You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: New questionnaire draft and distilled of what was said in the last meeting
I very like the idea, but we should also consider the number of words translated vs the errors made by the translators.
example: 1100 words with 3 errors is more valuable for me than 800 words with 1 error. let's think both translations done in the project with the same difficulty. if we just focusing the error and not the value/numbers of the total words that the translator accurately contributed to such project is a little bit out of sense.
Thank you for your comment, the errors are already expressed as a percentage so they take into account also the volume of the translated text
not in every way @aboutcoolscience🔬.
if the both contributor submitted more than the maximum then they have both same score in the number of words.
how if
translator 1 translated 1500 words for example accurate but have 3 errors in overall.
translator 2 translated 1400 words for example also accurate and only have 1 error.
compare the 1500 words to 1400 words, for example the maximum is 1000 words above as before, then they have the same score at the number of words but look.
deduct all the errors the translator 1 still gives more contribution vs translator 2. and translator 2 will get more score because he only got 1 error.
for me the most important is the contribution we provided to the projects. the errors can be corrected by LMs or re-translate by other translators.
Instead we can compute first the numbers of words vs the errors, that would be more fair.
The "mistakes" question is percentage on the actual wordcount (mistakes per 1000 words), and not on what you fill in the questionnaire, so:
so there is no change there. The wordcount issue is not that easily fixed, we would have to go to a formula of $X/word and is something Utopian doesn't want from what I gather, as it gives the sense of a normal job and not an incentive.
As I've been saying all these months: we are all volunteers and we are not guaranteed to get
a salaryan upvote by @utopian-io. It might not sound right to some, but that's the truth, that's how the system worked since the beginning in all categories (and that was the purpose of utopian - to provide incentives and not payments). if it was sustainable, we wouldn't have to change the questionnaire and make it harder to get a better score, at all.