Placards de FeuDRenais sur le mur (55 au total)

<<< 123 >>
  1. I've noticed that I've accumulated quite a few comments on my sentences. My apologies for the prolonged absence - I will try to make the necessary corrections over the course of the next week. Hope that everyone's been well!
  2. "It's just that in the case of sentences, the purpose of the rating is silly, because most people don't know their own language sufficiently we'll to be in that position."

    This is equivalent to saying that a rating scheme would fail because rating sentences is too complicated, so again you contradict yourself. And by "rating sentences", I of course mean "rating sentences well", which you didn't seem to catch.

    By your logic, there should be no attempt to decide on the quality of a sentence or a translation. In other words, there should be no OK tags (which are just a very brute rating system, by the way), no @change tags, no comments saying things like "this is incorrect". Because we don't know our own language sufficiently well to make those judgments.

    Or are you saying that about the masses and not about yourself? In that case, you have once more demonstrated your ignorance, since who could rate sentences and how is something that goes into the algorithm's design - it thus becomes technical. In fact, I would propose that only advanced users be allowed to rate. But didn't you already know that?
  3. Then why do people even bother to use "OK" tags?
  4. > I perfectly understand you proposal

    No, you don't, because you keep bringing up counter points that have either been addressed already or can be addressed, and act as if they're irrefutable arguments for why a rating system cannot work.

    Furthermore, you do not seem to come from technical fields or have the ability to think things through analytically, thereby making you unable to envision how a rating system would function *on a mathematical and algorithmic level*. I'm not saying that this is a flaw or even a drawback, as different people have different professions/backgrounds, but the proper thing to do when you don't have a certain type of knowledge is not to say "well, that's bound to fail because it's too complicated to rate sentences", but to try to learn and understand, bringing up your particular concerns and seeing if what is being proposed can address them or not.

    So, no. You don't understand and you don't even try to understand.

    When I wrote my long proposal last January, I gave numbers, estimates, and formulas. I actually proposed things in detail and justified why I proposed them that way. Liori *actually coded* what I proposed, ran a simple scenario, and pointed out a drawback, which led me to refine what I did and to improve it. *That* discussion was actually useful, and we need more like that. The discussions I'm having here with you are just garbage, unfortunately.
  5. I highly recommend this for you:

    https://www.coursera.org/course/thinkagain

    Aren't you glad that learning is open to the masses now?
  6. I have "trolled" this community with "endless talk" about the rating of sentences because I would like to be a part of a community that somehow evolves and advances and benefits things on a bigger scale than simply benefiting its 10-20 active users.

    Naturally, this involves proposing new things and pushing for them when you believe that they're extremely likely to succeed and succeed tremendously. You, on the other hand, cry "nay!" to any idea you don't like/understand without even considering it, and make abstract, circular arguments without proposing your own solutions.

    Of course, I understand that it's much easier to sit in your armchair and criticize what others propose without proposing anything yourself.
  7. Gee, I don't know... You sit down, you propose algorithms, you observe how they work, you make judgments, and then you refine them until they can do no better. And then, if it's still insufficient, you go to sacredceltic, you kneel down before him, and you say "Good sir, I should have listened to your wisdom! We were on a fool's errand, trying to somehow improve the quality of a site's contents via a rating algorithm, an approach that, though it is the standard for almost any professional site, is simply a hopeless endeavor for a language sentence site as divine as this one! Oh, how we have erred!"

    Otherwise, you succeed and the site is better.
  8. I don't believe that it works as simply as you say. A handful of people cannot control the media, the internet, and the press to the point where they decide how the language is used. When a new idiom appears, it appears, spreads, and people start to use it regardless of official rules. If a certain grammatical construction starts to get shortcutted for practical reasons, then no handful of people are going to enforce, in today's world, that this shortcutting stop. If the handful of people make rules that are followed, it's because the people accept those rules and because they're needed. Rules that aren't needed are likely to be ignored or amended informally until they're amended officially.

