Katalin Horváth McClure Dec 31, 2009:

A few remarks as my last comment 1. I don't see a dispute. You described a problem, nobody denied its existence. Nobody said it is OK to have incorrect translations in the Glossary.

2. <I>"The moderator simply followed the rules, and put the word into the glossary." </I>Please understand, that it is NOT the moderator who puts words into the Glossary. It is a "robot", an automatic procedure that accepts one answer based on the "collective wisdom" - the number of votes. The exact selection procedure is explained in the FAQ.

3. If you have a problem with a specific question, it is much more effective to discuss it there. Here is the link to the "dial up" question you mentioned repeatedly :
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/english_to_hungarian/computers:_sy...

4. Again, I believe posting your opinion on the forums would be a much more effective method. As you see, here, you have an audience of 3 (three).

5. In general, when you post in the forums, it is usually even more effective if at the same time you post an idea, a proposal, a suggested way to solve the problem you are describing (whatever the problem is).

Happy New Year!

Laszlo Farkas Dec 30, 2009:

I simply can't understand our dispute. Is it a question whether there must not be linguistically incorrect expressions in the glossary? Must this be discussed?

To Enrique: I don't want to force moderators to act as linguistic authorities. There was a specific item I criticized, and explained why. Then I drew general conclusion, too. What can be discussed: the given specific item or the conclusion? Is there a Hungarian word „betárcsáz”? Is it not you who accepted it? The moderator simply followed the rules, and put the word into the glossary. Are the rules appropriate? I can post a negative vote on it, you are right. Will this word become Hungarian, if ten others vote positive?

To Katalin: I highly appreciate that you have written the problem I brought up is a critical one. Without browsing through past discussions, I believe you the problem has been discussed many times. The fact remains: many voters of the GBK area are not aware of it. The problem has to be solved somehow, the time for discussion is over.

I can only repeat: we are the native speakers who have to take into account this respect, too, when voting.

Katalin Horváth McClure Dec 30, 2009:

A much better place would be the forums Laszlo, The problem you are elaborating on does exist, and I agree, that it is an important issue. However, this Discussion area is not the best place to bring it up, because the problem you are mentioning is a general problem, not specific to this question, furthermore, it is not even specific to the GBK system, I think you are mainly talking about the general, "help"-type KudoZ . The other reason discussing this here is not very effective is that not many people read what is posted here. The forums are created for the purpose of discussing such issues, and there is a forum area created specifically to discuss the KudoZ system.
http://www.proz.com/forum/kudoz-48.html
The issue you are talking about has been discussed many times in different forms - you can browse through past discussions and you will be able to see the various opinions from users, members as well as site staff.

Enrique Cavalitto Dec 30, 2009:

Moderators do not act as linguistic authorities As stated by Katalin, moderators do not act as linguistic authorities.
If you consider an answer is wrong and are enabled to do so, you can post a negative vote on it. There are plans to add additional features in the GBK glossary to deal with these situations in the future.

Laszlo Farkas Dec 30, 2009:

I can't agree with the previous three entries, though they didn't deny the substance of my remark. This substance is: the terms that go into the Glossary should be correct linguistically. The glossary of ProZ.com should be (will be) a source for translators, so its quality is important. It's unacceptable, if they find there linguistically incorrect expressions, therefore it's unacceptable, if „sometimes incorrect phrases, words make it into the Glossary”. The „moderators are … simply responsible for enforcing site rules”, so the linguistic correctness as requirement must be included in the site rules. How to enforce this rule? This question can (should) be discussed. One example: The asker himself has the right to use what he wants, but his choice is not a criterion for an expression to be included in the glossary.
I would not have dealt so much with this question, if the example I mentioned were the only case concerning the problem of linguistic correctness (see a lot of such cases in the translation contest).
I have been writing my entry in English for the ProZ staff to understand.

Katalin Horváth McClure Dec 30, 2009:

Több fordítás, vagy több eredeti? Attila, az angolban is mondják ezt többféleképpen, rövidebben, és hosszabban is. A rövidebb változat a backward compatibility, amely ugyanúgy tömör, és vitatható megfogalmazás, mint a magyar visszafelé/visszamenőleges kompatibilitás. A hosszabb változat az, amikor szépen leírják, hogy "compatibility with previous versions", ez angolul is szebb és talán laikusok számára is érthetőbb. Ennek a Te magyar változatod (korábbi/előző verziókkal való kompatibilitás) tökéletesen megfelel. A kérdés azonban a rövidebb változat volt.

Attila Széphegyi Dec 30, 2009:

Ha egy kifejezésnek több fordítása létezik, akkor legegyszerűbb a szó szerinti fordítással elintézni (illetve rosszabb esetben le sem fordítani) és a pénztárhoz lehet fáradni.
Ha a teljes szöveg összhatása is szempont, akkor olyan zavaró tényezők is belépnek, mint érthetőség, pontosság stb.

Katalin Horváth McClure Dec 30, 2009:

No editors work on the Glossary I am writing my entry in English because ProZ staff would not understand it if it were in Hungarian. (Previous comment with rough translation: <I>I'd like to point out to the editors (moderator) that the terms go into the Glossary should be correct not only conceptually, but linguistically as well. References from specialized literature do not always meet these criteria (for example dial-up connection --> betárcsázós kapcsolat was included in the Glossary because the asker accepted it, however, "betárcsáz" is a nonexistent word in Hungarian.</I>)

There are no "editors" checking what goes in the Glossary. Neither here, in the GBK area, nor at the regular KudoZ area. As per ProZ policies, moderators are not linguistic authorities, they simply responsible for enforcing site rules. Therefore, sad it is, sometimes incorrect phrases, words make it into the Glossary, and as things stand, there is nothing to do about it, except posting Disagree comments or use the "Contribute to this entry" option for entries that are already in the Glossary, as a result of a closed question. Now, this only seem to work for regular KudoZ entries, the GBK entries do not seem to have this function

Laszlo Farkas Dec 29, 2009:

A szerkesztők (moderátor) figyelmét szeretném felhívni arra, hogy a Glossary-ba bekerülő kifejezések ne csak fogalmilag legyenek helyesek, hanem nyelvileg is. A szakirodalmi hivatkozások ennek nem mindig felelnek meg. (Pl. bekerült a Glossary-ba dial-up connection --> betárcsázós kapcsolat, mert a kérdező azt fogadta el, holott olyan magyar szó, hogy "betárcsáz" nem létezik.)
Végül is a célnyelv az anyanyelvünk.