Unhappy with the new Translations - suggested improvement
A week ago mugginsx started a great insight on the new translation format: http://duolingo.com/#/comment/55339 Apologies for reopening it here but, in spite of 11 upvotes, it is now buried about 4 pages down and unlikely to receive further attention. A lot of the responses were also unhappy that it is no longer possible to translate the entire article. I can understand that Duolingo need to close out sentences for translation; no one is adding value (except for inflating their own "skill" points) by translating e.g. "La Tour Eiffel" for the umpteenth time. What I propose is that a Duolinguist who successfully translates any of the remaining - usually more difficult - sentences, is then enabled to translate the entire article for themselves. This might go some way to satisfying those who, and quite rightly in my view, prefer to work on the entire article. Of course, you still have to leap in cold for the first sentence, but after this you can go back and edit your opening attempt once you are in the flow. It should ultimately result in better quality for Duolingo by allowing the more able translators (or at least those who can successfully translate the more difficult sentences) to contribute to the entire work that has gone before.
@1km - Great suggestion. A solution that will restore the satisfaction of working on an entire article.
Going a step further, if we had the ability to work on a whole piece at once, it would make it easier for us to develop an appropriately consistent voice throughout. Perhaps this is possible, then those who've worked on full translations could rate each other's translations of the entire article.
@monzac - Another good idea. Judging by the quality of some of the "final" translations, there needs to be an opportunity to review these by people who know what they are doing once the article is closed off. In some cases, NONE of the translations provided by the time a sentence is 100% complete are correct, so no amount of up/down voting is going to fix that. Currently, the only option is to suggest edits and hope that one or more contributors accept they are wrong, and then have a further mass upvote of the new translation. But why should the contributor of the "final" translation with the most votes take my word for it? And what incentive do I get for just fixing the mistakes of others?