*to hunt

QED

But I think there is a good case for sysko's suggestion of a "to be validated status", because some people (me) would translate very fast on the fly and re-check later on after second thoughts.
For instance, multiple errors in one single sentence are often overlooked when correcting the first one. Only after some time can you re-read the sentence without the focus on the former error and your mind can be free hunt for the others more efficiently.

I think the algorithm could be made very simple and straightforward, once we agree on the rules.
It could be something like this:
Each time a sentence is corrected
=> check when the last update took place
=> if it is over x minutes from now (x to be assessed)
==>check if it matches the former version regardless of punctuation and spaces (easy!)
==> if not, +1 in the (un)reliability counter for that sentence.
-end-
It should not load the server much more than the present history functionalities do, I think...

it not about "Flat-out forbidden translating into foreign languages", it is about granting the right to correct others, which was my initial proposal.
I agree with you that learners should not not be discouraged. But learned ones should be able to correct them based on their higher skills, which is not the case now.
As there is no technology available to assess the true nationality or descent of anybody, (hopefully!) and 99.99% of natives would never acknowledge their limits, the only path in my view is a mechanical, perfectly impartial approach to the problem.

I agree, as a Japanese was just teaching me my own native language, but the situation is more complex as there are illiterate people among the natives as well and there are many people of mixed cultures. So I definitely think a tool is needed and learned natives will become the judges for their iwn languge as a natural consequence.

Il suffirait de ne pas compter les corrections qui sont apportées dans les 5 premières minutes et aussi d'ignorer les corrections de ponctuation et capitalisation (sinon j'aurais aussi zéro, sans doute).
Mais le système actuel est sans doute plein d'arbitraire, et si on veut motiver les gens à la qualité, un système objectif est préférable. De plus, les "mauvais" traducteurs ou correcteurs seront tentés de partir, ce qui bénéficiera à la qualité d'ensemble.

Vous devriez instaurer un indice de fiabilité des phrases d'un contributeur pour chaque langue dans laquelle il contribue, en fonction du nombre de corrections effectuées sur les phrases qu'il a créées.
Ainsi, vous disposeriez d'un outil objectif d'appréciation des aptitudes linguistiques de chaque contributeur dans chaque langue et pourriez leur allouer des droits de corrections en fonction de cette aptitude et de la langue de la phrase à corriger.
Le seul défaut que je verrais à ce système, c'est qu'il ne faudrait pas compter les phrases "adoptées", car souvent on adopte une phrase pour en corriger une faute qui en masque 1 ou 2 autres derrière qu'on ne voit pas au premier abord par distraction de la principale...

une simple dscription fontionnelle sommaire m'irais très bien...Merci!

I'm interested in which code you intend to use for autocompletion because I'm also looking for one for myself as well. Do you intend to use some kind of open source plugin ?

yes, sorry... I have no objection for the administrator to destroy this...

la traduction française est:#####[edited by modos]#####

the sentence nº337217 is really shameful and shouldn't be allowed here !

unless that is because I am one of the rare contributors...No wonder!

Obviouslyyou do have a lot of spare time and never miss anopportunityto spot a missingdot!

I do not challenge the obvious necessity to correct contributions and I did it myself. What I debate, however, is the speed with which obviously idle moderators jump at my throat each time I forget a dot, to harp on.
Actually, I intended to correct sentences on-the-fly and review them later to see whether I had forgotten anything (I am alas a mere mortal and not a superhero like you are), which happens every so often as our lesser minds focus on one mistake and overlook further mistakes in the process...

2 solutions to this problem:

1) Copy & paste from elsewhere

2) stop responding...

I cannot remember requesting that you respond to my posts. I cannot remember requesting anything from anyone here. I just dared make 3 suggestions as well as protest mildly against dot-harassment from bull_pit. I actually didn't expect a response, let alone name-calling or even a bloodthirsty pack of idle wolves.
As for aggressiveness, you chose to intervene in the debate with a blunt "What's there to debate about the flag system?" which to me sounds like censorship or at best like an impediment to a sound debate...Obviously, our standards of communication differ significantly. My own protocol does not include name-calling and mob lynching.
Concerning the seemingly endless nature of our exchange, I just happen to receive your replies to my posts in my inbox, and find them sufficiently controversial to feel compelled to respond. It is actually up to you.

well, at least my Big brother syndrome is still mild as I, for one, don't scrutinise the dots in contributions yet...

I'm sure you're a hero and I am honoured that you divert so much time to me from your heroïc quest...

says who ?