# proofreading forums



## Alxmrphi

Ok, so the dictionary is the dogs bollocks here, and we want threads that the dictionary can link to, to help a discussion develop on grow on specific subjects. We used to be able to post threads where we were able to challenge ourselves by attempting to translate bigger passages of text that threw at us a lot of new problems and explanations.

It used to help people try to see what they understood of a specific topic and someone could gain an _awful _lot of knowledge by reading one post.

With a specific word or a phrase, you can only learn so much, in my opinion, as an Italian student, you can learn all about segments and phrases, but what is really helpful is to have a set text and just see how all different prepositions are used, like I wouldn't post a question asking about "what preposition does this verb use" but after a while of reading and seeing a lot of larger segments of Italian, I understood how a certain preposition follows certain verbs and I learnt a lot.

Also, it really advanced my knowledge of little conjunctions used in Italian that made my sketchy Italian words suddenly able to form more of a "relaxed" and natural sentence.

With this "ban" on proofreading threads (at least in IE) I feel really disappointed and I was willing to half-accept some moderators and other members reasons for not accepting them, but I've just been reading an Italian news website that looked really interesting, and it was a good paragraph, and it was annoying because I could understand a few words, maybe every third word but because of this I couldn't make sense of it, what I'd usually do is copy the whole thing, grap a notepad and go to a fresh page, write it out on the computer, look up translations, write them down on a pad, get my corrections off other members and write them all down and memorise them for a few days.

In bigger, more proof-reading threads you come across so much more than specific definitions and terminology, and I understand the "one question per thread" rule, but there is a lot more to langauages than this, just_* seeing how sentences are constructed *_is immensively useful, and you don't get this by discussing dictionary entries.

Yes I understand WR is mainly a dictionary, but it's also something a lot of people use to really develop their skills in learning new languages and if we can't have attempted translations of bigger portions of text, _*in which one who wants to, can learn so much*_.

So ok hidden forums that don't get in the way, but that all people know who are there that want to look for them, something like Congrats page, at LEAST for Italian-English so the people who want to challenge themselves at that next level, and other people that want to see if they can help others, can do, away from the more strict regulated posts in the main forums, that are linked to the dictionary.

All I'm asking for is for a little place for people like me to be able to practice translating and comprehending more than just "one question per thread".
I _*hope *_some people agree with me and my request is considered *carefully*.

If you do agree, please don't just read but give support.


----------



## kittykate

I do agree. 

I think that narrowing threads down to one specific question-one specific answer is quite limitating the potential of this forum.
There could be room for so much more, obviously while still abiding _the rules_.

OT, I think dialects should also be allowed, to an extent. 
It was sad to see a very valuable forero banned because of his use of his dialect, which by the way is considered an actual language by many experts.

caterina


----------



## Paulfromitaly

kittykate said:


> * OT*, I think dialects should also be allowed, to an extent.
> It was sad to see a very valuable forero banned because of his use of his dialect, which by the way is considered an actual language by many experts.
> 
> caterina



Actually your comment is _way_ off topic 
There are some old threads which explains how and when the administrator decides to open a new forum.
Never has a forero been banned for the sole reason they posted some comments in their dialect.
Whoever claims that is saying something which doesn't match the truth.


----------



## Angel.Aura

I agree, too.

I understand that the choice of "one question/word per thread" is strictly related to dictionary inquiries and can allow web surfers to get straight to the point of their specific search.

Nonetheless you easily miss the construction and the stylistic choices that only the in-depth examination of a larger portion of text can provide.
One is compelled to PM some other forer@ or moderator to proofread, say, a whole paragraph.
And the proofreading is often circumscribed to two or three 'significant' words, the choice of a verb instead of another, the structure of the phrase, the fluency of the sentence.

Maybe there should be a dedicated section, as Alex_Murphy suggested.
I also think that any misuse of it (eg. free translation service needed, proofreading of automatic translation software,...) can be easily detected and discouraged.

If one feels like doing it, then why not?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Angel.Aura said:


> Maybe there should be a dedicated section, as Alex_Murphy suggested.
> I also think that any misuse of it (eg. free translation service needed, proofreading of automatic translation software,...) can be easily detected and discouraged.
> 
> If one feels like doing it, then why not?



Dear Angel.Aura,

Let me explain my personal point of view about this matter.
I think the main goal of these forums is to be a reliable and trustworthy help for as many people as possible, that means not only for the person who opens the thread, but also, and I daresay above all, for everyone who will refer to it in the future.
I wouldn't like too see many valuable foreros spend their valuable time proofreading (that is correcting, rephrasing, suggesting synonyms etc.) a long letter or any other kind of long texts, which are not going to be useful in the future for anyone else but the person who has posted the request.
I'd rather they gave their contribution to all the other threads, thus helping the WR dictionaries improve their overall quality and increase the number of their entries.
Every proofreading request that exceeds a couple of sentences *is* a misuse of this forum, since this is a language forum and not a translation/proofreading service.


----------



## kittykate

May I, Paul? 



Paulfromitaly said:


> I wouldn't like too see many valuable foreros spend their valuable time proofreading a long letter or any other kind of long texts, which are not going to be useful in the future for anyone else but the person who has posted the request. Says who?
> I'd rather they gave their contribution to all the other threads, thus helping the WR dictionaries improve their overall quality and increase the number of their entries. I'm not so sure that the more the better. Sometimes picking quality over quantity may be an asset.


 
There are many things that I would (not) like other foreros to do, but I think any forer@ should be entitled to choose whether they want to spend their time correcting a line or a paragraph.
Some may find it more challenging and rewarding to test their skills over 10 lines of text rather than 3 words, focusing on keeping the same register throughout, turning sentences, finding just the right word for that special nuance, and so on -- which obviously can't be done in any other case.

To me, this sounds like a language forum all right. 

caterina


----------



## Alxmrphi

Are my Un posto al sole riassunti acceptable then? Or does that count as proofreading now? What is the limit as to when it becomes unacceptable, I'm just annoyed as these changes seemed to have come around totally unannounced, last time it was fine, now it's not.



> I wouldn't like too see many valuable foreros spend their valuable time proofreading


They wouldn't do it if they didn't want to, they wouldn't even have to see the forum.



> I think the main goal of these forums is to be a reliable and trustworthy help for as many people as possible,


Then why can't we have proofreading forums?


----------



## TrentinaNE

Another thing to consider is that a policy of accepting broad proofreading requests would make it much easier for students, job applicants, etc. to misrepresent their level of language knowledge.  People can "abuse" WRF to achieve this goal to a certain extent now, but it takes *a lot* of effort on their part.  It would take a lot less effort with a proofreading forum.

Elisabetta


----------



## Kelly B

I do understand. Some of the old proofreading discussions were interesting and fun. However, as we became more popular, abuses became both more frequent and more obvious. People were clearly taking advantage of the kindness of our members to cheat. Was that true in every case? Of course not. But the frequency was very disturbing.

Furthermore, when I come across those threads these days, I find that they are only interesting from the point of view of the participants; they are not useful as a resource for the vast number of users seeking help now. We try very hard to make the threads as accessible as possible to future users, with title changes, thread splits.... We cannot be everything to everybody, so we've focused on a resource role.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Well I'm disappointed, I guess I'm just going to have to resign myself to use PMs or split it up into tens of littler threads, I didn't want to have them connected this within main boards, just a little hidden place where some of us knew where they were.

I guess I'm lucky that I know enough people that I'm confident enough of always being helped, I find some people enjoying doing a little proofreading correcting. It's a shame for some others though, you can learn so much in a shorter period of time.


----------



## danielfranco

There are a few sites that offer what Alex has petitioned. There are actually a few of them that are quite trustworthy and I would go as far as to say that they enjoy the same level of "respectability" than this website.
Of course, I cannot mention them, because it'd be advertising the competitors...

Oh, wait...

Nevermind, I've just remembered: most of them you have to pay a membership fee...

Nevermind, again, sorry, me so silly!
D


----------



## Alxmrphi

Don't waste any time, PM me asap!


----------



## giovannino

çamegonfle said:


> *I have an essay of thirty pages that I would like to be corrected and I could correct a similar essay in my mother tongue*


 
To be fair to Alex, the threads he had in mind (from what I remember about the ones he posted in the Italian-English forum) only consisted of a few lines. I think it's also what Angel.Aura and kittykate had in mind.


----------



## kittykate

You are right, giovannino. 
I believe we were all thinking more along the lines of something like this than of a 30-page essay, which in my opinion should be reviewed by a professional translator who should also be paid for the job (s)he does.

Anyway, I don't think we have any chance of ever seeing the _forum_ _of our dreams_  as not that many people seem to be sharing our interest.

caterina


----------



## Alxmrphi

I'll drink to that.


----------



## Angel.Aura

kittykate said:


> You are right, giovannino.
> I believe we were all thinking more along the lines of something like this than of a 30-page essay, which in my opinion should be reviewed by a professional translator who should also be paid for the job (s)he does.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think we have any chance of ever seeing the _forum_ _of our dreams_  as not that many people seem to be sharing our interest.
> 
> caterina


Quote.

BTW, do you know that even if I subscribed this discussion I don't always receive notification of new posts?  I'm notified randomly, actually.
But I've no problems at all with the other threads I subscribed (...1628, at the moment...)


----------



## alexacohen

kittykate said:


> Anyway, I don't think we have any chance of ever seeing the _forum_ _of our dreams_  as not that many people seem to be sharing our interest.
> 
> caterina


All right, I'd like that forum of your dreams, too. I do share your interest.
I do not think we are that few. 
Maybe there are many people who feel, as I feel, that it is a waste of time to even ask.
I have posted this just to let you know there are more people interested than what you think.

Alexandra


----------



## alacant

alexacohen said:


> All right, I'd like that forum of your dreams, too. I do share your interest.
> I do not think we are that few.
> Maybe there are many people who feel, as I feel, that it is a waste of time to even ask.
> I have posted it just to let you know there are more people interested than what you think.
> 
> Alexandra


 
Hi, I would also be interested. It would be nice to tackle a bone with more meat on it, than "what does this word mean in spanish?" which is happening an awful lot in recent times, for words that can be found in the dictionary!!

You have my vote, (for what it's worth)!

Alacant


----------



## kittykate

alexacohen said:


> All right, I'd like that forum of your dreams, too. I do share your interest.
> I do not think we are that few.
> Maybe there are many people who feel, as I feel, that it is a waste of time to even ask.
> I have posted it just to let you know there are more people interested than what you think.
> 
> Alexandra


 


alacant said:


> Hi, I would also be interested. It would be nice to tackle a bone with more meat on it, than "what does this word mean in spanish?" which is happening an awful lot in recent times, for words that can be found in the dictionary!!
> 
> You have my vote, (for what it's worth)!
> 
> Alacant


 
Well, thank you for your votes, guys. For whatever it's worth, it's good to know we're not totally alone...

caterina


----------



## TrentinaNE

alacant said:


> Hi, I would also be interested. It would be nice to tackle a bone with more meat on it, than "what does this word mean in spanish?" which is happening an awful lot in recent times, for words that can be found in the dictionary!!


Don't answer those threads. Please report them instead. 

Elisabetta


----------



## TimLA

Over a year ago, there was a forer@ on Italian-English who would write beautiful historical stories in Italian,
then translate them to English.

