Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3] >
Planned change to qualification round voting
Thread poster: Henry Dotterer
Iwona Szymaniak
Iwona Szymaniak  Identity Verified
Poland
Local time: 17:12
Member
English to Polish
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
Structured Translation & Evaluation Apr 24, 2008

ICL wrote:

About some of your suggestions, I think the ideal would be to keep the voting system as effective as possible. Of course, how to achieve that?

As previously commented by myself and others (like Maurice Devroye), I get the impression that the key is to have a clear set of language standards against which each voter can evaluate each entry objectively, especially in the qualifying voting round:

1) Spelling
2) Grammar
3) Right choice of translation terms
4) Correct interpretation of original terms
5) General writing style
etc.


Perhaps you could add to each translation entry a "form" where the above categories appeared in a list with each category error with a checkmark box, a blank space field (for description) and a point allocation field next to it.

Each error found in any of those categories would deduct a given number of negative points. Therefore, in the end, those entries with more negative points (due to the errors found) would be eliminated and only those achieving a specific low balance of negative points or no negative points would make it to the final.


Of course, this is why you would require the "expert panel", to make sure that each specified error is indeed valid and that no errors have been omitted.

As to allowing controlled exchange of views, I agree with what has been said about the problem of keeping the anonymity of the contestants and the voters, in order to assure objectivity. I see this exchange possible only if full anonymity is kept throughout the process of all voting rounds.


Also, I think contestants should not be voters. I think prozians should participate as either one, but not both.


I am a proud winner of the last contest in two language pairs but I can hardly imagine structuring the evaluation process more than Henry suggests whether we talk about literary or more technical texts.

I know there is a trend not to leave a pinch of our modern or post-modern, if you wish, life unstructured. But I do not have to like this trend and I don't.

Now when I get a text for proofreading I also have to provide a structured report afterwards which I really hate. I believe that when I have to edit more than 30% of a translation it shows the translator has not done a good job.

In the contests, I have seen excellent and poor texts but I am against the new proposal. I suppose that poor translations may come from people who are still learning and I admire their courage. Eventually, this courage may help them become very good tranlators. I also believe they learn a lot from their peer contestants. But if the absolute scale is introduced and a new comer to the world of literary translation sees a "poor" rate s/he will feel discouraged and may never try again. With the present system, we are supposed to select the translations we liked the most and do not have to devastate anybody's feelings. When they compare their translation with the winning ones they will realize they have to strive and learn more or that literary translation is not their venue but will not have to learn it in such a cruel way.

Literature and translation are not maths problems that can be measured in absolute terms. The only thing we can do is to say "I really like it", "Well, yes, OK, I like it" or "It is so so".

We do not have a perfect measuring stick that could help us evaluate a translation. It is our background, education, linguistic habits, preferences, likes and dislikes that all come together to produce our opinion. It is what we feel and interpret when we read the original, and none of us, who evaluate, has the answers to all the questions, to all word struggles or hesitations that a translator has had when working on a piece of translation. Sometimes, it is even difficult to explain why we choose this word and not a different one. Sometimes, our choices are well thought and made after a longer discussion with ourselves but I have not yet made a translation that I would not change myself after some time. There is always a better way...

I am aware of the unpleasant situation in one of the pairs that took place after the announcement of the results. I could not follow and understand the whole problem because I do not know the target language in this pair and had to use all my linguistic resources to see that I could not understand where all those allegations came from and how could someone suspect that voting had been manipulated.

I also understand that Henry and Romina had to address that issue. But everything should have its reasonable proportions. If there are people unhappy with the results they do not have to participate in future contests, period. What was wrong about the previous system? In what light does this huge change put the winners of the previous contests? Have they done anything wrong? Why do we have to turn everything upside down.

By the same token, I do not know why would someone prefer to translate and/or vote in language pairs where none of the languages is her/his mother tongue. It sounds odd to me.