    You're also oversimplifying when you say that the language would be destroyed by its own speakers. You have to define what "destroyed" means first. Of the languages I speak, most don't have regulative bodies and some are even being assailed by outside influences, but even then I would not say that they're being "destroyed". Certainly, they are being taken farther away from their roots, but so is every language to some extent and one must ask "how much?" to qualify destruction. For me personally, a language is "destroyed" when it no longer has any speakers.
  9. You make them different languages for rating purposes.
  10. I think you've oversimplifying.
  11. We can have a good think, certainly. I should write to liori and summon him here, as he would probably be able to contribute a lot of good ideas.
  12. When arguing with a troll who seems to have infinite time and nothing else to do, and who is willing to argue forever without making ANY concessions, I simply realize that I am outmatched and desist.

    This is not to say that I can't argue for having a rating system - I just can't argue for it against someone like you. In any case, this will be a side project for people who care about bringing some sort of quality evaluation to Tatoeba. You don't have to partake if you don't want to.
  13. How would you know who the experts are now?
  14. This is called a difference of opinion, not "your premise is just flawed".

    In today's world, a language is no longer defined by a handful of people due largely to the internet. The same is happening with education - it is now available to anyone with an internet connection, and is no longer the property of an educated few.

    From my point of view, your stances are about 20-30 years out of date.
  15. What part of "FOR RATING PURPOSES" did you not understand?
  16. For your first point: this would just mean that they will rate a smaller portion of the sentences, right? But so what?

    Second point: see my reply to sacredceltic above. These are challenges that can be overcome.

    Third point: if you add a sentence that you wouldn't use yourself, add a comment on it. Or, like I said to sacredceltic above, add an option that disables rating that particular sentence. Again, these are surmountable challenges, not definitive arguments about why a rating system would fail, destroy Tatoeba, and shouldn't even be attempted.

    Fourth point: another surmountable challenge. If they are being rated unfairly, then either (a) the community sucks, or (b) the algorithm sucks. (b) is a technical challenge, and you could propose several approaches to make ratings be less sensitive to quick changes (this is similar to filtering out noise in engineering/math applications, for which there are entire books and hundreds of papers). If the community is so bad that tons of people are being unfair and forcing good users to leave, then you've got a much more serious problem and it's not the rating system. Otherwise, low rated users would be those who truly contribute badly consistently.

    Finally, none of this has to be mandatory, so I don't understand why there's such a resistance to even trying it out. You could allow users to opt out of having their sentences rated, in which case nothing is said about the credibility of their sentences. You could start by making this an auxiliary website, like Impersonator mentioned, that would only be there for people who care about having a credibility score on a given sentence. If it fails miserably, don't use it. If it succeeds, then join the effort and then talk about making it a standard for the main Tatoeba. That's how R&D works.
  17. We are going in circles. This is the same argument as for the different varieties of Spanish.

    If the two types are so radically different that a significant majority of your sentences are different, then treat the two as different languages for rating purposes. If the minority is different, then simply add a comment to the non-standard ones and expect that the raters will be reasonable. Or simply add an option to disable ratings for certain sentences, if you fear that they're going to be downrated.

    Your challenges are good, but none of this is beyond a good algorithm. Next challenge?
  18. I'm just polling for general interest.

    If no one cares about taking the time to do this, then I won't either. But if people are interested, then why not. I think a team of ~10 to start things off could be sufficient.
  19. You are making assumptions on how the rating algorithm will work without even knowing what the algorithm would be.

    This is to be discussed, but as I already proposed, one should rate users, and not sentences. The validity of a sentence should be reflected by what ratings a user gets *on average*.

    So, if you add 100 sentences, 99 of which are "standard" and get good ratings, then your 1 "nonstandard" sentence would only lower the collective rating to, say, 99. You can't even hope to rate 2+ million sentences and 100+ million translations one by one in a statistically rigorous manner (unless the users rate, I don't know, 10 sentences for every sentence they add, but even this would be a monumental time-consuming task).

    So that answers that example of yours - the nonstandard sentence will inherit the rating of its owner. The owner could even comment the sentence if they know its nonstandard so that people won't blindly downrate it.

    Do you have other examples? Please continue, because pointing out concrete potential drawbacks is much better than simply nay-saying things blindly, and so here your input is more than welcome.
  20. But seriously, if you or other people would like to dedicate maybe 15-30 minutes a day to discuss this and start coding something that could then be tested on a smaller scale before being proposed to the community, I would actually be willing. I think that there's enough interest and that this is a good chance to make some major improvements to the current system.

    Let me know.
<<< 123 >>