Those of us who were inclined, would help this forer@ with the English.

I miss that forer@....


----------



## lordterrin

Alex_Murphy said:


> the dogs bollocks



*OT: *I would like very much to know what this means.  It sounds AWESOME and I want to bring it to America.

Regarding the thread, I have just been talking with one of the moderators about this very topic, as some of my threads were closed because I asked about an entire sentence instead of just a word or phrase.  I think that this feature would add WORLDS to the usefulness of WR, and I myself would use it almost every day!

As a student of French, who has already graduated college and is just studying for fun, my goal is to become completely fluent in this language, not just "get a good grade," like so many of the students.  Ergo, I spend... probably six nights a week studying, reading, writing papers for fun, and yes, spending hours on WR just... learning things!  HOW helpful would it be for me to have a place where I could post full sentences and ask "Hey, French people - does this sound FRENCH to you, or does it sound like an American who is learning French?"  I want to know how French grammatical structure works from sentence to sentence, how the flow of a French sentence is different from that of an English one, and with all the nuances of French, this seems not only like a mere suggestion, but almost a prerequisite for a community as VAST and KNOWLEDGEABLE as the WR community.  

I absolutely adore this site, and I would be years behind in my French were it not for the amazing people on here, so please do not take my comments as complaints.  I just hope that some type of forum can be created where I can sentences and paragraphs for review.  

Alex, you said it very well, and I feel many of us agree with you quite whole-heartedly.

Brian


----------



## Alxmrphi

> HOW helpful would it be for me to have a place where I could post full sentences and ask "Hey, French people - does this sound FRENCH to you, or does it sound like an American who is learning French?" I want to know how French grammatical structure works from sentence to sentence, how the flow of a French sentence is different from that of an English one, and with all the nuances of French, this seems not only like a mere suggestion, but almost a prerequisite for a community as VAST and KNOWLEDGEABLE as the WR community.



I think you've summed up *exactly* what I'd like to achieve with my Italian, especially with all the friends and people I know here. I couldn't have put it better myself.

*OT*: See my PM


----------



## ewie

You have my vote as well, Alex, for what it's worth


----------



## lsp

lordterrin said:


> ... HOW helpful would it be for me to have a place where I could post full sentences and ask "Hey, French people - does this sound FRENCH to you, or does it sound like an American who is learning French?"  I want to know how French grammatical structure works from sentence to sentence, how the flow of a French sentence is different from that of an English one, and with all the nuances of French, this seems not only like a mere suggestion, but almost a prerequisite for a community as VAST and KNOWLEDGEABLE as the WR community.
> [...]
> Alex, you said it very well, and I feel many of us agree with you quite whole-heartedly.



That beautifully and simply sums up what I hope(d) to get from WR.


----------



## ireney

OK I have a question and it _is_ just a question : How is anyone to tell what is an honest to goodness request for help in learning a language better and what is an effort to cheat in one thing or another (homework, presenting one's knowledge of language X as better than it is etc) ? I personally can't do it and although I can honestly say that I wouldn't expect many efforts to cheat in modern or even ancient Greek a) that's not true about other languages and b) I wouldn't want to delete an honest to goodness question or let someone use this excellent site that is dedicated to learning for cheating.

Sorry for any mistakes I've made by the way. I'll probably cringe when I re-read this message tomorrow.


----------



## kittykate

ireney said:


> OK I have a question and it _is_ just a question : How is anyone to tell what is an honest to goodness request for help in learning a language better and what is an effort to cheat in one thing or another (homework, presenting one's knowledge of language X as better than it is etc) ?


 
That may be difficult at times, ireney. However, as Kelly B said:



> abuses became both more frequent and *more obvious*. People were *clearly taking advantage* of the kindness of our members to cheat. Was that true in every case? Of course not. But the frequency was very disturbing.


 
Also, with the only exception of lordterrin (sorry, lord, but you will soon get there ), all the people who have posted here are long-time members: there _could_ be a _rule_  that you can't post in those forums unless you have at least 100 posts. That would discourage some would-be cheaters.
Moderators would have to watch closely for possible abuse but sensible and responsible foreros could do their share, by reporting questionable posts.

I think it could/might  work...

caterina


----------



## Angel.Aura

kittykate said:


> Also, with the only exception of lordterrin (sorry, lord, but you will soon get there ), all the people who have posted here are long-time members: there _could_ be a _rule_  that you can't post in those forums unless you have at least 100 posts. That would discourage some would-be cheaters.
> Moderators would have to watch closely for possible abuse but sensible and responsible foreros could do their share, by reporting questionable posts.


Questa gatta donna è geniale!


----------



## Alxmrphi

I think the fundamental question is:

Allow a post for someone trying to pass themselves off as better than they are in a language, and help them learn a few things, help a few readers have a go at reading a new text, and explanations for certain words and phrases, and allow a basis for people to question things they never thought of.

Or delete all posts by everyone, where nobody learns, there's much more to gain by allowing "questionable" threads start, and not allowing the obvious cheaters (massive text, under 10 posts here, obvious signs).

If there is a goal for WR, there is much more to be gained by having this, although it would be more work, but as you all can see there is a great demand, and I'd certainly help out with report-a-post to combat abuse of this suggestion.


----------



## ewie

Just a thought: every time I see the rule _Please do not help people to represent themselves as speaking better [language] than they really do_, I tend to think _They'll get found out sooner or later_.
If I came across what was obviously a cover letter applying for a job, or a whole CV, or some other thing that was patently a 'cheat', I'd certainly use the red triangle button.


----------



## Alxmrphi

As would I ewie, the purpose of this place is more to help the language lovers rather than prevent the cheaters from getting information, and right now I don't think this is the case at all.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Hello,

What is cheating exactly? From an individual to another the border between what is "asking for help" and what is "cheating" is not the same thing.
Is proofreading someone's CV for him to make a good impression on his future employer contributing to cheating? I don't think so, unless this man wants to become a professional translator...  He just wants to be clearly understood for the skills he would have mentioned on his CV and get employed for what he is able to do. The same goes for a thesis or whatever: they want to be clearly understood.
Actually, I can feel the "fear" of helping someone cheating here. What is fair and what is unfair? Would I be negatively affected if I don't see someone "taking advantage at me" cheating and instead I think I'm only helping him? I don't think so. The issue is for him, not for me. I would be still with a clear conscience. Would someone else be negatively affected? Maybe. But should I have to feel concerned about the whole world? I know there could be some "butterfly effects", but I would only be a butterfly then! 
Maybe I should have asked for a little help from a native to write this post. My point would have been expressed more precisely and readers would have been less puzzled by reading my clumsy words...


----------



## speedier

Well, why not have the best of both worlds?

If you want to work on a page of text, split it into say 10, 15, 20 sections, select the words from each section that you most have trouble with as the heading, then, once you have them all sorted out, post them one at a time, with a link in the first to the second and so on.  Edit - you may have to do this in reverse order.

That should keep everybody happy:-

The mods, because each section is short, with a relevant header.

The person who posted them, because he gets the whole lot looked at, though possibly not always by the same person.

Those, who, like the originator of this thread and a few others who have posted, like to get their teeth into something a bit more meaty.

And those who only want to answer the parts which interest them.

Have I missed anyone?


----------



## lordterrin

kittykate said:


> That may be difficult at times, ireney. However, as Kelly B said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, with the only exception of lordterrin (sorry, lord, but you will soon get there ), all the people who have posted here are long-time members: there _could_ be a _rule_  that you can't post in those forums unless you have at least 100 posts. That would discourage some would-be cheaters.




Well - I have actually been using WR for like... a LONG time, I just never realized there was a forum section until like last year   So, yes, at some point I will get there 

In regards to your other post, I think that is an *excellent* idea!  I think by the time people have made 100 posts on here, it's obvious that they're interested in learning the language they're posting about, right?  If you want a little more security, make it 200, or 500... it doesn't really matter what that value is as long as it exists.

I think everyone needs to take a second, a few steps back, and think about what we have here.  For all our arguing over cheating, misuse of others' advice, and other various claims, we need to remember that for the entire history of man, language has been such a huge barrier to people understanding one another, yet with the introduction of the internet, and (in my humble opinion,) communities such as the one we have here at WR, we _finally_ have the ability to bridge that gap.  People who are dedicated enough to build for themselves (even a) small reputation by posting one or two-hundred times can have access to literally thousands of people who are multi-lingual, and who can help them better their language of choice.  At no point in the history of our species has this ever been possible.  Is the question of whether people would "abuse" it to cheat on homework really our concern?  The way I see it, if someone is using WR to cheat, then they lose out and are stupid, (and most of them use babelfish anyway,) but if the moderators initiated the x-hundred post count to build some credibility, I think it would deter the _vast_ amount of likely-cheaters who might use the feature.

My second idea is one that, at least personally, I feel is a good idea.  What about Proofreading Forum that was - - - invite only?  If you are interested, you can contact a moderator, and they can take a little time to ask you about yourself and why you're learning the language, or.. maybe just try to make some general discretionary judgment on who can access the forum.  This would also deter cheaters.

I don't know - I feel like I can make all of the examples in the world, but still some will be against it.  If you take my story, for example, you can see no better way for me to learn the language than a forum like this.  I am 25 years old, and I graduated college two years ago.  I got bored, so decided, "well, since I already speak Spanish, I'll go learn French too!"  I went to school, and found that I was learning a lot faster than the others in my class, I got some books in French, started using WR, started hanging out in French chat rooms, and now I have a deal with my teacher where she lets me write essays about whatever topic I want, and she just gives me feedback on them.  While this is great in theory, she just had a baby 6 months ago and... hasn't really given me a paper back in like two or three months.  I have applied for a program to go teach English in France for a year, and I am trying desperately to improve my French skills before I go so I can get the most out of my trip, and while I am doing what I can I'm sure there are people on here who are also trying to learn English, and we could probably help them a lot too.

If you get *one* thing from this post, is it this: the potential for learning and improving the language of serious language learners trumps the potential risk of a small percentage of people misusing it granted it is controlled properly.


----------



## romarsan

Hi everybody,
I like the idea, I think it's a great one.
I agree with Kitty Kate there should be some specific rules to open a thread in the forum, the number of posts as she said could be one of them. Another one could be that you would have to wait some time (two days, one week...) before people could post in your thread.
I know it is not an easy job but I think it is a really good idea.
Cheers


----------



## kittykate

Wow, how many inputs! 

I could write for hours, but you sure don’t want that, so I’ll try to keep it as short as I can.

_What is cheating?_ is a very good question and I partly agree with KaRiNe_Fr that one can occasionally help and with Ewie that if one gets "help" on a regular basis (s)he’ll get caught eventually. 
Anyway, I think this is OT right now, as we’re only asking for a proofreading forum and do not mean any revolution against WRF rules – only a little stretch .

A minimum number of posts required seems to me a sensible filter as I think problems are more likely to come from new users, those with no “history” of posting in WRF. 
As for us “older” foreros, our mods know us and will certainly be able to tell when we mean no harm (e.g. Alex’s summaries of _Un posto al sole_). 

I like lordterrin’s idea of an invite-only basis, but that would require additional mod work while I think we want to be as little demanding as possible . 

Obviously, longer (and how long we can go will have to be defined beforehand) texts can be split and they would need relevant headers, as in any other WR forum. 