I agree that contest participants should not vote. I did not in my language pairs. I regret I could not take part in two more pairs but they are not my working pairs. I am happy I could vote at least.

Expert panel. Yes, it did seem a good idea for a while but I really think now we should not evolve in this direction. For the sake of what?

Iwona

[Zmieniono 2008-04-24 18:28]


 
Mónica Algazi
Mónica Algazi  Identity Verified
Uruguay
Local time: 13:12
Member (2005)
English to Spanish
AGREE WITH PAVEL'S SUGGESTION Apr 24, 2008

Literal and creative translation should not be judged with the same criteria.
It's like putting together pumpkins with napkins! (¿zoquetes con sopletes?)
Just an idea.


 
Martin Cassell
Martin Cassell  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:12
French to English
On levels of "correctness" Apr 24, 2008

For example, even considering American vs. English spelling, "lamb" will always be spelled as "lamb", and not as "lmab", etc.

The same with the "correctness" of some grammar constructions or translation choices which can be verified in any dictionary.


ICL, your point is fair, but I think professional translators should be aiming a little
... See more
For example, even considering American vs. English spelling, "lamb" will always be spelled as "lamb", and not as "lmab", etc.

The same with the "correctness" of some grammar constructions or translation choices which can be verified in any dictionary.


ICL, your point is fair, but I think professional translators should be aiming a little higher.

You seem to be talking about a basic level of functional "correctness" which I would call a minimum baseline, not a target. My suggestion takes for granted that any entry should need to reach such a baseline.

If a text really presents a worthwhile test of a translator, there will be many translation choices to be made at a level above what can ever be "verified in any dictionary".

To my mind, these factors can only be meaningfully evaluated if the context and purpose of the translation is explicit. It wouldn't have to be anything too heavyweight, just a paragraph to set the scene. Here are some examples of the kind of thing I have in mind:

  • "The following extract is to published in a collection of parallel translations for students who ... ";
  • "This article, from a weekly news magazine, is to be included in a series of profiles in the Xxxxx newspaper's politics section, aimed at readers interested in ... "
  • "I have assumed that the readership will have no knowledge of xxxxx, and so have used cultural equivalents from the field of yyyyyy to bring some of the imagery to life ..."


Saludos

Martin
Collapse


 
Ivette Camargo López
Ivette Camargo López  Identity Verified
Spain
Local time: 17:12
English to Spanish
+ ...
@ Martin Cassell (Part 2) Apr 25, 2008

Martin Cassell wrote:

ICL, your point is fair, but I think professional translators should be aiming a little higher.

You seem to be talking about a basic level of functional "correctness" which I would call a minimum baseline, not a target. My suggestion takes for granted that any entry should need to reach such a baseline.

If a text really presents a worthwhile test of a translator, there will be many translation choices to be made at a level above what can ever be "verified in any dictionary".


Good that you mentioned the words "professional" and "baseline" (or basic standards/requirements).

Professionalism is what I've also had in mind in general about the contest, but since I noticed (not only in my pair, but also in other language pairs) that some of those "baseline" requirements you mentioned may have been at times overlooked in some entries which made the finals, that's why I have more than once commented on the obvious importance of evaluating entries based on at least those minimum requirements.

Again, it seems not all of us have the same idea about what Proz.com's objective of the contest is: some view it completely as a mere "amateur level" game (therefore, where "anything goes", like typos, grammar errors, etc.), some view it as a "profeZional" competition (therefore, requiring some minimum "baseline" standards) and some even view it as a mixture of both (a "profeZional" game?) .

Maybe someone from the Proz.com contest organization team (Henry? Romina?) should better clarify this.

Saludos,

Ivette


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 12:12
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Contests - the "why" Apr 25, 2008

ICL wrote:
Again, it seems not all of us have the same idea about what Proz.com's objective of the contest is...
Maybe someone from the Proz.com contest organization team (Henry? Romina?) should better clarify this.

