] vote for lack of documentation only is not binding"; this means that also documentation can be added at any time to save the entry.
As far back as I can remember you have never tried to save an entry by either adding information in brackets or by adding documentation. You seem to find pleasure in destroying entries instead.
|Wenz, zu deiner Frage||#898063|
Polarjud hat dies hier entnommen: https://contribute.dict.cc/guidelines/
Leider scheint es dazu keine deutsche Version oder deutsche Übersetzung zu geben.
Ich verstehe das so, dass der Eintrag selbst geändert werden kann, wenn vor der Löschung jemand in einem Kommentar diesen Eintrag berichtigt oder besser gelöst hat - wohlgemerkt im Kommentar, aber nicht im Eingabefeld selbst. Der Poster oder ein anderer Voter kann dann diese Version aus dem Kommentar übernehmen, sie ins Begriffseingabefeld übertragen und so den Eintrag retten. Ich habe dies in meinem neuesten "Undelete" (Komfortzimmer) angewandt.
Sorry, Ihr beiden, aber polarjud interpretiert die Guideline schon richtig.
4; romy: mit "Kommentar" ist IMHO nicht das Kommentarfeld gemeint, sondern explizit das Eingabefeld, allerdings als Comment eingetragen und nicht als Vote.
Paul, bitte korrigiere mich, wenn ich das falsch interpretiere.
|erster Teil: My interpretation is that this means that no substantive changes to either side of a pair are allowed after a delete vote has been cast||#898066|
Den zweiten Teil hätte ich gerne ins Deutsche übersetzt und ein Beispiel angegeben wie es in der dict-Praxis vorkommen kann bzw. vorkommt.
Wenn man den Eintrag mit einer Ergänzung in eckigen Klammern verändern/verbessern kann, wenn man einen simplen Rechtschreibfehler oder offensichtlichen Tippfehler korrigieren kann, wenn man Formatfehler korrigieren kann, all das sind erlaubte Änderungen, die ein Delete nicht rechtfertigen und einem Delete vorzuziehen sind.
Außerdem: nicht vorhandene/angegebene Quellen sind KEIN Grund für ein Delete.
|parker11: Das bezieht sich auf ein bereits gemachtes DELETE - das ist mir klar.||#898070|
Es geht um unless the suggestion was already in a comment.
|Ich verstehe das so, wie ich es weiter oben romy erklärt habe:||#898075|
mit "comment" ist IMHO nicht das Kommentarfeld gemeint, sondern explizit das Eingabefeld, allerdings als Comment eingetragen und nicht als Vote.
Paul möge mich korrigieren, wenn ich das falsch sehe.
|ja, natürlich, es ist das Eingabefeld und nicht das Rumgeschreibe als Anmerkung, die||#898078|
sehr häufig nicht gelesen wird.
Damit ist aber meine Frage nicht geklärt: ... unless the suggestion was already in a comment
WAS will mir (oder auch uns oder halt Leuten, die das nicht verstehen) Polarjud damit sagen?
|Die Regel lautet: Immer das erste korrekte Posting bestätigen!||#898079|
Ein [del]-Vote ist dann ein korrektes Posting, wenn es kein Posting davor gab (das kann Input, Vote oder Kommentar sein), das eine korrekte Version dieses Eintrags dargestellt hat, und wenn der Eintrag nicht durch Hinzufügen von Kommentaren in eckigen Klammern, oder durch Korrektur von einfachen Tippfehlern/Formatierungsfehlern gerettet werden kann. Ein [del]-Vote nur aufgrund von fehlender Dokumentation (Quellenangabe) ist nicht bindend.
Paul, ich glaube, die eigentliche Frage lautet, ob das Wort "Kommentar" (A) für die Absendeform "Send as comment only" versus "Enter vote" steht oder (B) sich auf Informationen bezieht, die von den Beitragenden im Kommentarfeld dazugeschrieben werden. Oft wird ja der Originaleintrag stehen gelassen und als richtig bestätigt, aber der Bestätigende schreibt im Kommentarfeld seine eigenen alternativen Übersetzungsvorschläge dazu, die unter Umständen sogar besser sind und von weiteren Votern berücksichtigt werden sollten.
