Our data is released under various Creative Commons licenses.More information
If you love this content, please consider a donation.
Menu
** Thoughts on Tags: Moderators should be helped with clear nice tags, don't they? **
Calling for destruction:
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...ith_tag/delete
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...th_tag/@delete
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...not_a_sentence
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...not_a_sentence
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...g/non-sentence
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...near-duplicate
Calling physically:
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...tag/@moderator
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...ag/@moderators
Calling a pen-mate:
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...s_Native_Check
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...s_Native_Check
Calling for correcting (what?)
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...th_tag/@change
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...ith_tag/@check
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho.../grammar_check
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...h_tag/to_check
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...to_be_reviewed
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...g/non-standard
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...g/@link-unlink
Calling for protection:
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...pyright_issues
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...ight_violation
Some nonsense:
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...@check_tagging
http://tatoeba.org/ita/tags/sho...check/_tagging
And it's only what I found...
(All this for suggesting to make some policies on it ;P)
Well, everyone should be helped with nice clean tags. :-)
Many of these can be merged while others are empty and unused and can be deleted.
* @delete should take on "delete" ("delete not a sentence" is empty and can be deleted).
* @moderators and @moderator should be merged (under which is a matter of taste but ultimately unimportant).
* @check could take on "Needs Native Check", "@Needs Native Check" and "to check". Possibly "to be reviewed", too.
See also:
http://martin.swift.is/tatoeba/tags.html#tatoeba
> * @check could take on "Needs Native Check", "@Needs Native Check" and "to check".
Not sure I agree with that. The way I look at it, 'Native check' is for sentences that are suspected of sounding odd or being incorrect. 'Check' includes sentences that sound perfectly fine, but are not good translations. So a 'Native check' example doesn't need the checker to know any other languages.
That being said, I think @Needs Native Check and Needs Native Check should just be merged. But yes, I don't agree that they should be associated with @check.
@check seems to be very general and can even include things like wrong language flags and punctuation mistakes. Native check is more specific and thus more efficient. A native speaker simply looks at all the tagged sentences in his/her language and can immediately say whether it's fine or not (without having to worry about all the clutter from @check).
Fair enough, but things like wrong flags and punctuations would be put under @change, no?
I haven't been browsing these tags so I'll defer to you gents for their most efficient usage. Are there still cases you can think of that don't fall under checking sentence accuracy or their links to translations?
Yea, you're right. Those would be under @change.
If you feel that there is a use in separating the two, then an "@translation check" tag might be useful to make its use clearer. The current @check tag is used as generally as the name implies (e.g. #400689 ). Neither it nor "to_check" have many or obscure languages, so this wouldn't be difficult to remedy.
Well, I think I prefer to split things.
@check or @change don't mean anything.
Check what? Grammar? Flag? How a sentence sounds natural? If there is a capital letter?
So, I'd prefer to set "@" like "something is wrong", and then:
@grammar (grammar sounds wrong)
@flag (flag is to be changed)
@ponctuation (simple dots missing)
@translations (to verify translations / link-unlink)
@orthography (bad word spelling)
and so on...
We can establish @check as: "I should look on it further, or someone else should read this sentence too", when @Needs Native Check implies that a native person is needed (when who entered the sentence is not a native speaker of the sentence's language)
@moderator(s) is quite useless ^^'
Also, if I see an Arabic sentence with @ponctuation when all comments are in Arabic, I get immediately the problem, even if I don't speak Arabic. It happened many times to re-ask "what's wrong here?" or to ask Muiriel to translate me German comments while there was just a "s" missing.
OK. I'll go along with the proposed tag codification.
Good job, Pharamp!
I'm not sure that a tag will be sufficient to indicate to moderators what needs to be done. Let's say a sentence is tagged with @puncutation and has multiple punctuation mistakes, then a moderator, not proficient in the language may well fix the ones he or she recognises and remove the tag. The same goes for grammar and spelling.
I think @change has a useful purpose in making sure that a problem that has been identified in the comments will eventually be dealt with. All that's needed is for either the owner or a moderator to fix it.
If people want to split @check, then I'm leaning towards the sentence/link split. My rationale is that no matter what is seen as wrong with the sentence, any proficient speaker of that language can deal with it -- and should be able to spot any problem that may exist (whether grammar, spelling or just odd phrasing).
A useful tag for link integrity is a bit tougher as it refers to two or more sentences, but currently we can't tag the links themselves. A simple, low-tech solution would be to have a single "@link check" tag that one could filter by ones strongest language(s) and browse for translations that one felt one could judge as good or bad.