Last, this forum could be “hidden” well in the Additional forums, to make it harder for users to get there by mistake. 
I guess most people must be quicker than me, but I was a member for ages before I found the Congrats pages…

caterina


----------



## TrentinaNE

lordterrin said:


> If you get *one* thing from this post, is it this: the potential for learning and improving the language of serious language learners trumps the potential risk of a small percentage of people misusing it *granted it is controlled properly*.


Many of the potential controls being proposed are not technically possible to implement given the structure of the vBulletin software.

Elisabetta


----------



## lordterrin

(I couldn't figure out how to quote you quoting me...so..) In reference to your post above, I'm not sure I agree.  It is possible with the vBulletin software to restrict forum usage to certain members via class, (moderator-only forums.)  If the trigger for determining a *Senior Member* sits at 100, (like it seems,) that would be a fine trigger. 

My apologies if I'm wrong about that though.  Regardless of some of the proposals being incorrect, I *still* think this is an amazing idea.  Hell, *I* would be a moderator of these forums if it meant us being able to have one!


----------



## Quelle

Why limit our own freedom only for preventing potential cheaters? 
The question should be: What can we gain? And what have we to lose?
Being here so many confessions of “tried and tested” foreros I’m convinced that we have to gain much more than to lose.


----------



## lordterrin

Quelle said:


> Why limit our own freedom only for preventing potential cheaters?
> The question should be: What can we gain? And what have we to lose?
> Being here so many confessions of “tried and tested” foreros I’m convinced that we have to gain much more than to lose.




Agreed.  I have made friends with various people on the forums, and I send them my work to correct and comment on... but it would be so much better to just have a forum for this so it didn't have to be all through PMs.  We could all learn SO much more... so much more!


----------



## panjandrum

This question makes me feel very old - at least, very old in WR Forum terms.

Once upon a time, long, long ago, WRF included quite a lot of proofreading.
It was fun for those who answered.
It was helpful for those who asked.
It may have been interesting and useful for others, not directly involved.  It probably was for those keen enough to follow what was going on.

Time passed.
As time passed a few things became obvious.
I'm going to exaggerate to make the points - because I'm like that.

A lot of the proofreading was to write, or correct, stuff that was commercial - someone should have been paying for this service, and someone should have been paid for this service.

A lot of the proofreading was homework or academic assignments.  Helping students to improve their work is great, but doing their work for them is not great.  A few petulant posts demanding a response in time to submit the work for assessment ...
I say no more.

Some of the proofreading was, it turned out, of texts that were to be submitted to an employing authority as evidence of competence in English.  Now you may consider this to be a reasonable use of WRF resources, but frankly I was scared at the thought that the doctor on my case might have been accepted as competent in English on the basis of something I had written for her, not what she had written herself.

Added to all that, the general use of the forums for other kinds of enquiries was increasing dramatically.

The natural conclusion was that WRF is not in the business of proofreading.  There are other sites that offer such a service - at commercial rates. And so we arrive where we are.

I regret that proofreading isn't what we do because I understand all the points that have been made above, and because I enjoyed it.  But WRF cannot do everything.

Footnote:  Responses to proofreading requests on forum, and off forum (by PM), turned very rapidly into exploitation.  I don't do it any more.


----------



## Martina.M

Please let the proofeading section exist! 
This is internet, is not the Ministry of language!
So if a new good idea has come up amongst the forum members, and it seems a useful one, just give us a little corner to use it!
The net is big enough for a special section, isn't it? 
Pleaaaase!


----------



## TrentinaNE

Martina.M said:


> Please let the proofeading section exist!
> This is internet, is not the Ministry of language!


WordReference is also not a democracy, but a business. You might want to review the owner's philosophy here. 

Elisabetta


----------



## cuchuflete

Martina.M said:


> Please let the proofeading section exist!
> This is internet, is not the Ministry of language!
> So if a new good idea has come up amongst the forum members, and it seems a useful one, just give us a little corner to use it!
> The net is big enough for a special section, isn't it?
> Pleaaaase!


This is not a new idea, nor is it a good idea.  If one reads post #41 of this thread, it will be quite apparent why the current policy exists.  The net is big enough for lots of sites with lots of different objectives.  This forum's mission is stated in the FAQ.  It is not to be all things to all people.


----------



## Martina.M

Thank you for the answers. I understand all this, specially the bit about this being a business - not a democracy. That is why I started the post with a "Please" and ended it with a "Pleaaaase". 
But, this being a website and not an organ of the government - meaning, you can change things just because, no need to change the Constitution or ask a Founders Board - plus, it being a very participative website, I guess that suggesting changes is a good thing. It shows how users feel and there's no need to actually make the suggested changes, if the owner doesn't want to. 
However, let me say that I think it IS a good idea, actually.
My only interest about this topic is that my thread where I posted a 31 words translated sentence that I needed to be checked, was closed because proofreading is forbidden. Well, if that is proofreading, then I think it is useful in a site that "_provides Forums for exchanges about translation, word usage, terminology equivalency and other linguistic topics_". 
Finally, to answer the very reasonable things that panjadrum said above, I have a question - a real, not provocative, one. If people realise that a member is sending texts that someone else should be paid for translating, then they should not answer the post. They should actually write back saying how wrong and useless that is. But I see that making it a rule, it ends up with my 31 words post abruptly closed, and I'm sorry about that.
Anyway, I think the reasons that the other foreros (all of them "older" than me) have posted before, explain the advantages of the whole thing much better than I can. I just wanted to add my "vote" for this change, with a real-life experience.
Good day!


----------



## coppergirl

TrentinaNE said:


> Another thing to consider is that a policy of accepting broad proofreading requests would make it much easier for students, job applicants, etc. to misrepresent their level of language knowledge. People can "abuse" WRF to achieve this goal to a certain extent now, but it takes *a lot* of effort on their part. It would take a lot less effort with a proofreading forum.
> 
> Elisabetta


 
Hi all

For what it is worth, I would be in favour of allowing threads which require translation/discussion of either a few lines or even a short paragraph. I think this forum is very limited in scope and that, as others have said, much valuable discussion and learning opportunities are lost due to having to translate three-word phrases. 

Another thing that no one seems to have considered yet is that this might actually REDUCE the need for mods to CONSTANTLY require posters to add context. I mean, at the moment, it's a no-win situation in some cases, since posters are expected to state their word or short phrase for translation, and then are badgered for more context immediately. Then they have to try to explain where and how they saw the phrase used, when actually it would have saved everyone time to have seen it in its original context, even if that context were a few lines.

If the poster tries to put in a few sentences originally for context, they are told that this is not a translation forum and could they please limit themselves to a few words for their thread post.

Um . . . does anyone else see a problem here? 

I mean, for all those mods who constantly say "PLEASE GIVE US SOME CONTEXT", there are equally many occasions for which mods say "You cannot post more than half a sentence at a time in your thread title". 

I think a lot of time on the modding-against-no-context front could be saved by allowing posters to post a few sentences at a time. Of course the thread title is linked to the dictionary, so the main phrase which is stumping the poster could still be chosen for the thread title. But all this over-enthusiasm with regard to people who post a few sentences at a time could do with some re-evaluation.

As for Trentina's comment . . .well, might I suggest that we assume, at least for the moment, that the majority of sensible users out there will not try to get away with free translation services and give people a bit of the benefit of the doubt? I mean, sure, there is always a small minority that will try to abuse a system, whatever it is, but I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that with such an extraordinarily enthusiastic mod team in place, they won't get very far. 

Besides, the mods would have more time for monitoring systematic abuse by a few people since they might not have to keep badgering everyone else for context under this system. 

Just a thought.


----------



## alexacohen

coppergirl said:


> Hi all
> Another thing that no one seems to have considered yet is that this might actually REDUCE the need for mods to CONSTANTLY require posters to add context. I mean, at the moment, it's a no-win situation in some cases, since posters are expected to state their word or short phrase for translation, and then are badgered for more context immediately. Then they have to try to explain where and how they saw the phrase used, when actually it would have saved everyone time to have seen it in its original context, even if that context were a few lines.


You have a point here, Coppergirl.


----------



## TrentinaNE

> when actually it would have saved everyone time to have seen it in its original context, even if that context were a few lines.


This is not proofreading. There is a world of difference between (a) giving an entire sentence (or two) to provide context for the phrase/word of interest and (b) writing three sentence of one's own and asking "please tell me all the mistakes I've made."

In the former situation, one is providing what is usually a properly written sentence (or two) in the foreign language that one is struggling with, so as to better understand a particular word or phrase in that language. In the latter, you are attempting to write (often very garbled) sentences in a foreign tongue and asking for general corrections of everything you are practicing. 

They're two entirely separate things, and I very much doubt that opening the doors to "proof-reading" would make a whit of difference with regard to providing sufficient context. 

Elisabetta


----------



## Martina.M

What about this: allowing the posting of sentences for a general correction, only when under a certain number of words.

That would add a valuable feature to the forum, without the risk of having to correct somebody's 500 words essay.

What do you think?

(Excuse me for the confused English. It's siesta time here)


----------



## coppergirl

HI Trentina and Martina (and any other Tinas out there! )

I think that, in order to have a clear discussion on the matter of proofreading, it would be worth defining what is up for consideration a bit more fully. What I mean is, mods have already indicated that there would be copious problems with allowing proofreading of very long texts. The reasons given were logical, insofar as they went. 

On the other hand, I think Alex was trying to suggest, in his original post, that if larger portions of text were allowed to be submitted for translation attempts, more interesting discussions would ensue and more learning would be possible. Also a logical and good point.

So, I would think that it might be sensible to consider for discussion something in between "People can post _War and Peace_ on the forum and request a translation" and "People are only allowed to post a phrase at a time". 

In my mind, this amounts to something "manageable" by forum standards, and that would be something like a paragraph, rather than the standard "Keep it short and simple".

This would also naturally weed out most of the "commerical" abusers who were looking for adverts for translation or blurbs for their product, homework essays etc. At the same time, that would also get us past that whole "one phrase and that's it" problem, where people who genuinely want to learn have to break a normal paragraph up into 5 different threads, and then provide context for each of them (particularly if it happens to be all the same context because they were originally one paragraph).

Whether this ought to happen in the current forum structure or in a new forum is another matter for consideration entirely, and should not be allowed to cloud the main issue, which appears to be whether or not longer posting questions have a place in the WRF. 

In any case I, for one, would be delighted to encourage more "meaty" translations and discussions, because if nothing else it has the welcome advantage of getting us away from all those marvelous-but-not-very-challenging tattoo post questions. Not that I have not learned a lot about anatomy in Italian thanks to those people!


----------



## stella_maris_74

Martina.M said:


> What about this: allowing the posting of sentences for a general correction, only when under a certain number of words.
> 
> That would add a valuable feature to the forum, without the risk of having to correct somebody's 500 words essay.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> (Excuse me for the confused English. It's siesta time here)



And what would prevent the poster from just splitting said 500 words essay in multiple shorter threads?
Moreover, who would benefit from such general proofreadings, other than the poster him/herself, usually often in order to misrepresent their level of knowledge of the languages involved?

I think Panjandrum there in post #41 has said it all: WRF used to permit proofreading and soon enough it proved to be not such a good idea for the Forums. Then what makes you people think that it would go differently this time, should proofreading be permitted again?