Gemeint ist (A).
|Okay, danke, Paul - und eine Lösungsidee||#898096|
Ich hätte noch eine Frage. Du schreibst: "Ein [del]-Vote nur aufgrund von fehlender Dokumentation (Quellenangabe) ist nicht bindend." Die Massenlöscher (polarjude, aphoenix, joerg usw.) schreiben ja meist überhaupt keine Begründung zu ihrem Löschantrag dazu, sondern füllen das Pflichtfeld nur mit belanglosen Gefühlsausdrücken ("does not feel right") oder "no Google hits / never heard" o. ä. Solche Löschanträge können demzufolge laut der Richtlinie nicht "bindend" sein. Könntest du die Software denn nicht so einstellen, dass sie ungenügend begründete Löschvorschläge (und das wären wohl 99% der Obengenannten) bestenfalls als KOMMENTARE, aber nicht als gültige BINDENDE Löschanträge behandelt? Damit wären alle unsere Probleme mit den Massenlöschern beseitigt.
Das ist leider technisch nicht möglich. Würde ich beispielsweise "never heard" als Erkennung verwenden, würde der Lösch-Voter es noch einmal mit "never seen" probieren. Würde ich dann diesen Ausdruck auf die Erkennungsliste setzen, wäre ich mit einer neuen kreativen Umformulierung konfrontiert. Das wäre ein ewiges Katz- und Maus-Spiel.
Jeder Beitragende kann selber entscheiden, ob er ein [del] als Vote oder als Kommentar postet und in den diskutierten Fällen wussten die Voter sehr wohl, was sie wollten und würden (zu Recht) ein Umbiegen ihrer Intention nicht akzeptieren.
Das ist schade, Paul, aber ich verstehe diese technische Problematik.
Eines verstehe ich aber nicht - den Einschub "(zu Recht)" in deinem letzten Satz! Das kannst du doch nicht im Ernst meinen. Sieh dir doch zum Beispiel den heute diskutierten Eintrag "Komfortzimmer" an. Polarjuds einzige "Begründung" fürs Löschen war nichts weiter als der Kommentar "Very questionable." Seine Intention war "löschen" und das war, was er aus unerfindlichen Gründen wollte, aber müssen wir solchen Gefühlshandlungen wirklich unsere Einträge opfern, wenn jede sinnvolle Begründung dafür fehlt?
Der zweite und abschließende Löscher, joerg, machte sich wenigstens die Mühe, seine Intention zu begründen. Er schrieb: "Sehe ich wie polar, hier steht der "Klassifizierungsbegriff Komforthotelzimmer" dem Allgemeinbegriff "komfortables Zimmer" gegenüber." Er hat aber keinen Beleg vorgelegt, warum "Komfortzimmer" ein "Klassifizierungsbegriff" sein soll - was er nämlich in der Tat nicht ist! (Siehe obige Diskussion zum Begriff und meine Links im Eintrag zum Nachweis.) Demzufolge hat auch joerg meinen Eintrag nur aufgrund eines Gefühls und einer falschen Annahme gelöscht. Und das ist kein Einzelfall, sondern wird von den drei Löschern laufend praktiziert. Ich überlege mir schon, lieber keine Einträge mehr ins dict einzugeben, sondern lieber ein altmodisches Vokabelheft zu führen und meine linguistischen Erkenntnisse für mich selbst zu behalten.
Das "zu Recht" bezieht sich darauf, dass zu Recht niemand akzeptieren muss, dass seine Stimmabgabe von einem Computerprogramm abgeändert wird.
Egal, was der Lösch-Voter in seinem Kommentar schreibt oder nicht schreibt, es gilt die Regel aus den Guidelines. Wenn der Eintrag vor dem Lösch-Voting korrekt war, dann kann man den Löschenden überstimmen, egal, welchen Kommentar er abgibt.
|Danke für die Klarstellung!||#898102|
1) Eigentlich wär es nicht schlecht, wenn die GL auch in Deutsch vorliegen würden.
2) Hats mich jetzt ganz gerissen mit Deinem "(zu Recht)" oben. Das ist auf Nachfrage von Romy jetzt Gott sei Dank geklärt! Undelete sind "schwierig": Man braucht gute Nerven ... Ich finde es nicht ganz richtig, daß derjenige, der durch das event. ungerechtfertigte DEL. sich das auch noch antun muß - selbst bei lapidaren DEL wie scary Clown - böser Clown - da kriegst die Krise, aber echt!
