Number of participants for the contest - perhaps large pairs should be subdivided Thread poster: Cristina Heraud-van Tol
|
|---|
About the translation contest, why wasn't the number of participants taken into account, and divided in fair groups of contestants?
I mean, language combinations such as:
English to Moldavian
English to Slovenian
English to Korean
English to Hebrew
only have 3 or 4 participants. Obviously, any of them have big chances of winning (33% - 25%). However, in the English-Spanish combination, there are 75 contestants. We have less than 2% of chan... See more About the translation contest, why wasn't the number of participants taken into account, and divided in fair groups of contestants?
I mean, language combinations such as:
English to Moldavian
English to Slovenian
English to Korean
English to Hebrew
only have 3 or 4 participants. Obviously, any of them have big chances of winning (33% - 25%). However, in the English-Spanish combination, there are 75 contestants. We have less than 2% of chances to make it to the finals. And because it is so competitive and you have to choose among so many translations, any little single error is highlighted. A comma added to one of the translations can make a difference to either eliminate you since the beginning or to win a laptop (at the final draw).
Perhaps they should have divided this large number into 5 groups of 15 participants (and allowing voters to only vote in one of these groups), so that at least there are more chances to win.
[Subject edited by staff or moderator 2009-09-22 12:23 GMT]
[Subject edited by staff or moderator 2009-09-22 23:52 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Good Morning,
I agree with what you have said. I have already written to a suggestion given by Patyjs and it is with regards to the numbers of entries with no rating because nobody made one.
saludos
Rocío
| | | | cc in nyc 
Local time: 22:56
French to English
| Divide by target language variant? | Sep 25, 2009 |
Would it make sense to subdivide contest groups by target language variant? For instance, divide English target into AE, BE, etc.
BTW, there's another forum thread about language variants.
| | | | | I agree too! | Sep 25, 2009 |
I totally agree with Cristina. It's a good idea to divide participants into sub-groups of even numbers, so that everyone has the same chances regardless of the language-pair.
I did not participate because I did not like the text so much and then thought about the large number of participants in my language-pair (English to German) and decided not to take part in it.
Annett
| | |
|
|
|
Anna Astar
Sweden
Local time: 04:56
English to Russian
+ ...
| That would be just fair | Sep 25, 2009 |
Ok, you're right
[Edited at 2009-09-25 14:03 GMT]
| | | | | I don't agree | Sep 25, 2009 |
Would the Nobel prize be so relevant if they gave 5 Nobel prizes in each category?
This is not a matter of increasing chances of winning. This is not a lottery. The best translation wins, and everybody knows that it won above a lot of other people. Giving out 5 prizes in each of the big language pairs would reduce the worth of the prize to 1/5... i.e. pretty useless.
| | | | | Purchasing a prize? | Sep 25, 2009 |
Anna Rozanovskaya wrote: I dare to remind the staff that the membership fee (which I suppose is not the last funding for the prizes) is the same for all users regardless of their languages, so it would be just FAIR if Russian, German, Spanish or Italian translators have comparable chances to win. Otherwise, I'm sorry but that's true, En-Ru, En-De, En-Es, En-It and other majorities, as well as sponsors, pay, for example, the conference costs for those who are so happy to represent language minorities. Please, take it into consideration next time. That's one of the rarest cases when majority should fight for its rights
Sorry Anna, but I don't agree at all! Honestly, being a member of Proz is not part of the ticket to winning a prize in the contest. The contest is all about producing the best translation, or at least a translation that is considered the best by fellow members.
There is no such thing as a "right to win"! If you feel you can win with your translation, go for it... and good luck! But granting everyone a chance to win, like in a lottery, just because a membership fee is paid... does not sound like right to me if we are to promote excellence in our profession.
| | | | | Misunderstanding? | Sep 25, 2009 |
I think the original suggestion that came up in another thread was about dividing up the large number of entries only for the Qualification Phase, simply to reduce the number of entries one needs to evaluate.
The purpose of this is to prevent a good entry slipping through the cracks (not making it into the finals) just because nobody had... See more I think the original suggestion that came up in another thread was about dividing up the large number of entries only for the Qualification Phase, simply to reduce the number of entries one needs to evaluate.
The purpose of this is to prevent a good entry slipping through the cracks (not making it into the finals) just because nobody had the time to rate it.
This other thread and proposal discussed the same issue.
My understanding of the proposal is that it would still result in 3-7 entries that got the highest ratings in the qualification phase across all entries, and these would go on to the final round, where 1 winner would be selected.
The proposal about different target sub-languages (or dialects) is a completely different matter.
[Edited due to the system messing up the link.]
[Edited at 2009-09-25 13:48 GMT]
[Edited at 2009-09-25 13:49 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Katalin Horvath McClure wrote:
I think the suggestion was about dividing up the large number of entries only for the Qualification Phase, simply to reduce the number of entries one needs to evaluate.
The purpose of this is to prevent a good entry slipping through the cracks (not making it into the finals) just because nobody had the time to rate it.
My understanding of the proposal is that it would still result in 3-7 entries that got the highest ratings in the qualification phase across all entries, and these would go on to the final round, where 1 winner would be selected.
The proposal about different target sub-languages (or dialects) is a completely different matter.
This is exactly what I meant, to reduce the large groups into subgroups in the qualification phase and then the best of each of these groups would compete together at the final round. It's much more easy to select one good translation out of 10 or 15, than one out of 75. With 75, it's difficult to keep track, read all the texts, check so many likes and dislikes, etc.
Anyway, the first day of the second phase one translation was ruled out, the second day, 60 were ruled out. I think this is the kind of things that happen with so many participants at once.
I don't know if it happens with you, but I definitely didn't have time to read 75 translations (and make a judgment out of it). I would have prefer to be able to look at 10 or 15 and concentrate on them, reading them carefully and choosing one.
I guess this has been a sloppy and quick entrance to the finals.
| | | | | Good suggestion. But in the meantime bear in mind that you don't have to rate them all. | Sep 25, 2009 |
Hi,
Good suggestion. Many people have misunderstood, and providing entries in batches would clarify. In the meantime, please understand that you do not have to rate all entries. Almost no one does.
Henry
| | | |
Sorry if I misunderstood the matter at hand...
| | | | | The process is solid | Sep 25, 2009 |
Cristina Heraud-van Tol wrote:
I don't know if it happens with you, but I definitely didn't have time to read 75 translations (and make a judgment out of it). I would have prefer to be able to look at 10 or 15 and concentrate on them, reading them carefully and choosing one.
I guess this has been a sloppy and quick entrance to the finals.
That's not an accurate portrayal of the process. Entries were ruled out in a gradual process over two or three days, as the number of ratings reached critical mass. Remaining entries have been rated by as many as 15 to 20 people, each, so one can conclude that the ones that make it to the finals have been thoroughly vetted and absolutely deserve to be there.
| | |
|
|
|
Henry D wrote: Cristina Heraud-van Tol wrote:
I don't know if it happens with you, but I definitely didn't have time to read 75 translations (and make a judgment out of it). I would have prefer to be able to look at 10 or 15 and concentrate on them, reading them carefully and choosing one.
I guess this has been a sloppy and quick entrance to the finals. That's not an accurate portrayal of the process. Entries were ruled out in a gradual process over two or three days, as the number of ratings reached critical mass. Remaining entries have been rated by as many as 15 to 20 people, each, so one can conclude that the ones that make it to the finals have been thoroughly vetted and absolutely deserve to be there.
Ok, I'm sorry for this assumption.
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Number of participants for the contest - perhaps large pairs should be subdivided | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