Ciao 

dani


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Martina.M said:


> What about this: allowing the posting of sentences for a general correction, only when under a certain number of words.
> 
> That would add a valuable feature to the forum, without the risk of having to correct somebody's 500 words essay.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> (Excuse me for the confused English. It's siesta time here)



So let's see if I understand what you mean:
We say you can post a 100-word text for "general correction" (what I call proofreading).
You open 10 threads, 100 words each, about the same topic.
Some native speakers "correct" them for you (for a total of 1000 words).
You (a professional translator) get a job your paid for proofread by native speakers for free.

I do not believe this is the scope of WRF.


----------



## coppergirl

Paulfromitaly said:


> So let's see if I understand what you mean:
> We say you can post a 100-word text for "general correction" (what I call proofreading).
> You open 10 threads, 100 words each, about the same topic.
> Some native speakers "correct" them for you (for a total of 1000 words).
> You (a professional translator) get a job your paid for proofread by native speakers for free.
> 
> I do not believe this is the scope of WRF.


 
Yeah, but certainly this view must be balanced against the use all the non-professional translators would make of the forum?  I mean, yes, you can always cite someone who will abuse the system, but then again, if they REALLY wanted to, they could abuse it now, couldn't they?  By typing in 100 one sentence translations as the system is now? 

Sure, it would be more time-consuming, but all the same, it IS currently possible as things stand now.  I mean, for the 95% of people who won't do this, is it really worth penalizing them for the other 5% that MIGHT try it?


----------



## CarolMamkny

Paulfromitaly said:


> So let's see if I understand what you mean:
> We say you can post a 100-word text for "general correction" (what I call proofreading).
> You open 10 threads, 100 words each, about the same topic.
> Some native speakers "correct" them for you (for a total of 1000 words).
> You (a professional translator) get a job your paid for proofread by native speakers for free.
> 
> I do not believe this is the scope of WRF.


 
For once, I agree 100% with Paulfromitaly.


----------



## Martina.M

Paulfromitaly said:


> So let's see if I understand what you mean:
> We say you can post a 100-word text for "general correction" (what I call proofreading).
> You open 10 threads, 100 words each, about the same topic.
> Some native speakers "correct" them for you (for a total of 1000 words).
> You (a professional translator) get a job your paid for proofread by native speakers for free.
> 
> I do not believe this is the scope of WRF.



Hi Paul,

I meant me posting a 31 words sentence - 2 sentences, to be honest - to see if I had translated it the right way.

I did not know that watching people's work morality was part of the scope of WRF. 
I thought it was a translation forum for free individuals who want to learn different languages.

But I see this other aspect is important for the people making the forum and I respect it completely.


----------



## TrentinaNE

coppergirl said:


> Sure, it would be more time-consuming, but all the same, it IS currently possible as things stand now. I mean, for the 95% of people who won't do this, is it really worth penalizing them for the other 5% that MIGHT try it?


When I raised the issue in my post back in March, it was merely as one additional consideration and not the main reason for the current policy. Paul, Kelly, and panjandrum have laid out the arguments clearly, and though I'm no longer a moderator, I think it's a pretty safe bet to say that the moderating team and the forum administrator strongly agree with those views.

Elisabetta


----------



## kan3malato

Paulfromitaly said:


> So let's see if I understand what you mean:
> We say you can post a 100-word text for "general correction" (what I call proofreading).
> You open 10 threads, 100 words each, about the same topic.
> Some native speakers "correct" them for you (for a total of 1000 words).
> 
> I agree with you about it.
> You (a professional translator) get a job your paid for proofread by native speakers for free.
> 
> I do not believe this is the scope of WRF.
> well, at end of the day you have been doing a job(mod) for free, where "He"(the owner's forum)"makes money with this forum, with your and our work (o no?).


Anyway I totally agree, one thread one question, have a look at this for example http://www.hwupgrade.it/forum/showthread.php?t=1504831#post17758757
8164 pages in just one thread.
It has not any sense to me, you can't find anything in threads like that.
About the proofreading we could open another section, like the classic" off topic" that you can find it in any forums.
And then I will be free  if I like  to help others or to be helped if others like.
Easy.


----------



## stella_maris_74

Paulfromitaly said:


> So let's see if I understand what you mean:
> We say you can post a 100-word text for "general correction" (what I call proofreading).
> You open 10 threads, 100 words each, about the same topic.
> Some native speakers "correct" them for you (for a total of 1000 words).
> You (a professional translator) get a job your paid for proofread by native speakers for free.
> 
> I do not believe this is the scope of WRF.



I agree with this post, even in its punctuation and blank spaces.
And the situation Paul depicts is far from theoretical.

dani


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Martina.M said:


> Hi Paul,
> 
> I meant me posting a 31 words sentence - 2 sentences, to be honest - to see if I had translated it the right way.
> 
> .


You see, you keep dragging in your personal issue (although it's expressly forbidden by the rule 45: *Discussions about moderator or administrator actions are welcome in email or Private Messages, but should not be discussed in public forums*. This is out of respect for the members and moderators involved. ) whereas this thread was opened to discuss about proofreading in general.
If the more than comprehensive explanation Angel.aura provided by PM is still not enough for you, please discuss the matter in private with her, not here.



> I did not know that watching people's work morality was part of the scope of WRF.


You morality is none of our business, possible forum misuse is.


----------



## Martina.M

Paul, there has been a misunderstood.
I am very sorry if I offended anyone, I definitely did not mean to. Specially to Angel.aura, who spent her time in explaining me the rules - and I thanked her for that.

If I kept dragging in my personal issue it was because I wanted to give a real example of why I supported the original suggestion from Alex.
*
I did not remember rule 45* - I read them all when I first logged in, and obviously forgot it, so I am sorry. But my point was not a public denounce of a moderator action.

I never meant that Angel.aura did a bad job, but that following that rule she (whom I did not mention) had closed my harmless little thread.

I suggested one idea that I found out other people supported - before I had even thought about it - and I think that is one useful thing. I have realised that some things that do not seem important to me are important to the moderators so I obviously - as I said - respect that 100%

Last thing. I think that the difference between someone who posts a sentence for it to be corrected and understand better the way a language works, and someone else who posts a text that they should correct on their own, and will get paid for it, but do now want to do the effort, is merely *moral*. What is to me very important, but I thought was beyond a moderator's interest.

I see it is not, you have more experience, you give time and service to the forum, your opinion is to be trusted, so that's it. 

Plus, as it has been said before, this is not a democracy and I agree.

Thank you.


----------



## Gévy

Hola:

La petición de corrección de textos me ha parecido siempre un abuso. ¡Qué práctico! ¿Sabéis que los revisores de traducción existen y que se tienen que pagar? Pues allí tenéis la solución. Pues echar una mano es una cosa, pero reescribir un texto de forma adecuada es otra muy distinta.

Al final, ¿de quién será la traducción?, ¿quién la cobrará?, ¿quién la firmará?

No estamos para quitarles el trabajo a los revisores de traducción, ni para rebajar sus precios, ni para menospreciar su labor.

Esto me recuerda una pregunta que nos llegó hace tiempo, era para corrección de una frases gramaticales. El chico terminaba su mensaje con esta frase: ES URGENTE, ESTOY HACIENDO EL EXAMEN Y SOLO ME QUEDA UN CUARTO DE HORA PARA ENTREGARLO.

Jajajajajaja... 

Bisous,

Gévy


----------



## coppergirl

Paulfromitaly said:


> You see, you keep dragging in your personal issue (although it's expressly forbidden by the rule 45: *Discussions about moderator or administrator actions are welcome in email or Private Messages, but should not be discussed in public forums*. This is out of respect for the members and moderators involved. ) whereas this thread was opened to discuss about proofreading in general.
> If the more than comprehensive explanation Angel.aura provided by PM is still not enough for you, please discuss the matter in private with her, not here.
> 
> You morality is none of our business, possible forum misuse is.


 
Yes, but isn't this an off-topic post?  I mean, we were discussing proof-reading threads, weren't we? Isn't this more of a PM-type post?? It seems no one likes Rule 45 very much! 

Sorry . . but back to the topic at hand . . . I think that maybe it would be useful to set a limit on the number of sentences involved since, naturally, we wouldn't really want people to post long essays in chunks either. Now, of course, you could not stop every single person from doing this, but then again, the aim of the forum is mainly to help with translation and to provide dictionary backup on words by providing additional context, no?

So, this function might be sensibly and usefully enhanced, as was originally suggested by Alex, if perhaps slightly more or longer chunks of text were allowed at a time for translation.

Again, whilst the original topic was "proof-reading" I think that what has emerged on the mod side is that large chunks of text would open the forum more to misuse by commerical bad-guys, while what has emerged on the part of the foreros is a general feeling that perhaps it would be more useful to have the rules relaxed slightly to allow for a bit more scope in the original posts and to enhance the discussion.

I don't think there is any need to drag personal issues or PMs into it, either way, is there? So, isn't the question what people think of this idea? And, how might it be put into a more feasible format?

Any ideas on THAT topic?


----------



## alexacohen

Paulfromitaly said:


> You see, you keep dragging in your personal issue (although it's expressly forbidden by the rule 45: *Discussions about moderator or administrator actions are welcome in email or Private Messages, but should not be discussed in public forums*. This is out of respect for the members and moderators involved. ) whereas this thread was opened to discuss about proofreading in general.
> If the more than comprehensive explanation Angel.aura provided by PM is still not enough for you, please discuss the matter in private with her, not here.
> 
> You morality is none of our business, possible forum misuse is.



Paul, I am sorry, but I think you have been too hard. 

I did not take Martina's post to be anything personal, least of all a criticism of a mod's actions.  

It is an absolute nightmare for many of us to keep our personal experiences at bay and try to write as if we were not people, but unfeeling machines. We always write according to our own experiences.

That does not mean we are trying to criticize anyone, but that we want to share them and see if someone else thinks as we do.

This is way off topic and I know, so you're welcome if you want to delete my post. 

Alexandra


----------



## Martina.M

(...thank you Alexa...)


----------



## Kelly B

coppergirl said:


> [...]It seems no one likes Rule 45 very much!
> [...]So, this function might be sensibly and usefully enhanced, as was originally suggested by Alex, if perhaps slightly more or longer chunks of text were allowed at a time for translation.
> [...]I think that what has emerged on the mod side is that large chunks of text would open the forum more to misuse by commerical bad-guys, while what has emerged on the part of the foreros is a general feeling that perhaps it would be more useful to have the rules relaxed slightly to allow for a bit more scope in the original posts and to enhance the discussion.
> [...]Any ideas on THAT topic?


Certainly. It seems to me that the majority of the posts in this thread do, in fact, address that idea. 

I strongly object to the notion that foreros stand in unified opposition to the moderators in this matter. There are at least two senior members who have expressed support for the proofreading policy in this thread; several others did so here as well (the posts after #7 are in English). Before I became a moderator, and before the proofreading policy was established, I exchanged a number of PMs with the moderating team expressing my personal concerns about the issue - it was alarming to me that we were doing homework on behalf of so many students. There were schoolteachers who sent similar PMs.

Putting the moderator hat back on... There are many members who report proofreading requests. There are other members who send us PMs to complain that someone is obviously getting paid for a job that he is not qualified to do. I don't think they would do that if they disapproved of the policy.