1) Wär vielleicht wirklich nicht schlecht. Bin mir aber nicht sicher, ob dadurch nicht neue Unstimmigkeiten durch Wortklaubereien entstehen würden. Man wüsste dann auch nicht immer, auf welche Formulierung sich andere gerade beziehen. Und dann gibt's natürlich auch noch den Aufwand der Übersetzung und der Pflege bei Änderungen, wobei sich in letzter Zeit nicht mehr so viel ändert wie früher. Ich lasse es mir durch den Kopf gehen.
2) Gute Nerven braucht man wirklich. Frag mich mal - bei mir landet am Ende jeder schwierige Konflikt.
|The problem is not with the rule but with its application. | German-users have a different approach to language.||#898127|
NOTE: I began this contribution some 18 hours ago and I have been working on it off and on ever since, without paying attention to the subsequent discussion, which has clarified some issues, but not all I fear. I hope that my observations here, the product of over 60 years of living in two languages and translating back and forth between them, might help to clear the atmosphere a bit, since I argue that both parties, the deleters and the salvagers, have legitimate concerns and that by working together instead of at odds with each other they/we can help to make Dict.cc a better dictionary. IN SHORT, the deleters have a legitimate interest in reducing the backlog of unverified entries; the salvagers, by contrast, have a legitimate interest in preventing the loss of valuable information. That said, here is what i wrote over the course of the day:
GL 3,3, the text you cite, polarjud, in effect gives the first voter a veto right on any entry that he or she chooses to tackle; this veto right is restricted, however, by the provision allowing subsequent voters to override that veto by adding clarifying information in brackets or by making simple corrections of spelling, punctuation, or formating.
The formulation of GL 3,3 was the outcome of repeted acrimonious discussions here in the FORUM, and in its present formulation we all have agreed to abide by it. What the "salvagers" object to, is that, in our opinion, first voters from the deleter party TOO OFTEN cast a vetoing delete-vote on entries that we believe are valuable and that, with a bit of tweeking, could easily have been salvaged. In other words, what is at issue is the practice of casting QUICK FIRST VOTES for delete.
Repeatedly, in these discussions, I have paid tribute to the service you and others of the deleter party perform by casting your first vote vetos on junk entries. But, in our opinion, you often veto entries as junk that, although flawed, represent quite valuable and easily reparable entries made by contributors with more specialized knowledge than you bring to bear. In short, what we are asking for, is that you be more careful in casting your vetoing first votes for delete. We remind you, that you are NOT obliged to cast a first vote on every entry that you pass in review, especially when the matter falls outside your own fields of competence, as is often the case with highly technical entries. In case of doubt, we argue, it would be better to skip such entries or to cast your veto only as a comment-only recommendation, leaving it to others to do the painstaking work of researching and improving the flawed but valuable and, in principle, easily salvagable entry.
Repeatedly, I have warned native speakers of EN or DE, here in the FORUM, against treating their own spontaneous judgments as an infallible criterion for adjudging the correctness or estimating the repairability of a given entry on their own preferred side of a translation equation. These warnings emerge from my own experience as a speaker, writer, and translator switching between the two languages for some sixty years now (I am now going on 80!); this experience has made me increasingly suspicious of my own spontaneous judgments as a native EN-user and a quasi-native DE-user, especially when I am confronted with entries from fields in which I have no special competence. No one -- pace Dr. Johnson -- has an infallible and comprehensive command of all that is possible to say or write in his own language. Were that the case, we would have no need for dictionaries, thesauri, special glossaries, and manuals of grammar and style. Admittedly, it is time consuming to check one's spontaneous judgments against such reference works, but, believe me, it is almost always worth the effort. In this connection, I especially recommend that native speakers make use of the advanced learner's dictionaries for their own language. These dictionaries explain, in detail, shades of meaning and usage, with which the native speaker is often has only a vague inkling, and thusthey are an indispensible instrument enabling the native speaker to round out and deepen his/her command of his/her own native language.
In judging the utility of an entry, I strongly advise everyone to take account of the intended direction of any proposed translation equation. Now that the basic vocabulary in sites like EN/DE is all but complete, new entries tend to be "bedarfsorientiert", i.e. the author of a proposed translation finds *a lacuna on his own preferred side" and proposes a translation to fill this lacuna. Often this is done by a professional translator dealing with a text currently on his/her desk . I call this notion that the author finds no evident and immediate translation for, the "outbound expression": by that term, I designate a word or phrase on one side -- usually the author's preferred side -- that he/she identifies as needing a translation on the opposite side -- for that reason, I call the opposite side the "target side" and the proposed translation on that side the "target expression".