When the contests were announced, Florencia wrote: "I am happy to announce a translation contest, intended primarily for enjoyment, we expect that periodic contests will also serve as one more outlet for camaraderie and friendship among site members, as well as a means of promoting and recognizing excellence in the art of translation." See Announcing ProZ.com's first translation contest


 
Ivette Camargo López
Ivette Camargo López  Identity Verified
Spain
Local time: 17:12
English to Spanish
+ ...
Good reminder Apr 25, 2008

Henry D wrote:
When the contests were announced, Florencia wrote: "I am happy to announce a translation contest, intended primarily for enjoyment, we expect that periodic contests will also serve as one more outlet for camaraderie and friendship among site members, as well as a means of promoting and recognizing excellence in the art of translation." See Announcing ProZ.com's first translation contest


Thanks for your clarification and for reminding us of the true contest objectives, Henry D.

I see once again that some of the words to which I personally paid more attention back when the contest was first announced, "enjoyment", "camaraderie" and "excellence in the art of translation" fit perfectly into my idea of the contest.

Do keep us updated about the latest developments for the upcoming contests.

Saludos,

Ivette


 
Katia Perry
Katia Perry  Identity Verified
Brazil
Local time: 13:12
Member (2007)
English to Portuguese
+ ...
variants of the languages Apr 25, 2008

Hi,
I agree with DNAtranslators. The same applies to Portuguese. The Europeant PT is quite different from those spoken/written in Brazil and African countries. If the voter is not aware of these differences, they may have great influence on the analysis of the translation.

I liked also Pavel´s suggestion. Indeed, technical translators (like myself) may have some difficulty with literary texts. Of course, the reverse may be true also.
Katia


 
Iwona Szymaniak
Iwona Szymaniak  Identity Verified
Poland
Local time: 17:12
Member
English to Polish
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
Contests - the "why" Apr 25, 2008

Enjoyment, camaraderie, friendship, means of promoting and recognizing excellence in the art of translation.

Yes, this is also how I understand the contest idea.
But we seem to be loosing enjoyment in unnecessary acrimony and controversy.
And what about the spirit of camaderie and friendship?
It's gone.
Of course, it only happened in some language pairs.

But again, if most entrants are happy with the present format of the contest why do we h
... See more
Enjoyment, camaraderie, friendship, means of promoting and recognizing excellence in the art of translation.

Yes, this is also how I understand the contest idea.
But we seem to be loosing enjoyment in unnecessary acrimony and controversy.
And what about the spirit of camaderie and friendship?
It's gone.
Of course, it only happened in some language pairs.

But again, if most entrants are happy with the present format of the contest why do we have to change anything?

I think that structuring the voting process may result in a lower number of voters and will turn the evaluation in a sort of "vivisection" on the entrants' translation.

Who will want to participte in such a contest that instead of enojyment offers "annoyment" (I know it is annoyance) and pitiless criticism? And please do not tell me that it is forbidden by the rules. I read them yesterday.
It is good they are introduced but also shameful they had to be introduced.

Iwonka




[Zmieniono 2008-04-25 14:28]
Collapse


 
Larissa Boutrimova
Larissa Boutrimova  Identity Verified
Canada
Local time: 12:12
Member (2006)
English to Russian
+ ...
While I agree wholeheartedly... Apr 25, 2008

...that the contests should be for enjoyment, camaraderie etc., I support the planned change to make the qualification round more structured and quantifiable. One of the big issues with the previous contests was too many translations passing the qualification stage and this preliminary stage has virtually lost its meaning. Having fewer entries in the finals will improve the total quality of voting. If there are more than 7 or 8 translations in the voting round it is very hard to give proper atte... See more
...that the contests should be for enjoyment, camaraderie etc., I support the planned change to make the qualification round more structured and quantifiable. One of the big issues with the previous contests was too many translations passing the qualification stage and this preliminary stage has virtually lost its meaning. Having fewer entries in the finals will improve the total quality of voting. If there are more than 7 or 8 translations in the voting round it is very hard to give proper attention to each and every one of them, evaluate them carefully and choose the winner.

