Donglai Lou wrote:
Hi! Dumont,
Please don't feel so upset. You are not alone. Actually, I am the first one being ruled out in E-C sub-contest a few days ago
. Since my schedule was pretty full in the past few days, I didn't jump out expressing my opinion about this disappointing result.
To be frank, I feel humiliated and embarrassed. Although I found time and submitted my entry on the last day before the deadline, and haven't got myself extra time to further improve every detail, I am confident that my job shall be among top 5 in terms of accuracy and have no problem entering the final round. (maybe, I am a bit over-confident.)
Since the score I got is only 1.6, I lost my candidateship five days before the qualification round closes. However, those entries containing far more mistakes are still there. Is it fair?
However, what we can do is not complaining or withdrawal completely but make suggestions to help Proz improve its contest mechanism. Don't forget this is the first annual contest held by Proz. We should give it more opportunities to improve and grow (Unlike what Proz has done to us:)).
Before making any suggestion, I would like to share the problems I saw here:
1. I believe the current mechanism may work well when there are only a few entries. However, when the number of entries reaches a certain limit, few people outside the contest will spare the time to look through these entries one by one. This is not only a very time-consuming job, but somewhat boring to check so many pieces of similar information. So who are actively participating in voting are those contestants. However, not every contestant participates in voting for various reasons. Then, someone may abuse this mechanism in their favor. There may also be some underground activities.
3. There is no guidance on what kind of translation should get 5 stars, and what kind of translation deserves 1 star. Giving a one star willfully shows no respect for peers’ work.
2. Voters who cannot understand the source text correctly may give credits to mistakes but bias against correct guys.
Here come my suggestions:
1. A standby board of 3 or 5 authoritative reviewers should be established to screen entries for the final round when the number of entries reaches a threshold. These reviewers must have verified credentials. The decision of the final round could also be the combination of both the board’s opinion and public voting.
2. A scale of grade should be provided for public reference. For example, in a translation of 400 words, 0 major mistakes should get 5 stars , 1 or 2 major mistakes should get 4 stars, 3 or 4 major mistakes should get 3 stars, and so on with regard to “accuracy”. And some descriptive statements should be provided to help people give stars with regard to style.
3. Just before voting starts, notes related to difficult points in source texts of major languages should be published in the source language to help voters make their right decision. During the voting, both voters and contestants can ask for clarification on some difficult points. Ideally, the notes come from authors or are confirmed by authors. If not possible, the standby board of reviewers should come up with a version by referring to some authoritative source.
The above are my immature suggestions, some of which may have been discussed before. I do hope Henry and your team can consider it again to make the contest better.
Have a nice weekend.
Best regards,
Donglai Lou
Login to reply/comment 