I cannot reliably judge whether a member is a student, or a paid professional, or an eager learner who is here for the love of languages. We've decided that it is best to try to be fair and even-handed. I'm fairly confident that there would be complaints in Comments and Suggestions if we were to give proofreading rights to select members; I am absolutely certain that seniority based on post count is no guarantee of honest intent.


----------



## alexacohen

With all due respect, Kelly B.

This is not an issue of "United Foreros Forever Front" opposing the Mod team. Not for me, at least. I speak only for myself. 

I agree with many things some mods have said; and disagree with others. But no amount of disagreement means I'm engaged in a flame war against the mod team. 

And vice-versa, of course.


----------



## Ynez

I find it sensible the way it is now: a really professional translator can get help on some difficult word or expression, and students can ask any question.


----------



## coppergirl

Kelly B said:


> Certainly. It seems to me that the majority of the posts in this thread do, in fact, address that idea. *Of course they do.  That's how it should be, which is why off-topic posts should always be treated the same way by mods, no matter who writes them. *
> 
> I strongly object to the notion that foreros stand in unified opposition to the moderators in this matter. *I didn't mean to imply that they did.  I was only pointing out that the general concerns from the modding point of view appeared to revolve around trying to prevent an abuse of whatever system was in place (logical), and that the people who were suggesting that an alternative forum or option or whatever be considered (these were, by and large, not mods or former mods, but ordinary foreros if you read the posts) appeared to feel that a bit more flexibility would be desired. *
> 
> *I didn't try to group the people with these viewpoints into mods and not mods, so much as observe that they appeared to fall into two categories.  If you prefer, you could think of them as "people who are concerned about abuses to the system" and "people who would prefer to see a bit more flexibility in posting more than one line threads".  It doesn't matter what you call them, the point is, there appear to be two points of view on this one basically.*
> 
> I cannot reliably judge whether a member is a student, or a paid professional, or an eager learner who is here for the love of languages. We've decided that it is best to try to be fair and even-handed. I'm fairly confident that there would be complaints in Comments and Suggestions if we were to give proofreading rights to select members; I am absolutely certain that seniority based on post count is no guarantee of honest intent.


 
*So, basically, the real issue is whether or not the system would be abused.  From what I have read, many people feel that it was abused in the past, hence the change in original policy. *

*On the other hand . . . what WAS the original policy we are discussing?  What I mean is, was it just completely open, so you did find people posted long texts for proofing, whilst others posted only a paragraph?  *

*What I am trying to find out is, were there any original guidelines as to what was allowable posting when the rules were "more than a line allowed"?   Or not?*


----------



## JamesM

I think asking about what policy was in effect before the current policy doesn't make much sense. To me it is akin to asking, "Just what were the driving rules in force before mandatory seat belt laws and were seat belt laws the best or only solution to the problems perceived at the time"? I think sufficient information has been given by panjandrum and links to older threads to satisfy the origin of the policy. 

There have been two viewpoints expressed. The characterization was:



> I think that what has emerged on the mod side is that large chunks of text would open the forum more to misuse by commerical bad-guys, while what has emerged on the part of the foreros is a general feeling that perhaps it would be more useful to have the rules relaxed slight


 
The implication is clear. How does it match with participation so far in this thread? Here's a breakdown. (m) indicates a moderator:

For
 ---------
Alex Murphy
Angel.Aura (m) 
alexacohen
alacant 
lordterrin 
ewie (m) 
lsp 
romarsan 
Quelle
Martina.M
coppergirl
kan3malato

Against
----------
TrentinaNE
Kelly B (m)
PaulFromItaly (m)
panjandrum (m)
cuchuflete (m)
stella_maris_74
CarorlMamkny
gevy (m)
Ynez

Facts dispel characterizations, in my experience. We have 13 who have expressed an opinion in favor of allowing proofreading, 2 of them moderators. We have 9 who have expressed an opinion against allowing proofreading, 5 of them moderators.

There are moderators expressing both viewpoints. There are members expressing both viewpoints. There is no "general feeling on the part of the foreros" nor is there something "that has emerged on the mod side."

Simply looking at the participation in this thread compared to the overall participation in threads on the site, I think it is safe to say that this is a non-issue for the vast majority of users here. This makes the characterization provided by coppergirl even more inaccurate and not helpful for a discussion. 



> *I didn't try to group the people with these viewpoints into mods and not mods*


 
Ah, but you did.

There are a few members who feel strongly about having proofreading allowed. That is clear. There are also a few members who feel strongly about not having proofreading allowed. That is also clear. 

Members are welcome to express their own preference. To begin to speak about "a general feeling on the part of the foreros", though, is overreaching, in my opinion, and not supported by anything I see here or in other threads on this topic. I see no value in creating a phantom "tide of opinion." It is much more useful to discuss individual opinions, as both mods and foreros have done here, than to invoke some "general feeling" to support one's opinion. 

Of course there are two viewpoints expressed here. What else could you have on a "yes/no" type of proposal? I think it might be more useful to say that there are three viewpoints: those in favor of allowing proofreading, those opposed to allowing proofreading, and those who are satisfied with the status quo and are not engaging in this discussion. The vast majority appear to fall into that last category.


----------



## cuchuflete

Since the resuscitation of this thread, it seems to be "beat a dead horse" time.  I'll join the flogging.  I write as an "ordinary member" as the great majority of my posts here have been written in exactly that manner.

Once upon a time... people posted more or less what they pleased.   This included—
1) Requests for proofreading and re-writing of commercial offers;
2) Requests for proofreading and re-writing of school assignments;
3) Requests for proofreading and re-writing of CVs;
4) Requests for proofreading and re-writing of texts for publication.

I often replied to those requests, until I came, belatedly, to notice that there were difficulties with all of the above:

1) Commercial offers: Such requests and responses were taking food from the mouths of hard-working translators and editors, to the benefit of those who preferred 'free' to compensating professionals for their labors.  Some of the replies suffered the errors common to
a portion of thread participants, so perhaps the thread starters got what they paid for. 

2) School assignments: In addition to the obvious ethical problems with this group, (and I do very much care about ethics as both a reader and writer in these forums), a number of teachers objected, properly.  The students were not well served by the cheating.  The piper has to be paid, later if not sooner.  As a teacher, I never found it helpful to a student to do their work for them.

3) CVs: Those who would help a job candidate mis-represent their competency in a native or other language are aiding and abetting dishonest behaviour.  While some people have said that morality is not the concern of the forums, as an individual I find cheating repugnant. Eventually, the candidate, whether or not successful in landing a job, will be discovered as a fraud.  The CD writer loses, the employer loses, and there is rarely anything of general benefit to the WRF community.

4)  Texts for publication: This one may share characteristics with all of the above, including getting others to do work on the cheap, mis-representation, etc.  It is not necessary.  

We have more than one very active participant in EO who presents background, good context, a paraphrase, and a sentence or two for comment.  The specific terms or constructions in question are highlighted.  Everything is honest, clean, direct and congenial.

The same is true of some CV writers.  They identify their purpose, provide a line or phrase, together with an explanation of intent, and ask if it is idiomatic.  Thread titles point to the term in question, rather than "help me with my CV". 


There has been some muddling of the requirement for thread starters to provide adequate context and the desire of some for proofreading facilities.  The former is little beyond an egregious example of common sense.  If we were to open a no-hold-barred proofing sub-forum, the need to remind people to provide context would remain unchanged.  Attempts to confuse or even associate these issues are a red herring.
We know what those are like after a few hours in the sun...

The guidelines of various forums ask for a sentence or two before the one in question, together with the following sentence.  Additional background is also requested.  There is absolutely no issue about posting 300, 400, 500 hundreds words of such context, so long as the thread question refers to a single term or phrase, and there is not a request for re-writing the entire passage.  
_
Switching over to the moderator hat:

The mission of these forums is clearly stated.  For those have yet to stumble across it,
this is it:  _Forum Guidelines.  Many people discover the forums, find them helpful and friendly, and want to expand their purpose and sscope into many additional aspects of language learning.  That's understandable.

It would also dilute the strength of the forums.  That's not to say that the scope won't increase over time.  It has, many times.  Entities that lose focus, and strive to be all things to all people often forget why they came to exist in the first place, and drift into being amorphous blobs.  

Others have referred to how broad the Internet is.  True enough.  There are a multitude of language learning sites, some of which offer various degrees of proofreading help.  For now, that is outside of our scope.  The reasons have been stated many times, both by "ordinary foreros" and by moderators.  

The desire for more proofreading resurfaces from time to time, usually—though not always—stated by relative newcomers who have not read this or other threads on the topic.  The reasoning usually revolves around statements of want, rather than need.  The requests do not typically address any of the points made in post #41.

A final note:  There has been a tendency by some to write as if all proofreading were forbidden, that the forums are highly regimented and inflexible.  This is simply not true.  Limited text may be offered for proofing, so long as the specific point of grammar or vocabulary in question is clearly identified.


----------



## coppergirl

JamesM said:


> Of course there are two viewpoints expressed here. What else could you have on a "yes/no" type of proposal? I think it might be more useful to say that there are three viewpoints: those in favor of allowing proofreading, those opposed to allowing proofreading, and those who are satisfied with the status quo and are not engaging in this discussion. The vast majority appear to fall into that last category.


 
First of all, I very much appreciate a summary of those who posted, since it is always easier to see things quantified. Although you are of course right in saying that there were mods and non-mods on both sides of the Yes/No question, there did seem to be a few more on one side than the other (and I believe Trentina used to be a mod, no?), which was the only point I was generally making.

(BTW, for anyone who followed that earlier thread on "If mods were not encouraged to participate in C&S" from a few weeks back, if you take out any mods or former mods from this discussion in terms of opinions offered, the results look a bit more like: 10 - Yes and 3 - No. (*Edit . . with Kittykate 3 posts down, that makes 11 - YES) *This doesn't actually prove anything, of course, except that without a better way to sample the viewpoints of most of the other foreros, it would be a little silly for any of us to draw any conclusions based on threads like this about what most users think or feel. )

All the same, without a head count of everyone in the forum, as I have said before, very little can really be achieved in these C&S threads generally since the overall tendency tends to be 

1) new idea suggested/proposed
2) those in agreement state their feelings
3) those not in agreement state theirs
4) there is a general conclusion that the silent majority is happy
5) case closed, usually by a mod, summing up exactly why it won't work, didn't work, isn't feasible and won't really be considered

This is just a pattern I've noticed, so I'll probably save myself (and you kind readers out there) quite a bit of hassle in future by jumping straight to step 5 and joining the vast-but-silent majority in what will be assumed to be my acceptance of the status quo.

Thanks to all for listening to my ideas, and once again, I very much appreciated the opportunity to read some of what I considered to be your really interesting and original ideas too. 

Special thanks to Alex for starting the thread, as I think it was an idea well worth considering. 

This is coppergirl signing . . . . off! 

PS And . . . have a nice night, evening, afternoon or morning wherever you all are in the world!


----------



## Martina.M

cuchuflete said:


> While some people have said that morality is not the concern of the forums, as an individual I find cheating repugnant. Eventually, the candidate, whether or not successful in landing a job, will be discovered as a fraud. The CD writer loses, the employer loses, and there is rarely anything of general benefit to the WRF community.
> [...]
> A final note: There has been a tendency by some to write as if all proofreading were forbidden, that the forums are highly regimented and inflexible. This is simply not true. Limited text may be offered for proofing, so long as the specific point of grammar or vocabulary in question is clearly identified.