I totally agree that the number of entries making it to the finals should be restricted, and the proposed change fits this objective perfectly. The change doesn't seem to make the process overcomplicated, so why not give it a try? Instead of clicking the button "I like it" or "I don't like it" you click a number, that's it. Perhaps the ratings could be solicited in more than 2 categories, or the proposed categories ("Quality of writing" and "Accuracy of translation") should be explained in detail, so we are all on the same page. The way they are worded now sounds too vague to me, but maybe it's just me.

P.S. Forgot to mention that, in my opinion, all entries should remain visible until the qualification stage is over.

[Редактировалось 2008-04-25 15:37]
Collapse


 
Pavel Tsvetkov
Pavel Tsvetkov  Identity Verified
Bulgaria
Local time: 18:12
Member (2008)
English to Bulgarian
+ ...

MODERATOR
Technical versus Art Translations May 1, 2008

SzIwonka wrote:
Literature and translation are not maths problems that can be measured in absolute terms.


My point exactly!

[Edited at 2008-05-01 17:27]


 
Raúl Casanova
Raúl Casanova  Identity Verified
Uruguay
Local time: 13:12
English to Spanish
In memoriam
Keep it simple, please May 1, 2008

I have catched this thread quite lately, which gives me the advantage of being able to read other's points of view at first. Being relatively new to the site, I don't feel myself paricularly qualified to argue againts or in favor of previous postings, but there are several things that are clear to me. I welcome a limit on the number of entries reaching the final round, because it gets really difficult to make a weighted selection if the number goes over 7 or 8. Numeric rating seems to be an eas... See more
I have catched this thread quite lately, which gives me the advantage of being able to read other's points of view at first. Being relatively new to the site, I don't feel myself paricularly qualified to argue againts or in favor of previous postings, but there are several things that are clear to me. I welcome a limit on the number of entries reaching the final round, because it gets really difficult to make a weighted selection if the number goes over 7 or 8. Numeric rating seems to be an easy way to "fine tune" qualifications, and will help to avoid ties between those who fall just on the borderline. I am not so enthusiastic about setting a baseline or required minimum, mainly for the same reasons expressed by Iwona in her first posting. I don't like the idea of a panel, I believe the Prozian comunity has enough resources within its membership to make a fair decision on a contest organized within it and for it. Level of results will be a showcase of what the comunity is, not more, not less, and I am convinced it is really a Pro one. I welcome post-contest exchanges of comments, they are really good oportunities for learning and enjoying other's experiences, and they don't seem to require further regulation. But I wouldn't like to have this round open during the qualifying stage, for it could be easily run out of control and put an extra load on moderators. I see no need for setting different rules for "tech" and "art" translation contests, there are few chances a technical text will ever be proposed for a contest. I, being myself a technoid, have enjoyed the last contest without regards to the fact of translating a literary piece, it was a good oportunity to test myself as being able to output something more than just "tech glossary content". The same goes for language variants, a good translation in any language pair, holds good independently of localities, and setting for a different set of rules will end in unnecessary burden. So, to sumarize my sugestion, make only minor changes, keep it free to participants, Keep it simple!
Best regards
Raul
Collapse


 
Iwona Szymaniak
Iwona Szymaniak  Identity Verified
Poland
Local time: 17:12
Member
English to Polish
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
Language Variants May 2, 2008

Raúl Casanova wrote:
The same goes for language variants, a good translation in any language pair, holds good independently of localities, and setting for a different set of rules will end in unnecessary burden.
Best regards
Raul


I agree with Raul in what he says about language variations. I think it would be just exaggerated to have different language variants set as different pairs in the contest.
Both the entrants and voters realize there are differences and simply have to face this "little challenge".

