Twoo ideas for immersion (caution: does not contain the lucky number: 7)
I have to fairly simple ideas that I hope will be good. 1: I have come across a large number of sentences that have been repeatedly called 'looks wrong' but are a simple fix. E.g. 'a and b (en) 1955 Iso Isetta, by the Micorcar Museum' obviously, this is a simple fix, yet, people 'didn't have the time' to fix it, just call it wrong. So, do try and take the time to fix simple type-o's. 2: Since I upload many articles and can see my uploads and notice that there are many that are just sitting in cyberspace having nothing done to them, and they just have one or two sentences that need checking. I check them, but, since it needs two people to both check before it's done, I can't finish them. So, my idea is that DL make a list of articles that have one sentence that needs checking and we could all work together to check them and finish a hundred articles.
This is good, I actually never do 'thumbs-down' on a sentence. I only edit. So, yeah, I agree with both of these ideas.
I agree--however I have used the "looks wrong" in situations where the correct version is constantly changed to a wrong answer in spite of my and other's explanatory comments. That's why I'm in favor of a forum to hash out these misunderstandings and reach a consensus on disputed issues thus both facilitating the correct translation and helping us all gain knowledge.
I can completely relate. If you helped translate Le gateau than we had a mutual time in the pits.
Actually I only do German but the point is the same. I have sometimes resorted to posting on people's streams and usually receive grateful responses. But how much more efficient it would be if we explain things once.
Yeh, with some you can report them, but with this issue they mean no harm.
I corrected some typos thinking that this stuff was being 'sold', then realised that it wasn't and felt terribly guilty about seeming to pick people up on their typing and English spelling/grammar when the point of the exercise is learning the other language. Maybe it would be better if there were a way to differentiate between our translations for our own practice and learning, and when we are confident enough of our 'better' translation to submit it to a final agreed text? Because it pops up and notifies other that we have 'corrected' their work, I feel a little uncomfortable entering an alternative translation that I prefer unless there is an out and out misunderstanding, as I don't want others to feel undermined or put off their enjoyment of their own study. But equally, surely we should be able to enter our own preferred translation and have it saved for comparison and contrast with those of others, for everyone's interest and benefit.
Your last sentence says it all. To be more emphatic I'd say it was a responsibility for anyone who knows the correct translation to offer it. As for the typos and spelling it is vital that they be corrected. What I'm not comfortable with is when I edit even a typo, or worse just revert to a better version it shows my name as the translator whereas it was someone else who had done all the real work . Duo needs a fairer grading system.
But in most instances, where we are talking about running text rather than individual words, there is no one correct translation - there are many. So it shouldn't be a competition or a confrontation and doesn't even have to be a collaboration - there should be room for parallel texts without them seeming to do down someone else's version. To me, 'grading' seems a very alien concept in all this. And it's one thing to think of it as a responsibility to make a correction to something that is being supplied as a translation service, but to get to the point of being able to participate in that, people need to be able to just practice translating, and at that point, surely shouldn't have to get into any sort of jostling for whose translation is seen as the ideal, as long as it isn't misleading. I just feel that a two tier system, whereby you can translate for yourself and then compare with others without it supplanting others OR submit for a final negotiated agreed text would work better for many of us.
Yes, agreed there may be more than one correct translation which is why Duo wants many people involved and why the "looks right' check is important. But, (you knew there'd be a 'but') what we're talking about are down right glaring errors repeatedly rewritten. Your suggestion for a way for some to practice until they are ready to submit translations is sound and will help everyone get involved.
But that still implies there is some holy grail of a 'correct' translation that looks right to all - lots of versions can look right to all but none can be the best for all, and quite honestly, there will never be a one fits all, not least because there are a lot of forms of English in use here with different spelling between Oxford and Cambridge style, let alone Merriam Webster and Australian style before you even get to the differing grammars of Indian and African forms of English and the tensions between literal meaning and tone and intention etc. So we can all be clicking 'looks right' but the text may use different spelling, for example, from that in the previous half of the paragraph which equally 'looks right' - just a different region/tone/register. That's is why there needs to be a distinction between translating to supply something to someone, and translating for learning and improvement and literary satisfaction.
From a professional point of view, I would actually say that for publication purposes, translations by one person are far better than collaborative ones because of the 'voice' and consistent tone, though obviously it's perfectly possible to come up with a perfectly functional translation in this way.