 

I would like to clear one thing and ask a question.

1. You would be amazed on how I care about morality. I just did not think that a moderator's tasks should iclude guessing the right a forero has to ask for something, because it is way too hard! Unless, of course, it is made obvious.

2. The question: what is exactly proofreading then? Until now I had understood that me posting a sentence - even a 10 or 20 words one, just to say a number, not that it actually happened , giving my translation and asking "does this work?" is proofreading. And then it is absolutely forbidden.

As I said, I'm happy to follow the rules - just help me understand them:
- What is proofreading?
- Is there any way or moment or dimension in which I can post a sentence or two and have it checked in the forum - without going against the rules?

Now, ladies and gentlemen, let me say that I'd never imagined proofreading could have such a power on human desire as to make such a long discussion about it. But I'm happy to meet you all 

Goodnight


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Martina.M said:


> 2. The question: what is exactly proofreading then? Until now I had understood that me posting a sentence - even a 10 or 20 words one, just to say a number, not that it actually happened , giving my translation and asking "does this work?" is proofreading. And then it is absolutely forbidden.
> 
> As I said, I'm happy to follow the rules - just help me understand them:
> - What is proofreading?
> - Is there any way or moment or dimension in which I can post a sentence or two and have it checked in the forum - without going against the rules?



But..did you carefully read all the threads about this amusing topic? 
Someone else already asked this question..
You said you're happy to follow our rules, so I guess you mean all our rules, number 1 included:



> 1 - Look for the answer first.
> Check the WordReference dictionaries if available (and scroll down for a list of related threads)
> *or use the forum's search function.*


 Proofreading?


----------



## kittykate

JamesM said:


> How does it match with participation so far in this thread? Here's a breakdown. (m) indicates a moderator:
> 
> For
> ---------
> Alex Murphy
> *kittykate*
> Angel.Aura (m)
> alexacohen
> alacant
> lordterrin
> ewie (m)
> lsp
> romarsan
> Quelle
> Martina.M
> coppergirl
> kan3malato


 
You left me out, James, so I hope you don't mind if I put myself back in 



cuchuflete said:


> Since the resuscitation of this thread, it seems to be "beat a dead horse" time. I'll join the flogging.
> (...)


 
Your post is outstandingly comprehensive, cuchuflete. The only case missing, though, is exactly the case that started all this: a few lines of translation that a senior member felt like doing just for the fun of it and asked us to proofread for him. Innocent, full stop.
Alex is a well-known member in the IE forum and all the mods and us senior foreros know that he is not cheating nor does he mean any harm.

I stated my viewpoint on a proofreading forum in several other posts in this and other threads, and I'm not going to repeat it. 
But there's one last thing I feel like saying. Someone complains about how we always refer to "personal cases", or something to that effect - but what else should we refer to? WRF is not an automatic translator, or is it? 
If you read the replies to the Getting to know each other questionnaire you'll find so many foreros saying that the best thing about WRF is the nice _people_ you can find here. 
People make the dictionary. People make the fora. People make WRF what it is. And people may sometimes take it personally, if their innocent few lines are deleted.

This said, if _*the rules*_ say we can't have proofreading, then obviously we won't. 

caterina


----------



## JamesM

Sorry about dropping you out of the list, caterina. My post was beautifully lined up before I posted it and it turned into scrambled eggs after I posted it. I had to go back and untangle it into two separate lists. Your name _was _on my original list but my spacing was lost. Somehow in the editing you got dropped.


----------



## kittykate

No problem, James - as long as I _was_ on your original list...   

caterina


EDIT: It just struck me that this 


			
				JamesM said:
			
		

> We have 13 who have expressed an opinion in favor of allowing proofreading, 2 of them moderators. We have 9 who have expressed an opinion against allowing proofreading, 5 of them moderators.


might be slightly incorrect, in that neither Angel.Aura nor ewie were yet mods, when they posted in favor. They may have changed their mind since. Would that change the picture any?


----------



## cuchuflete

Martina.M said:


> 2. The question: what is exactly proofreading then? Until now I had understood that me posting a sentence - even a 10 or 20 words one, just to say a number, not that it actually happened , giving my translation and asking "does this work?" is proofreading. And then it is absolutely forbidden.
> 
> As I said, I'm happy to follow the rules - just help me understand them:
> - What is proofreading?
> - Is there any way or moment or dimension in which I can post a sentence or two and have it checked in the forum - without going against the rules?  _{Highlighting added.}_



These are certainly fair questions, Martina.  The answers vary among monolingual and multi-lingual forums.  I'll address what is, and what is not, an acceptable proofing request in the English Only forum.  First the easy part--what is off limmts:
A forero writes a long paragraph, and posts it with the following request:
"Hey people,  Please check the grammar, and let me know if there are better ways to say any of this.  Thanks in advance."
​That sort of thing appears on a daily basis, normally from new members who haven't read the forum rules or English Only Guidelines
.  Such threads are an invitation to wholesale copy editing and rewriting.  They are deleted, or closed with an invitation to read this:

<  READ ME FIRST - Rules. FAQs. Links to external grammar, pronunciation and other resources.  >
*☛☛  *
*— Proofreading/ Text for Correction*​What is an acceptable proofing request?  I invite you to look at any of the threads started by Sextus.  He is a native Spanish speaker who writes very well in English, and often asks for comments on a specific word or phrase or syntactical construction in English.  The threads are very interesting, and of potential benefit to many foreros in addition to the thread starter.  His questions are always clearly stated and specific.

Another example of acceptable proofreading:  A forero writes a paragraph of, say, four sentences, and posts all of it as context.  She asks for comments about a particular verb tense, or about whether the third sentence sounds idiomatic in British English.

Such threads often elicit conversations that are highly beneficial to the thread starter and to others, and the threads can be very far ranging in scope.

If you were to post a twenty or thirty word sentence in English in the EO forum, and ask if it is "correct", other members would often ask you for additional context, if you had not already provided it.  Some might ask for your own paraphrase, to fully understand your intentions in writing the sentence.  Then, with sufficient background, people would discuss your sentence.  

The borderline between a valid and useful thread, and one that is not acceptable, is often established by the quality of background and context provided, and the specificity of the question.  "Is this ok?" is not a particularly
useful question by itself.  A fair answer to such a spartan query might very well be "yes" or "no" and nothing more.  

I'll leave it to those from the translation forums to add any particulars, including possible differences, that they may have.  In Vocabulario general, for example, there is a specific word count limitation.  This is intended to avoid large scale proofing and rewriting requests, and to keep conversations focused on identified topics.  

If you have further questions, especially about a specific example, you might be best served by discussing them in detail with a moderator from the forum in which you would like to post.


----------



## JamesM

coppergirl said:


> All the same, without a head count of everyone in the forum, as I have said before, very little can really be achieved in these C&S threads generally since the overall tendency tends to be
> 
> 1) new idea suggested/proposed
> 2) those in agreement state their feelings
> 3) those not in agreement state theirs
> 4) there is a general conclusion that the silent majority is happy
> 5) case closed, usually by a mod, summing up exactly why it won't work, didn't work, isn't feasible and won't really be considered
> 
> This is just a pattern I've noticed,


 
Perhaps this perception has to do with the type of threads one chooses to be involved in. 

Of the hundreds of threads in Comments & Suggestions recently, only a few have been about creating unmoderated sections of the board. Coincidentally, they are the threads you have chosen to be involved in to the point that nearly one in four of your recent posts have been in one of these threads.

This is just a pattern I've noticed.  

Many suggestions have been taken onboard and implemented, but not in the particular area in which you have expressed so much interest.


----------



## Martina.M

Morning, Paul. 
I have read everything about the topic carefully, but it is not easy for someone who is not an expert in WRF rules to have a clear idea about proofeading's limits, because rules are not the same in the different fora. That is why I asked for an ultimate definition.

Thank you for the explanation, chuchuflete.

Good day to you all.


----------



## coppergirl

JamesM said:


> Many suggestions have been taken onboard and implemented, but not in the particular area in which you have expressed so much interest.


 
Hi James and everybody!

Gosh, I hope what you suggest is true, and that lots of suggestions have been taken on board and implemented.  

Actually, whatever you could do to help me change my perceptions of C&S would be greatly appreciated.  Of course, like the other 2000+ people who have read this thread, I'm also an avid reader of C&S although I don't often participate in the threads, mainly because I am under the impression that not a lot of C&S threads are acted upon all that much, so my participation is not really going to make much difference to what actually gets achieved or acted upon.

Of course, there is no reason *all* the ideas in C&S should  be acted upon, since any threads here naturally represent a very biased sample of the forum for a lot of reasons, and so there is always a very good argument to be made (and which seems to be made very often) for not changing anything due to "insufficient interest on the part of the majority" (although this tends to happen mostly based on a lot of unproven assumptions about "the majority").  

Without more information, these thread topics tend to fall by the wayside, with the original posters thinking originally "Wow! Great!  Others feel as I do---look at all the people who've agreed with my idea!" only to find that later in the thread a lot of others, often associated with the management team, come in saying why it can't work, didn't work, won't work, isn't necessary and won't be implemented. 

Without more information on what most others would like to see happen, and without any real enthusiasm for either changes, improvements or flexibility on the part of the management team, threads like this one tend to seem rather futile and quickly turn into a rather impotent discussion which goes around in circles.  The thread is either closed because people lose their tempers or go too far, or else relegated to the scrap heap of cyberspace ideas.  

This isn't a huge problem for me personally, since as others have pointed out, there are lots of other internet spaces and places to go and lots of people from this forum have already explored them.  But all the same, it just seems that "Comments and Suggestions" is a great place to discuss ideas, as long as they're not new ideas, but rather ideas for things which already exist, or which already are enthusiastically espoused by the management team.  

The way I interpret this discussion (and this is purely my own reading of it, and so may be way off base and I accept that from the start), is that quite a few foreros (admittedly excluding moderators, and former moderators) said they would welcome the idea of either a proof-reading sub-forum, or else at least being allowed to post larger chunks of text for consideration and translation.  The last count was 11 in favour and 3 not in favour, based on original posts as they were tallied up (admittedly this only takes account of "ordinary" foreros in the thread with no moderator or management team input, so that has to be remembered too).

Does a majority here make it a GOOD idea?  Not necessarily either.  That depends on how it would be put into practice. and on how many people in the rest of the forum really would like to see it (and we have no way of really knowing this).  

When I tried to query how it HAD been put into practice formerly (in an attempt to find out what EXACTLY were the problems the moderators had with it originally), you suggested that a more in-depth discussion of that issue would not provide any useful information.  I actually thought it might be helpful to see what the flaws were in the original system when proofreading was allowed (which flaws cuchu pointed out extensively) but more with a view to finding out whether it was worth considering a change in the original structure which might prove feasible and acceptable to those moderating the forum, but in a modified form. 

Although I think it was a good idea that Alex had for allowing larger chunks of text or proofreading to be allowed , without further information on what went wrong in the past, what exactly WAS allowed, what most forum members would like to see etc, there is no way any of us can really comment on either its advantages or disadvantages in an intelligent and effective manner. 