It might seem to Spanish or English-parlantes there are no regional differences in languages that are limited to one country or region. But it is not true I do not want to dwell on it too much since we discussed about it some time ago if I am not wrong.

Regards,

Iwonka


 
Pavel Tsvetkov
Pavel Tsvetkov  Identity Verified
Bulgaria
Local time: 18:12
Member (2008)
English to Bulgarian
+ ...

MODERATOR
How often should new contests be organized? May 2, 2008

This question seems to have been overlooked somehow. In my opinion new contests should not be announced more often than once every 12 months. Most writing contests are organized once a year and the best ones - once every two or three years. This is also a question of respect and literary "weight". You cannot have a new contest every month and expect that winning it should mean anything, because two years from now you will have hundreds of winners on this site and when everyone's a winner, none i... See more
This question seems to have been overlooked somehow. In my opinion new contests should not be announced more often than once every 12 months. Most writing contests are organized once a year and the best ones - once every two or three years. This is also a question of respect and literary "weight". You cannot have a new contest every month and expect that winning it should mean anything, because two years from now you will have hundreds of winners on this site and when everyone's a winner, none is. This should be given careful consideration.Collapse


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 12:12
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Four minor and one major per year May 2, 2008

Pavel Tsvetkov wrote:

This question seems to have been overlooked somehow. In my opinion new contests should not be announced more often than once every 12 months. Most writing contests are organized once a year and the best ones - once every two or three years. This is also a question of respect and literary "weight". You cannot have a new contest every month and expect that winning it should mean anything, because two years from now you will have hundreds of winners on this site and when everyone's a winner, none is. This should be given careful consideration.

Hi Pavel,

The contests that have been held so far we are viewing as "minor" contests. These have been held at a rate of about four per year, i.e. quarterly. We also plan to have one "major" contest annually, starting this year.

The next contest will be another minor one, and the one after that will be the first "major" one. Winners of the major one will be announced on International Translators Day.


 
Irena Pizzi
Irena Pizzi  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 17:12
Italian to Bulgarian
+ ...
Criteria, or what is art... May 3, 2008

I believe there are certain basic concepts to be respected while translating a text, and the first of all is to remember, that you are TRANSLATING an author's text and not writing one of your own. If a translator is not able to keep in mind this simple thing. well, there are so many other interesting things to do in this world!
Alterations of the source text up to the point of creating something that has almost nothing to do with author's idea, imho, is not a translation. Neither it is art
... See more
I believe there are certain basic concepts to be respected while translating a text, and the first of all is to remember, that you are TRANSLATING an author's text and not writing one of your own. If a translator is not able to keep in mind this simple thing. well, there are so many other interesting things to do in this world!
Alterations of the source text up to the point of creating something that has almost nothing to do with author's idea, imho, is not a translation. Neither it is art.
Generally speaking, it is not acceptable to translate "New York" as "Newark" and to claim it was art. It is simply inaccuracy, or worse, disrespect to the author.
Boris Pasternak's translation of Shakespeare's tragedies is, undisputably, of a consummate mastery ever, and we all know why. It is a quite simple receipt: talent + infinite respect for the original+years of hard work, work, work, work, work, and over again!
So, let us try to understand who we are and where we stand, let us first learn everything that we can. I find it exremely positive to discuss the pluses and the minuses of the winning translations, this is a good and right way to learn, unless one is already sure to have achieved and even surpassed Pasternak's level.
Good luck in the next contest to everybody!


[Edited at 2008-05-03 19:50]
Collapse


 
Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3] >


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:

Moderator(s) of this forum
Lucia Leszinsky[Call to this topic]

You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Planned change to qualification round voting






Protemos translation business management system
Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!

The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.

More info »
CafeTran Espresso
You've never met a CAT tool this clever!

Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer. Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools. Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free

Buy now! »