When it is a matter of translating between DE and EN, one needs to take into account the fact that there are profound differences between the vocabularies in these two languages. In general, German vocabulary is far richer and more precise than English. In my own fields of philosophy, theology, linguistics, and cognitive science, for instance, there are numerous German expressions that have no direct equivalent in English. Where Germans create precise terms by agglutination and other word-building techniques, English-speakers must often use generic terms whose precise meanings are suggested only by the context. For the translator, this difference poses a severe problem. In order to communicate the precise meaning of the German expressionin into English, he/she must either create a new EN term that may seem odd or substitute a clumsy paraphrase. Thus, when back in 2006 I began entering my English translations for technical German terminology in my fields of research, BananaJoe often dismissed them as "krötig"; it took a long time and a lot of ink to convince the alpha-males who dominated the game in those raw days, that there was often no other way to translate my philosophical and theological notions.
This difference in mentality explains why Germans are more likely to find desiderata than English-speakers, AND why they are forced to propose translations that seem strange to English-speakers not familiar with the matter under discussion. It also explains why German speakers are more likely to note the need for disambiguating definitions and clarifications on both sides of a proposed translation equation. As native English-speakers, we rely on the context to define the meaning of the terms we use, but in a bi-lingual dictionary like Dict.cc, the only way to contextualize the meaning of a term is to add definitions, clarifications, and/or examples in brackets. Simply assigning a subject-field is not enough, because merely knowing the field, in which a term is used, says nothing about the precise meaning of an expression in that field.
For all these reasons, I urge English-speakers to be cautious about voting to delete proposed translations that start from a German outbound expression, simply because the EN-side does not sound good in their ears. They/we must always ask ourselves, s there really any better way to translate the outbound German term? could the proposed translation be salvaged with a bit of tweeking? e.g. by corrections, of spelling, grammar, and style or by adding bracketed definitions, clarifications, examples. One /we must also ask, is the author of the proposed translation someone with expert knowledge in the field in question? in that case, caution is called for: instead of casting a quick VP5 delete vote, would it not be better to cast a comment-only delete vote and take the time to write an adequate explanation in the commentary box and if possible mail the author involved to call their attention to the entry.
You, polarjud, and other quick deleters undeniably, do a valuable service to our community in ridding Dict.cc of junk entries made by newbies, notorious rule-breakers, and ignoramuses. But when you turn your machinegun approach on entries made by experienced and conscientious old hands with specialized knowlege in fields beyond your own, you raise hackles and provoke emotional riposts, Obviously, such specialists can also make mistakes, and their entries are not always immune to criticism, but they deserve a more delicate handling than the contributions of amatures and notorious rule-breakers
One last point
|This exchange is finally starting to feel productive||#898134|
4;Romy: You seem to have not noticed that I used the modifier “substantive” in my description of unallowed changes post delete. Or perhaps you do not understand the English. I realize that is a slippery concept in English, but I clearly meant to exclude all the edits that Parker11 explained.
4;Wenz and Romy: I do feel your pain. My translations of early modern German (Schiller and Goethe) have never found much Beifall among dict.cc voters. Most people feel unqualified to vote on them, so I also have a large backlog. For this reason, I struggled against this rule when Paul introduced it. I desperately wanted help from native German speakers to improve my entries. Many of my entries went deleted in which I had invested significant energy. However, since Paul declared the rule, I have decided to follow it to the letter.
4;Thomaquinaten: You say you agree with almost all my entries, but I see little evidence in the history of people who have voted for my entries. I would think you an expert at early modern German.
|I, too, appreciate kindness||#898135|
4;parker11: I really appreciate how often you suggest corrections to my error-filled inputs.
4;All: There are many comments that I enter that go unanswered. Here I model myself on my friend, Joerg. He is unfailingly polite and always provides much more evidence for his views than I am willing to bother with.
You wrote: "I desperately wanted help from native German speakers to improve my entries."
The place to find help for your own translations is the forum, not the dictionary. If you are not sure yourself about your own entries (especially the Goethe/Schiller stuff), go ask in the forum first, you'll get very useful answers and a lot of help there most of the time. Only then enter your translations into the dictionary, and refer to the forum thread in the comment field as a source. Some very knowledgable forum contributors like Proteus, Michael K. et al. don't contribute to the dictionary at all and probably won't ever see your entries.
