Our data is released under various Creative Commons licenses.More information
If you love this content, please consider a donation.
Menu
I've been reworking on the display of sentences and I've tried to change the way unapproved sentences are displayed.
Here's an example of unapproved sentence on Tatoeba:
https://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/3343889
And its equivalent on the dev:
https://dev.tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/3343889
I'd like some feedback about how you feel unapproved sentences should be displayed.
- Is it fine to have them in red? Did anyone feel red was catching too much attention? Should we use a less flashy color (like grey, as it is on the dev)?
- Or is grey too confusing because indirect translations and romanization (for Japanese, Chinese and a few other languages) are displayed in grey as well?
- Should we perhaps display them with their normal color and simply rely on the warning icon to indicate that they are unapproved?
Here are some screenshots.
red -> http://prntscr.com/6yvr96
grey -> http://prntscr.com/6yvrm8
normal color -> http://prntscr.com/6yvs2y
You're welcome to suggest anything else.
just gonna throw in my personal feeling:
do not use grey, for the reason you already mentioned.
both red and black are okay. I think the warning icon does a sufficient job in signaling that the sentence is disapproved. whether or not you also display the sentence in red doesn't make much difference in my opinion.
so I would personally approve a tad bit more of the black plus icon variant. then again, I don't know whether others would notice the icon as clearly as I do. so having the sentences in red can't hurt.
"Or is grey too confusing because indirect translations and romanization (for Japanese, Chinese and a few other languages) are displayed in grey as well?"
Yes, it's confusing.
"Should we perhaps display them with their normal color and simply rely on the warning icon to indicate that they are unapproved?"
Could they be striked over?
I think that when you place mouse cursor over the warning sign, there should be an explanation what it means (maybe a shorter version of the current "About unapproved sentences"). For mobile device users it would be a mystery what the warning sign means and why they can't translate those sentences.
I personally wouldn't change anything. I believe it's okay the way it's now.
Being a colorblind, I don't care about the color, but the warning icon is essential for me.
I suggest that the incorrect sentences be marked with both red colour and a warning icon. If they were to be black, that would be misleading, and if they were to be grey, that would cause confusion in the ways you have already explained.
+1
[not needed anymore- removed by CK]
+100
+1000 ☺
+ 10^34566778
except "native-speakers" are self-proclaimed. And there are a few famous liars among them...
1) and who cares for the difference between :
Sentence by non-native speakers tagged OK.
and
Sentence by native speakers tagged OK.
2) What if the OK-tagger is non-native ?
I was wondering this myself. +1
As for the distinction between those claiming one native language vs. those claiming multiple native languages - I don't really the difference. If a person claiming more than one native language is considered more unreliable, then, as sacredceltic suggested, a person claiming a particular native language may also be considered unreliable, as it's possible they are lying.
I am against the idea of tying users' self-declared ability in a language to the quality of their contributions.
[not needed anymore- removed by CK]
>if something seemed a little less-than-natural as you were reading it and it was in a category that might make you suspicious
https://tatoeba.org/fra/sentences/show/2024265
I'll say this for the umpteenth time : languages are not democratic institutions. You can't just vote for it to be.
If most people knew what sentences are correct or not, we wouldn't need education.
Language belongs to everyone. Authorities deciding what's correct and what's not, according solely to their own preferences, are simply usurpers.
then your teacher was one usurper...
The teacher isn't the one who decides. Plus, there's a difference between demonstrating X isn't "correct" since people don't use it and would consider it a mistake - so it's incorrect for practical purposes anyway - and telling that X is wrong because it is written so somewhere.
have to mostly agree with ooneycall here, though I'm not sure you two are
actually saying contrary things.
I think discussions like these are more or less bound to end in a circular argumentation, because we're essentially dealing with a paradoxical situation here: we're trying to create a database that corresponds to the obviously existing tendency of languages to allow a certain amount of things and not allow a certain amount of others. in this way, there clearly are things that speakers know are incorrect, because they are outside of the language's system, and even if you're a native speaker, you cannot change this. yet, there are at least two factors that work against this:
first, languages also have a certain amount of flexibility and large grey areas, and if we take variation into account (dialectal, sociolectal, what-have-you), the notion of "language" as a stable system more or less immediately goes out the window.
second, whenever we use a language, we manipulate and thereby influence and eventually change it. this inevitably also happens on this site, which sort of undermines its purpose.
I have no real answer to this problem, but I think this project overall is on the right track, because it obviously works (for me, at least). in the end, it's probably a good thing we have people with different perspectives on language use on this site.
In the end, I'm fairly certain that any sentence that could realistically be used and make sense independently, even if in a tightly limited context, has its place here. (Sentences that do not make any sense independently such as those containing deliberate mistakes in order to mock something are excluded.)
Excellent. I've hoped for something like that warning triangle for quite some time now. ☺
I'd like to suggest that it also be placed from now on next to non-native sentences that haven't been tagged OK yet, and that people can browse through these sentences and check them.
⚠
Placing the same warning sign on unapproved and unchecked sentences would by association suggest that the latter are wrong, which needn't be true. A sign of a different colour, maybe - maybe grey, per danepo's suggestion.
(I'm wary about the idea though, since it will likely only serve to put unchecked sentences into a vacuum because for some reason most people aren't predisposed to bother the slightest bit.)
A crazy idea? I wonder if unapproved sentences could normally appear in black type, with a new label @change-A, and be treated like the others that should also be modified (@change). After 14 days without the author's reaction, the sentence could be modified or even deleted by a Tatoeba Administrator.