| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | Bug in contest code led to "leak" of entries in a handful of pairs Thread poster: Henry Dotterer
|
|---|
| Thanks, Roman | Mar 27, 2008 |
Roman Bulkiewicz wrote:
... to extend this principle of "minimum unjustice", may be the "selective" approach should be modified to allow the "affected" submitters to choose between two options:
Minimizing the injustice is indeed the intent. Thanks for your suggestion of a "modified selective" approach, and thanks to those who agreed, at least in part. I have added it as an option in my original post, leaving four options.
| | | | | Good suggestion, Larissa B | Mar 27, 2008 |
Larissa B wrote:
How about conducting a quick poll and going by the majority?
Sounds good.
| | | | | Please vote in the 1-question survey | Mar 27, 2008 |
As per Larissa B's suggestion, here is a 1-question survey for indicating your preferred approach. We'll post results here periodically as they come in, to approximate the quick-poll effect.
Please vote! http://www.proz.com/survey/133
| | |
|
|
|
| Another option shall be added - "Ingore it" | Mar 27, 2008 |
I think another option shall be added to the poll - "just ignore it".
As far as I understand the situation:
- The entries already submitted were shown for some short period of time (say 5 minutes) to some users that visited the contest page on the final day of submission?
I hardly believe that someone could during this short period read the entries and during the short time, left until the submission phase was closed, somehow improve own or smb / else's ... See more I think another option shall be added to the poll - "just ignore it".
As far as I understand the situation:
- The entries already submitted were shown for some short period of time (say 5 minutes) to some users that visited the contest page on the final day of submission?
I hardly believe that someone could during this short period read the entries and during the short time, left until the submission phase was closed, somehow improve own or smb / else's translation in this way.
Let us consider this bug as force majeur or smth like that. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | It was about 2 weeks, Alexander | Mar 27, 2008 |
Alexander Onishko wrote:
I think another option shall be added to the poll - "just ignore it".
As far as I understand the situation:
- The entries already submitted were shown for some short period of time (say 5 minutes) to some users that visited the contest page on the final day of submission?
No, that is not accurate. As has been the practice in previous contests, during the period that qualification round voting was happening in pairs with a relatively high number of entries, submissions were allowed to continue in pairs with a relative low number of entries. Those were the affected pairs - pairs in which submissions were allowed to continue. Entries could be seen, and submissions could be made, for about 2 weeks.
| | | | | Now I see ... | Mar 27, 2008 |
Henry D wrote:
No, that is not accurate. As has been the practice in previous contests, during the period that qualification round voting was happening in pairs with a relatively high number of entries, submissions were allowed to continue in pairs with a relative low number of entries. Those were the affected pairs - pairs in which submissions were allowed to continue. Entries could be seen, and submissions could be made, for about 2 weeks.
Well, in this case I revoke my above suggestion.
| | | | | add the explanations | Mar 27, 2008 |
I believe that it will be more convenient for the voters if explanations of approaches -
Option 1: ("Asterisk" approach) Proceed to finals round voting with all entries allowed - but do not consider it an "official" contest. A note would appear in the page, and winning information would not go to profiles.
Option 2: ("Selective" approach) Proceed to final round voting with only those entries that are known with certainty to be unaffected.
Option 3 (added later): ("Modified selective" approach) Ask those who had the benefit of others' entries or discussion about them to voluntarily remove their entries. Proceed to final round voting with all remaining entries, making clear in which cases access to other entries was impossible.
Option 4: ("Cancellation") Cancel the contest in the "hybrid" pairs.
- will be added to the poll page.
[Edited at 2008-03-27 15:33]
| | |
|
|
|
Alexander Onishko wrote: I believe that it will be more convenient for the voters if explanations of approaches -
Option 1: ("Asterisk" approach) Proceed to finals round voting with all entries allowed - but do not consider it an "official" contest. A note would appear in the page, and winning information would not go to profiles.
Option 2: ("Selective" approach) Proceed to final round voting with only those entries that are known with certainty to be unaffected.
Option 3 (added later): ("Modified selective" approach) Ask those who had the benefit of others' entries or discussion about them to voluntarily remove their entries. Proceed to final round voting with all remaining entries, making clear in which cases access to other entries was impossible.
Option 4: ("Cancellation") Cancel the contest in the "hybrid" pairs.
- will be added to the poll page.
I'll expand on it a bit, but basically, I want to be sure people read the whole post.
Early results:
3 for selective
3 for modified selective
1 for asterisk
| | | | Nick Lingris 
United Kingdom
Local time: 05:04
Member (2006)
English to Greek
+ ...
I am confident in the belief that all the members of ProZ.com are honest and honourable people. Even if I am wrong, please allow me to maintain this illusion.
I do not think that a literary translation of any merit can benefit from plagiarism when all the translations will be there to be compared.
As a result, my stand on this is that we should go ahead with the voting as if the bug had never happened. Add “Ignore it” to the poll and I’ll vote for it.
| | | | | I added the option 'ignore it' | Mar 27, 2008 |
Nick Lingris wrote:
I am confident in the belief that all the members of ProZ.com are honest and honourable people. Even if I am wrong, please allow me to maintain this illusion.
I do not think that a literary translation of any merit can benefit from plagiarism when all the translations will be there to be compared.
As a result, my stand on this is that we should go ahead with the voting as if the bug had never happened. Add “Ignore it” to the poll and I’ll vote for it.
I have added the option 'ignore it'. Thank you.
| | | |
Nick Lingris wrote:
I do not think that a literary translation of any merit can benefit from plagiarism when all the translations will be there to be compared.
I just cannot understand either how on earth this can give advantage to someone. A poor translator will rewrite a good one's translation or what?.. Or vice versa?
As a result, my stand on this is that we should go ahead with the voting as if the bug had never happened. Add “Ignore it” to the poll and I’ll vote for it.
Here's a second vote. I don't see any problem at all here.
| | |
|
|
|
| Having thought about it a bit more... | Mar 27, 2008 |
...and considering the things Roland mentioned, I tend to agree with Nick and Yuri. If someone could have benefited from viewing other's entries, this would lead to, at best (or at worst), a very minor distortion.
Nick, thank you for proposing the "ignore" option.
One belated thought..... may be this discussion should have been started without disclosing the specific "affected" pairs.
Another thought.... Henry, if your further investigation leads to "acqui... See more ...and considering the things Roland mentioned, I tend to agree with Nick and Yuri. If someone could have benefited from viewing other's entries, this would lead to, at best (or at worst), a very minor distortion.
Nick, thank you for proposing the "ignore" option.
One belated thought..... may be this discussion should have been started without disclosing the specific "affected" pairs.
Another thought.... Henry, if your further investigation leads to "acquittal" of any of the "questioned" pairs, please do publish the results.
Nick Lingris wrote:
I do not think that a literary translation of any merit can benefit from plagiarism when all the translations will be there to be compared.
▲ Collapse
| | | | | Current results... | Mar 27, 2008 |
'Ignore' - 8
'Modified selective' approach - 6
'Selective' approach - 5
'Asterisk' approach - 1
Cancel all hybrid pairs - 0
I think this is enough of a sample that the general sentiment is clear... I will post...
| | | | | Please do not let out whether or not you submitted an entry | Mar 27, 2008 |
Hi all,
A side request. In your posts here, it would be better not to let out whether or not you submitted an entry, as this could compromise the anonymity of the finals voting.
Thanks.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Bug in contest code led to "leak" of entries in a handful of pairs | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