The other way round doesn't work so well. Either your entries get deleted or they stay unverified for a long time, if not forever.
|THANK YOU polarjud, for helping us to put an end to the old "Grabenkämpfe" between "deleters" and "salvagers".||#898141|
First of all, by way of apology, I must say that the reason why you see so little evidence of my support is that, in recent years, I have ceased to participate in the day-to-day voting process. For reasons of health, I confine my voting almost exclusively to replying to re-opening notifications. And because your past entries, on which I voted earlier, are generally top-quality, I seldom get re-opening notices about them. Thus, my admiration is based on my impressions gained in earlier years, when I was an active participant in the routine voting process.
I am sorry, that I did not give you more support for your entries on early modern German. In part, that is due to my withdrawal from the routine voting process in recent years, so that I never saw most of them. But the main reason is that I do not consider myself to be competent in that area. I am not a regular reader of the literary classics in either German or English; I feel competent only in the correct interpretation of the philosophical and theological vocabulary of the 17th cent. German Protestant Aristotelianism. A systematic translation of the philosophical vocabulary of Christian Wolff and A.G. Baumgarten would be a most valuable enrichment of our dictionary, especially because the conventional renderings of many of their terms using the language of Locke and Hume often misses the mark. These inaccurate translations make it difficult, if not impossible to understand, in conventional English translations, the works of the German idealists, especially Kant and Hegel, who took up and modified the Wolff-/Baumgartner-sche terminology, But much as I would like to undertake such a systematic re-translation of this terminology, I fear that my health does not permit me to do so.
But the main reason for my making this posting is to comment on your very helpful definition of "FORBIDDEN SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES", posted in a new thread #898136] in reply to teadrinker's ideas about again changing the delete rules. Permit me to quote you here to call everyone's attention to your formulations:
1. Ouite accurately, you state that "... the purpose of the rule protecting delete voters is to encourage more delete votes. Why? Because Paul is uncomfortable with a large backlog of unverified entries. He wants people to be able to rely absolutely on dict.cc entries. His site, his rules, right?"
2. You go on, then, to explain quite clearly the meaning of the tricky term "substantial changes", which are forbidden in GL 3,3, You say that in practice it means:
"you are allowed to correct spelling errors and anything inside square brackets, but you are not allowed
to add, subtract or substitute whole words outside any square brackets.".
However, this succinct formula could be misread as meaning that one can correct spelling errors only within the bracketed material and it says nothing at all about the possibility of correcting simple formating errors. But above, in   #898079 , paul wrote:
"und wenn der Eintrag nicht durch Hinzufügen von Kommentaren in eckigen Klammern, ODER durch
Korrektur von einfachen Tippfehlern/Formatierungsfehlern gerettet werden kann."
He does NOT say that spelling and format corrections can be made ONLY within the square brackets. Thus, to make this clear, I would like to re-phrase your formulation of what changes are allowed and what are forbidden:
*WITHIN THE BODY OF THE ENTRY, you are allowed to correct ONLY
simple spelling and formating errors, i.e. spacing, punctuation, gender
tags, but .you are NOT allowed to add, subtract, or substitute whole
IN SQUARE BRACKETS, you are free to add, subtract, or otherwise
change the supplementary clarifications contained therein.
Auf Deutsch :
Im HAUPTTEIL eines Eintrags dürfen Sie NUR einfache Rechtschreib-
fehler oder falsche Formatierung (Interpunktion, Leerräume,
Genderangaben) korrigieren; Sie dürfen NICHT ganze Worte
hinzufügen, entfernen, oder durch andere ersetzen..
IN ECKIGEN KLAMMERN, dürfen sie ergänzende Klarstellungen
beliebig hinzufügen, entfernen, oder sonst korrigieren und
|FIVE Rules about valid (and invalid) grounds for deletion||#898568|
Please forgive my re-opening this thread, which went dead some days ago. I needed time to compose my reply. I add my comments here, because, in my mind, this thread has been our most fruitful discussion to date of this long disputed topic
I also beg your pardon for the length of my contribution. I really intend to make only five points, but to make these points intelligible, they need extensive explanation and justification. To make my contribution easier to read, I will indent my explanations and justifications.