So, once again, I can only think that the real conclusion is that such discussions don't really seem to lead to any actual structural changes (other than some technical things like additional buttons and features and gadgetry which is, I suppose, in its own way useful enough). 

If I've got this completely wrong, then I beg everyone's pardon and consequently look forward to seeing whatever great ideas for structural changes come out of the C&S forum in future.


----------



## cuchuflete

The quoted post is largely off-topic, but it stands here as a monument to the _tolerance_ of the evil mod constabulary. It is full of clever debate techniques that attempt to create—out of thin air—a false sense of us _vs._ them.  When these straw man scenarios are exposed with facts, they are retracted with innocent protestations.  "Oh, I certainly didn't mean _that_."

Bah! and Humbug!  Good debaters and agit-prop practitioners know the value of repeated slurs and shams.  Repeat a falsehood often enough, and some folks begin to assume it has fundamental merit.

I see dozens of reports daily from foreros who want proofreading requests removed.  Dozens.  That is a bigger number than the sum of all the participants in this thread.  They are not a silent majority.  They are active members of the community.  



			
				coppergirl said:
			
		

> Gosh, I hope what you suggest is true, and that lots of suggestions have been taken on board and implemented.   Gosh, I hope that a member here since 2006 has seen the suggestions that have been taken on board and implemented.  I don't have to hope that what James wrote is true.  I know it is true.  The thinly veiled suggestion that it might not be true is an insult, and should be retracted with a straightforward apology, without further hints that it is anything other than accurate.
> Of course, like the other 2000+ people who have read this thread, I'm also an avid reader of C&S _although I don't often participate in the threads, [Emphasis added].    This is not a true statement.  Forum search shows 47 of your posts in just the last three months have been in the C&S forum. _
> 
> Of course, there is no reason *all* the ideas in C&S should  be acted upon, since any threads here naturally represent a very biased sample of the forum ... and so there is always a very good argument to be made ... for not changing anything due to "insufficient interest on the part of the majority" (although this tends to happen mostly based on a lot of unproven assumptions about "the majority").  Some folks find it convenient to make all sorts of assumptions about the discontent of the silent majority.  Proof has been scarce, limited to thin gruel such as "I've had some PMs...". I too have had some PMs.  Are yours more representative of the "majority view"?  Why should we believe that?
> Why does the poor, beleagured (non-existent?) "silent majority" suffer in silence?  Perchance it is waiting for a heroic figure to carry its cause, deftly wielding innuendo and selective interpretations, unsubstantiated by fact.
> 
> Without more information, these thread topics tend to fall by the wayside, with the original posters thinking originally "Wow! Great!  Others feel as I do---look at all the people who've agreed with my idea!" ...  "There you go again,"
> said some famous communicator.  "...these thread topics..."  Precisely which thread topics are you referring to?  Let's name names, shall we.  No more sweeping generalities.
> 
> "Look at all the people who've agreed with my idea!"   Indeed.  By your own count, it is 11 people, including yourself, not from what you clearly consider the enemy camp.  Most of those people came to this thread with honest requests and questions. Most are not using the proofing topic as a pretext for pot-stirring, making false accusations.
> Without more information on what most others would like to see happen, and without any real enthusiasm for either changes, improvements or flexibility on the part of the management team,  Note the preceding accusation.  Dozens of new forums in the past few years are not improvements?  Horsefeathers, my dear! Continuous upgrades to forum software, including customized code, and frequent upgrades to server hardware must be more examples of resistance to change and improvements.    I call the accusation disingenuous, if not outright trollish.
> threads like this one tend to seem rather futile and quickly turn into a rather impotent discussion which goes around in circles.  While it spins in circles, who has addressed the points in post #41?  Are they real?  If so, why not answer them?  If they are not valid, why not point out why, instead of harping?
> 
> This isn't a huge problem for me personally, Gosh, if it's of so little concern, why the  incessant repetitions?  You said yesterday that you were done with this thread.  Why come back to repeat that?
> 
> 
> 
> coppergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is coppergirl signing . . . . off!
> 
> 
> 
> ... it just seems that "Comments and Suggestions" is a great place to discuss ideas, as long as they're not new ideas,  This thread is an  example of an old idea. What is new here? but rather ideas for things which already exist...
> ...quite a few foreros (admittedly excluding moderators, and former moderators) said they would welcome the idea of either a proof-reading sub-forum, ...  The last count was 11 in favour and 3 not in favour, ... (admittedly this only takes account of "ordinary" foreros in the thread with no moderator or management team input...).
> 
> "Quite a few" = 11 by your own count, that disenfranchises moderators (who have been known to be very active as foreros, but you have decided that such participation is somehow tainted, and should not count) and even a forero with the stigma of having been one.
> 
> Suppose it were 111 rather than 11?  By what statistical chicanery would this be representative of non-participants?   This is not a random sample, you cannot measure non-response bias, and the 11 good people speak for themselves.  They have my respect for saying what they think.  So do those with contrary positions.
> 
> Does a majority here make it a GOOD idea?  Not necessarily either.  That depends on how it would be put into practice. and on how many people in the rest of the forum really would like to see it (and we have no way of really knowing this).  We agree.  We have no way of knowing if those who have not read this thread, or have glanced at it and not commented, are—
> —proponents of some of the proposals stated here
> —Anti-vivisectionists
> —In favor of a portion, but in firm disagreement with other parts
> —Adamantly opposed
> —Uninterested in the matter
> —In favor of removal of any and all limitations
> —More concerned with the difference between the conditional andl subjunctive tenses
> 
> Since "we have no way of really knowing this" it seems rather arrogant to presume that they all think the same way, doesn't it?
> 
> ...I actually thought it might be helpful to see what the flaws were in the original system... (which flaws cuchu pointed out extensively) but more with a view to finding out whether it was worth considering a change in the original structure which might prove feasible and acceptable to those moderating the forum, but in a modified form. Nice generalities.  Is there a specific proposal lurking between the lines, or is this just another argument for the sake of arguing?  What precise parts of the history do you find unlikely to hold true today?
> 
> 
> Although I think it was a good idea that Alex had for allowing larger chunks of text or proofreading to be allowed , without further information on what went wrong in the past, what exactly WAS allowed,   You have had what _you_ called an extensive reply about what was allowed and what went wrong.  Is it time to stop pretending that the question was not addressed? (Read post # 41, which addressed your question before you raised it.)  what most forum members would like to see etc, there is no way any of us can really comment on either its advantages or disadvantages in an intelligent and effective manner.
> 
> So, once again, ... such discussions don't really seem to lead to any actual structural changes  This comment presumes that structural changes are inherently a good thing to strive for.  That may be true if something is broken or badly deficient, or if some major opportunity is being missed for lack of a structural upheaval.  So tell us, please, specifically and precisely what is in need of a major overhaul, and why.  Offer your best thinking about the large opportunities yet to be addressed by structural change.
> 
> If I've got this completely wrong, then I beg everyone's pardon and consequently look forward to seeing whatever great ideas for structural changes come out of the C&S forum in future.
Click to expand...


I apologize for not having had the time to address every bogus generality in the quoted post.  I hope the few examples I've contested will be of some help.  

Best regards to all from an ordinary member and moderator, writing without any artificial attempt to separate ideas into one "camp" or another.  

*
Moderators: Please feel totally free to delete this off-topic reply to an off-topic post.
*


----------



## Martina.M

Chuchuflete, chill out, for goodness sake.

I, innocent newly arrived forera, raised up this debate that was silent since March because I felt the need to be able to have sentences generally checked bla bla bla... 

So it was a NEW problem, because it was a present one for me. Apparently, as a dammed mummy, it is a debate that should not be awakened - otherwise the peace in the forum will be over.

Now this is my absolutely into-the-topic (as it has to do what has been said here) statement:
If this is not a democracy but a business *then we are clients*. You mods - good and bad ones ;-) - don't get paid for this, but still work for and therefore represent the business.

So if we are clients, do not get mad at people making a complaint! Say "we are sorry, ma'am, I understand, and we are working to make this foro a better place for you and your loved ones". Again, and again, no matter how insistant the client is.

Otherwise say it is a democracy and let us all vote!

But please calm down!


----------



## stella_maris_74

Martina.M said:


> *then we are clients*.



This service is free. Therefore we're not "clients".
We are users of a free online resource, and a great one at that in my opinion: we take something valuable from it (responses to our queries, contacts with quite a few nice people, the chance to engage in some very interesting linguistic debates...), we give something in return when we help others.
All of this is done on a voluntary basis by each and any of the participants, mods included.

That's it. I don't think that this entitles any of us to call the shots here or demand things that, as has been repeatedly explained with plenty of motivations, fall outside the scope and "mission" of this place.

But even if we were actually clients, you don't go to an Italian restaurant and demand kebab, on the assumption that you really have a craving for it just that night and after all it's always food, do you?


Ciao 

dani


----------



## Martina.M

I was responding to this:


TrentinaNE said:


> WordReference is also not a democracy, but a business. You might want to review the owner's philosophy here.
> 
> Elisabetta



I understand what you say, I exagerated the terms to make them clear.
I'm very happy with WR, it is extremely useful, I am grateful of its existence.

I do not agree with actually being angry for users asking for things, like saying that the idea is neither a new one or a good one (quote needed here). 

The main point of my post stays: calm down.

Thank you.


----------



## panjandrum

Martina.M said:


> [...]
> 
> So if we are clients, do not get mad at people making a complaint! Say "we are sorry, ma'am, I understand, and we are working to make this foro a better place for you and your loved ones". Again, and again, no matter how insistant the client is.
> 
> Otherwise say it is a democracy and let us all vote!
> 
> But please calm down!


First, I don't see anyone getting mad.

Second, I don't see anyone making a complaint.

What I do see is a repeated campaign by a very, very small number of people to have this forum provide a service that it has decided not to provide.  They are of course entitled to their opinion, but if I can't readily persuade my local newsagent to stock Orangutan Monthly I don't protest loudly and repeatedly that he is giving a poor service.  In fact I don't bother much trying to persuade him.  I have better things to do with my time, so has he, and we are both content that I get my Orangutan Monthly elsewhere.

Oh, yes, and I forgot to say - see you again when the thread gets to 120 posts.


----------



## Nunty

Martina, Cuchuflete was addressing Coppergirl's post in which she repeated the same shopworn arguments she trots out each time she decides to get involved in a C&S thread. With great respect, as "a newly arrived forera" you may not be fully aware of all the history.

You asked a fair question and received a fair answer. If the proofreading policies are still not clear to you, please keep asking questions. 

Coppergirl, on the other hand, has taken this far beyond the question of proofreading and turned it into class struggle, as she frequently does, appointing herself standard bearer for the downtrodden and using familiar rhetorical gambits to change the subject and twist the tone. I am sorry that you feel caught in the crossfire, Martina; it is certainly not anyone's intention.

We mods - and I am one of the newest ones - are foreros. We are users just like you. The customers of WR are the dictionary users. We forum users - all of us, not just the mods - help WR by creating forum discussions that supplement the dictionaries. In return we get value in kind: high level, substantive editorial and translating help and language learning.

That's it. It's not rocket science. Value for value. WordReference gives me more than I give it, so I keep coming back. Economics.