4;polarjud: In your closing remarks to an earlier thread, [   #898046 ], which unfortunately passed for “chat”, you make an important observation that I believe merits discussion in the present thread, because it reveals a misunderstanding that is at the source of much of the polemic between "deleters" and "salvagers". In your contribution, you state:
“There are no rules about grounds for deletion, but there is a very specific rule stating that substantive
changes are not allowed once a delete vote has been cast unless a comment previously suggested
It is the opening assertion that I want to address in this posting. As I see it, there are indeed FIVE rules for deletion, that are stated explicitly or implicitly in the various provisions of GL 3.
Important as it is to rid Dict.cc of junk entries and thus reduce the backload, this task DOES NOT
take priority over the principal task of providing translations not just for the commonest meanings
of a term, but also for less frequent and rare meanings of terms, meanings that are often found
only in special contexts, which are often suggested by SUBJECT-assignations, but, in most cases,
must be indicated by adding bracketed disambiguations. Thus, the “Rule of Thumb” in GL3 , when
read in the light of GL3,1 under “Fine Print” effectively gives PRIORITY to salvaging entries with
minor, easily correctable flaws over deleting* them-
Thus, the GENERAL RULE is: “DON'T vote for delete, IF you (or somebody with greater competence) can correct it. Spelled out, this means:
1. DON’T vote for deletion, IF you are *not competent * to judge the correctness of the entry.
This is so elementary that it hardly needs explicit formulation: it is the reason behind the “Skip”-
function that paul has built into the system. NO ONE is obliged to vote on every entry that crosses
This rule is expressed in GL3 Rule of thumb: “Always confirm the first correct posting!!!” To
comply with this rule, you must be competent to judge NOT just the formal correctness of an entry,
BUT ALSO its *semantic” correctness, i.e. do the terms on either side of the translation equation
correspond in their meaning and connotations? To judge that, you must be competent in the field.
Just because you do not, as a native speaker feel comfortable with a formulation on your
preferred side of the translation equation, does not justify your voting for deletion. Theoretically,
you need be able to confirm your “feeling for the language” by citing authoritative manuals of grammar
and style to identify formal errors or by citing authoritative, comprehensive dictionaries to point out
semantic errors, i.e. instances where the terms on either side of the translation equation fail to
correspond- In practice, of course, you usually do not need to research every entry you propose
for deletion or to write a long discourse citing authorities and setting forth your arguments. If the lack
of correspondence is patent, you need only remark that the terms on either side of the equation do not
agree in their meanings and usage. Nevertheless, if your claim is challenged, you should be prepared
to do this document it with definitions from reputable mo*no-lingual dictionaries or style-books
*Voting (without documentary proof) on entries outside your fields of competence puts you at risk
of being outvoted. it is also a serious affront to other Dict.cc-ler, who are more competent to evaluate
entries falling within their own specialties. it makes for bad blood in our community, and causes
competent people leave, because they feel they are not being taken seriously here. But worst of all,
it is a grave disservice to the whole community and to our users, especially when done by a VP5-
voter without specific competence, because his/her votumt encourages the next non-comptent VP5
voter (or a coalition of non-competent voters having lower VP) to summarily delete an entry before
any truly competent voter has had a chance to review it.
2. DON’T vote for deletion, IF your only objection is that the entry – albeit correct in form and content – is not the best possible or the most usual translation.
This is explicitly stated in the 2nd sentence under GL3 Rule of Thumb and it is reiterated under Fine
Print in GL3,1 and hardly needs explanation.
3. .DON’T vote for deletion, IF your only objection is that the entry – albeit correct in form and content – is not sufficiently justified.
Failure to give adequate justification is annoying, but GL 3,? says that this is not a sufficient reason
to reject an entry. Each proposed translation pair must be judged on its own merits: is it formally
correct on both sides and do the meanings on each side correspond?
There is no need to find the proposed translation in any bi-lingual dictionary. Indeed, the more
specialized a proposed translation is, the less likely it is that you will find it in any existing dictionary,
The unique strength of Dict.cc – what makes it so valuable – is that it it includes so many
specialized entries, not only entries that belong to arcane disciplines, but also entries that are valid
only in very special contexts.
Moreover, even when an entry can be justified by locating it in some +bi-lingua+l dictionary or
glossary, it is often better to look up the terms on each side of the translation equation in reputable
mono-lingual dictionaries for the respective languages, since only there can you find their exact
meanings, and especially their connotations, which are often decisive for the validity and application
of a proposed translation. Thus, in the last analysis, comparing definitions from mono-lingual dictionary
entries is the only effective way to prove or disprove the semantic correctness of a proposed entry..
* Lack of adequate justification* is vexing, but instead of voting for deletion to punish the delinquent,
it would be better -- for the sake of Dict.cc and its users -- to admonish the culprit via the
commentary box and even better, to mail your complaint directly to drive the point home: This is
especially the case, when the offending author is a newcomer. On the other hand, if the offending
author of the entry is a experienced but notorious delinquent, you can report him/her to paul for
4. DON’T vote for deletion, IF the flaws in the entry are only minor and easily correctable. There are two prongs to this rule, which is expressed in GL3,3: Instead of voting for deletion,
a) You SHOULD correct simple formal errors by rectifying erroneous spelling, grammar, spacing,
punctuation, or gender and case tags, and then vote for the thus amended version.
b) You SHOULD correct any minor semantic errors by replacing inaccurate terms OR by adding
bracketed disambiguations on the offending side, (if necessary on both sides). Such disambiguations
make clear the sense in which the terms are to be understood and in what context they may be
GL3.3 DOES NOT confer on anyone an absolute right to delete indiscriminately; it lays down
narrow conditions justifying a delete vote, at the same time that it provides special protection to a delete
vote cast by the first voter to tackle a given entry.
By the same token, although it does not command anyone to to so, GL3,3 DOES NOT forbid
anyone attempting to salvage what they deem to be a potentially useful, if semantically flawed entry.
That means that a "salvager" is free, not only to make make not only "minor" changes, but also to make
major changes ; i.e,. by adding, subtracting or replacing terms on one or both sides of the entry. This
right is fundamental to the whole verification process. GL 3,3t ONLY FORBIDS making such changes
after a delete vote has already been cast.
Important as it is to delete junk entries, it is equally important to salvage potentially valuable
entries by correcting their flaws. Very often, flawed entries made by inexperienced or unqualified
contributors become the source of valuable correct entries at the hands of better qualified contributors.
5. DON’T vote for deletion, IF someone before you has proposed a correct version at least by way of a
This again is implied by GL §,3. It is not an absolute prohibition, of course you can attempt to vote
for ddeletion, if you are convinced that the entry remains junk despite the attempts of other contributors
to improve it, but your votum will not enjoy the special protection accorded by GL3.3 to
first delete voters and you will run the risk of being outvoted by "salvagers" who disagree.
To test what I have said here, I decided, by way of example, to tackle one of the oldest unverified entries in EN=DE. [https://contribute.dict.cc/?action=edit&id=1303692&p=1&...] , one that went back to Oct 2015 and was never verified or deleted., but only commented on by several voters. Parker corrected a spelling mistake, but no one felt competent to judge the semantic correctness of the proposal, and they contented themselves with suggesting some alternative formulations on the DE side, alterations that amounted to major changes.
At first sight, the proposed translation appears plausible, since it follows the EN and DE rules for creating an adjective from a noun; thus, semantically, it is not patently false. But it was not possible to substantiate the actual use of the DE term +spannungsbedingt+within the assigned SUBJECTS. Using this translation in other contexts would not certainly be wrong. Nevertheless, in the end, I voted to delete it, replacing it with several more specific translations that would apply to special contexts and would suggest alternative translations for other contexts as well.
Obviously, doing this kind of detailed analysis and evaluation cost me several hours of do the research and to formulate the results, and I do not mean to demand this kind of effort across the board. But I think this example illustrates how older, unverified entries can frequently become the inspiration for quite valuable contributions when some painstaking voter decides to take them up and rework them.
However problematical, this was never a “junk” entry, and it is fortunate that it was never eliminated by any automatic delete mechanism of the sort discussed back in 2010: see paul’s remarks in #498255 and   #498431 and my own contribution in #540890 . But it is also fortunate that it was not eliminated by an over-zealous “deleter”, committed to reducing the backlog, whatever the cost.
|tomaquinaten: Danke für die sehr schöne und verständliche Zusammenfassung||#898574|
Dein Beitrag sollte eigentlich von allen derzeitigen dict'lern gelesen werden. Wie wäre es, wenn Du im Forum einen Links zu   #898568 setzt?!
|Wir müssen die Hoffnung aufgeben ..., Polarjud lernt es nicht!||#898700|
Falsche Class-Zuordnung ist KEIN Delete!
DEL-Begründung: English side is an adverb. German side is a prefix that functions like an adjective. No match.
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
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