----------



## Moon Palace

If I may, I will add my modest participation here: 
As a forum member, I have received quite a few PMs asking me to proofread different kinds of documents, and although I quite like to give a hand when it comes to understanding a sentence, an idiomatic phrase, or a specific word, I don't feel the same regarding wider documents. 
Firstly, I believe personal hard work is the only way towards the good command of a language, as all of us learners know well. And the safeguard of proofreading does not entice one to outdo himself / herself in the first place when working. 
Secondly, as a forero, I enjoy devoting a few minutes to answering one or two questions, and this is like break time for me . I wouldn't enjoy proofreading a document in the same way. 

Of course, this is only my personal feeling on this topic. Yet, regarding a potential 'vote of customers' (I have trouble reconciling the concept of 'customers' with that of 'democracy' I must admit), I would warn against what Tocqueville called 'the tyranny of the majority' . There might be a majority wishing for novelties, yet these novelties may not benefit the whole of the forum society... or it may also be not feasible at all. 
 And I, who asked for a literary forum, know well what I am talking about..


----------



## kan3malato

Martina.M said:


> Chuchuflete, chill out, for goodness sake.
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is my absolutely into-the-topic (as it has to do what has been said here) statement:
> If this is not a democracy but a business *then we are clients*. You mods - good and bad ones ;-) - don't get paid for this, but still work for and therefore represent the business.
> 
> So if we are clients, do not get mad at people making a complaint! Say "we are sorry, ma'am, I understand, and we are working to make this foro a better place for you and your loved ones". Again, and again, no matter how insistant the client is.
> 
> Otherwise say it is a democracy and let us all vote!
> 
> But please calm down!


That's   more or less  what I said in my post:


> You (a professional translator) get a job your paid for proofread by native speakers for free.
> 
> I do not believe this is the scope of WRF.
> well, at end of the day you have been doing a job(mod) for free, where "He"(the owner's forum)"makes money with this forum, with your and our work (o no?).


http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=5360694&postcount=57


----------



## TrentinaNE

> well, at end of the day you have been doing a job(mod) for free, where "He"(the owner's forum)"makes money with this forum, with your and our work (o no?).


Unlike the professional translator of Paul's example, no one associated with the running of the WR forums has misrepresented anything. I don't know exactly how the WR owner makes money from the WR dictionaries (perhaps it's primarily through ads on the site), but I do know that everyone contributing to the forums either gets more value than they give up or they're behaving irrationally. 

Elisabetta


----------



## Revontuli

I think Panj's explanation is clear enough...
So, I don't think we should let others exploit WRF once again. I'm sure the same problems would repeat.

I understand and appreciate all efforts to make WRF a better place for every forero. But, as far as I can see, after some time, the suggestions turn out to be complaints and the whole thread gets off-aim...

But, I'm not for the suggestion.


----------



## danielfranco

Sniff... sniff...

Ah, you guys, you left me out of the accounting of opinions. Maybe I was too elliptical when I said what I said back in page one or two of this sausage-like thread.

Anyway, let me come out in the open and declare myself either "Us" or "Them".

I am a professional interpreter/translator. Because I often use this forum while working, then it follows that I am also a professional forero (  ).

I say, *NO to proofreading*. Ever. In any guise. I have received billions of PM's requesting proofreading, and I always answer them, each one, the same way: "Please post your questions in the forum. I am not a free service to nobody (except my children)."

And then, once I see the PM writer post his proofreading post, I rush to report it to the mods.


Now, should you still be interested in sending me PM's for proofreading, allow me to give you my PayPal account number. After a brief but violent round of negociations, I'm sure we can come to some sort of understanding about my fees.

[And, for those of you wondering, "why would anyone pay this palooka anything?," I say, "please, don't say anything to my employers! They don't know I get most of my translations off WRF's!!"]

D


----------



## ewie

I've just suddenly remembered that a few months ago _[page 2: March]_ I agreed with the principle of a proofreading forum.
I'm now wavering waivering wobbling. Please bear this in mind in future statistical analyses.


----------



## SwissPete

Ninety-two posts so far! Can I add my two cents?

Considering how divided the opinions seem to be, perhaps we should make provisions for proofreading.

I can see a forum where members wanting their work to be proofread could post a request. It would include the language (and the original language if it is a translation), the length, the subject, but not the text to be proofread itself.

Members interested in providing proofreading services could check that forum, and communicate with the requester by PM.

This would require no work or intervention from the moderators, and would put no pressure on other members.

-------------------------------

I have read all posts with interest. I agree that helping somebody misrepresent himself / herself is unethical. I agree that proofreading of long texts (especially commercial ones) is wrong and should rightly be performed by paid professionals. The points for and against proofreading have been eloquently made over and over. There are too many of us to ever be able to reach a consensus (and we are not a democracy anyway ). So perhaps the time has come for the WR decision takers to take a decision.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Wow - a storm inside so many brains...

As a plain, non-professional forero, I say _NO_ to proofreading in forums.

Of course, proof-reading interesting texts for intelligent foreros would be a pleasure.
_But _allowing it would be like saying _Please don't walk on the grass - unless you do it in a careful and respectful manner_.
At once the lawn would be packed with families around BBQs, and the smell of burning sausages would discourage any respectful and careful visitor to come back ever again.
I fully agree with Moon Palace: big "yes" to precise, focused questions. Big "no" for "hello, can you correct my essay thanks".

As to the _democracy vs. customer/supplier_ aspect of the thread and, more generally, of WRF:
I don't feel like a customer here - it seems to me I'm getting more from WRF than I'm giving. So I'm not entitled to say "not enough for my money"!
I don't feel like an elector either - if I can't find here what I'm looking for, I ask - and if the answer is "no", I look elsewhere.

I have no rights whatsoever here - Foreros & Mods (all ex-foreros) make up (as seen from my standpoint) a group of friends with many common interests. The rules that apply here are the same as within any bunch of friends: you are free to pick up your friends, not to mutate them...


----------



## Revontuli

> As to the _democracy vs. customer/supplier_ aspect of the thread and, more generally, of WRF:
> I don't feel like a customer here - it seems to me *I'm getting more from WRF* than I'm giving. So I'm not entitled to say "not enough for my money"!
> I don't feel like an elector either - if I can't find here what I'm looking for, I ask - and if the answer is "no", I look elsewhere.


----------



## Alxmrphi

panj said:
			
		

> but if I can't readily persuade my local newsagent to stock Orangutan Monthly I don't protest loudly and repeatedly that he is giving a poor service. In fact I don't bother much trying to persuade him. I have better things to do with my time, so has he, and we are both content that I get my Orangutan Monthly elsewhere.


 
Come on Panj, apples and oranges. 
How does this relate to the issue, you can't just make up some other analogies that might sound stupid and try to pull that sense of sillyness and make it seem as if this issue is the same.


----------



## Loob

Apples and oranges? Don't understand you

Panj made, it seems to me, a valid and relevant point about the objectives of WRF.

Which are, when you read the rules threads, pretty clear.

Of course, we can argue, from within, for a change to individual rules. Personally, I'm rather proud about having prompted a change in the wording of a couple of them.

Which just shows, I guess, that individual foreros can change things when working with "the spirit of WRF".

And that Mike and the mods _listen_.


----------



## emma42

I agree with Loob.  Panj's analogy might be amusing, but it is valid.


----------



## Revontuli

Why doesn't it relate to the issue?
I think it perfectly does.

1- _'' but if I can't readily persuade my local newsagent to stock Orangutan Monthly I don't protest loudly and repeatedly that he is giving a poor service''=>_ The mods says there have been many PMs and posts so far about proofreading. If there was something they could do, or if they had a plan to make proofreading possible, they'd have already done that, wouldn't they? So, his example relates to the issue.

2- And though proofreading is not allowed/limited, isn't the forum itself run perfectly? Aren't we pleased with WRF? I think it is, by Mike, the mod-team and all foreros. So, Panj doesn't waste much time on it -protesting-, goes on as he's done so far; we get the best of everything in WRF, are content and still here.


----------



## TrentinaNE

SwissPete said:


> So perhaps the time has come for the WR decision takers to take a decision.


They have. General proof-reading requests are not allowed. I'm amazed this thread is still open.

Elisabetta


----------



## Martina.M

panjandrum said:


> First, I don't see anyone getting mad.
> 
> Second, I don't see anyone making a complaint.
> 
> What I do see is a repeated campaign by a very, very small number of people to have this forum provide a service that it has decided not to provide.  They are of course entitled to their opinion, but if I can't readily persuade my local newsagent to stock Orangutan Monthly I don't protest loudly and repeatedly that he is giving a poor service.  In fact I don't bother much trying to persuade him.  I have better things to do with my time, so has he, and we are both content that I get my Orangutan Monthly elsewhere.
> 
> Oh, yes, and I forgot to say - see you again when the thread gets to 120 posts.



Hi Panja,

I thought post #81 was slightly irritated. 
And yes, I saw a complaint - or two - on how requests are taken in the forum (be it a fair or an unfair one).

What did you mean about the 120 posts?

Thanks.


----------



## coppergirl

TrentinaNE said:


> They have. General proof-reading requests are not allowed. I'm amazed this thread is still open.
> 
> Elisabetta


 
Yeah, Elisabetta, so am I. 

A few quick things to clarify. First, my own opinions offered were not intended to provoke anyone into anger. They were, I thought, largely rational and there were no peresonal attacks made against anyone. 

Futhermore, I don't refer to anyone else's arguments are spurious, and so would appreciate it if people considered the actual points in mine rather than the style. If I am incorrect, I will usually be the first to admit it, in light of additional evidence to the contrary. It is true, for example, that in terms of additional fora added, the WRF has been somewhat responsive to people's requests to add some additional ones, as cuchu pointed out in post 81. 

Second, I am not a "standard-bearer" for anyone, although I can think of far worse things to be called than "the standard bearer for the downtrodden" since, actually, that, if it were true, would be not such a bad thing to be.  I only wish more people actually behaved as such. I know this is off-topic, but I'm just clarifying what seemed, to me, to be a statement about me personally. I know such are not generally permitted, but since this one "slipped through", I thought I should probably clarify. 

Third, as far as the proof-reading sub-forum goes, if a decision has been taken already, then why are we still discussing this at all? If a decision was taken originally, then why was this thread allowed to be open to discussion? I'm genuinely confused as to why, if the topic is a "closed" topic, why it was allowed to be discussed at all and not closed at post number 1??  Surely that would have saved us all a lot of time, wouldn't it? 

PS  Panjandrum --- up to 103!   Don't forget your promise to come in again at 120.


----------



## Grop

coppergirl said:


> If a decision was taken originally, then why was this thread allowed to be open to discussion? I'm genuinely confused as to why, if the topic is a "closed" topic, why it was allowed to be discussed at all and not closed at post number 1??



I am not sure the decision was firmly taken before post #1 (which looks like an honest question, btw). Now, I suspect the one reason for this topic to be still open*, is that someone is making claims about the mods being so nasty and controlling everything (nothing personal of course).

* (although it's been 60 posts since we haven't read a strong argument against Panjo's - only irrational arguments and discussion about the discussion - methinks)


----------



## cherine

I'll take the risk to be the "nasty mod", and I'm closing this thread.

It's true that it had to be closed right after Panjandrum's extensive and very clear explanation in post # 41, but I guess no one expected that there would've been any need to discuss the matter any further.


----------

