# replacing the emoticon representing a red cross



## Moon Palace

Hello everybody,  

I have just had an idea, after seeing several  in different posts. I must admit I may be influenced by my job, but I think that in fact they are rather aggressive, especially for new members. Couldn't we think of a less aggressive way of pointing mistakes? Even the  seems to me rather unpleasant at the least. 
Even if mistakes should indeed be pointed out, I have a hunch that a nicer emoticon may be more representative of the atmosphere of the forums than these red mulettas... 
Looking forward to other foreros' opinions , 
MP


----------



## Michelvar

Hi MP!

Je suis tout-à-fait d'accord. De la même façon, je regrette parfois de n'avoir pas plus de choix dans les émoticônes surtout pour les messages personnels.
En revanche, n'étant pas familier du fonctionnement de Vbulletin, je ne sais pas s'il est possible d'intégrer des émoticônes personnalisés. Sinon, une pancarte "correct" et "not correct" pourrait convenir.

EDIT Sorry, multilingual forum...
I agree with you. All the same, I would like to have a wider emoticon choice, especially for Personnal Messages.
I don't know if customized emoticons are allowed on Vbulletin fora, a sign "correct" and "not correct" could do the trick.


----------



## Rallino

I don't see how a red cross cross is perceived as aggressive. Do you find the green check tick as friendly/polite, then? 
Is it the colour, maybe?

I think that replying with a plain _"No, it's totally wrong." _ is more aggressive than a little mark that shows that a given phrase/sentence/idea is incorrect. And most of the time, when people use the red cross, they also explain why it is wrong, which is kind.

Personally I don't agree that these two emoticons have anything to do with the register/aggression. I have always found them quite helpful and practical since the very first day I started frequenting the forums.


----------



## Fernando

Just my personal opinion: 
I dislike emoticons, crosses and tick-marks. If I want to say someone has written something incorrectly, then I write 'That is incorrect'.

Said that, I do not see a red cross as negative (does it remind me of 'the other' Red Cross or the Burgundy Cross, once an unofficial Spanish flag?). Anyhow, the red cross is there to convey a negative meaning: something is incorrect, bad, ugly, dirty and rotten. Why should it be 'positive'?


----------



## Moon Palace

I see your point, Rallino, and I agree that when you answer the question "is my sentence correct?", the red cross may then not appear as aggressive. The use I had in mind was actually quite different: the red cross was not used to answer a similar question, but to point out a mistake in previous posts, using the "reply with quotation" and marking the mistake with a red cross. Maybe then it is more this kind of use which I see as aggressive rather than the cross itself. I just feel that poiting mistakes can be helpful provided you are not branded as an ignorant, and I fear this might be a way of seeing the red cross when you didn't ask to have your contributions marked like a pupil's work. 
Hope I have been clearer.


----------



## Michelvar

Yes, I see what you mean. We must be moderate, certainly there could be something less "flashy" than the red cross, but the tone of a post is given by the global post. 

What we do, here, is a team work, it's not a problem to have your proposals discussed.

I agree that, for newcomers, a red cross can be surprising, but for us answering to original posters, as we know the meaning of this red cross, it would be misplaced touchiness to feel attacked by it. Unless, obviously, the global tone of the post is offensive.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Glasguensis

I don't see the cross in itself as offensive. In my opinion, if someone sees it as offensive/aggresive, then it's not really the cross which is the problem so much as the fact that it is being corrected in public at all. But on a forum like this, that is the risk you take when you attempt to answer someone's question. Since the forums are not moderated for correctness, if you answer incorrectly, all a subsequent user can do is to try to make it abundantly clear to future readers that your answer is wrong. Sometimes they do this forcefully (after all, a timid correction might leave future readers unclear about the certainty of the correction). Consider the following : 


> All British people are English


  Actually not all British people are English...


> All British people are English


 Actually not all British people are English...


> All British people are English


 *Wrong!* Actually not all British people are English...


> All British people are English


 This is complete rubbish. Actually not all British people are English...


> All British people are English


 Don't talk about subjects you know nothing about. Actually not all British people are English...

Is the red cross icon really any more offensive than the alternatives?


----------



## dreamlike

I can't see how a red cross could be seen as offensive or agrresive. It's just an icon and as such it can't be agressive or non-agressive, it's the way people use it that counts here, but in intself it's just fine -- it's clear and gets the point across. If I were to see a bare red cross, no explanation whatsoever as to the mistake that I might have happened to make, I could take offense, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it .


----------



## LilianaB

Moon Palace said:


> I see your point, Rallino, and I agree that when you answer the question "is my sentence correct?", the red cross may then not appear as aggressive. The use I had in mind was actually quite different: the red cross was not used to answer a similar question, but to point out a mistake in previous posts, using the "reply with quotation" and marking the mistake with a red cross. Maybe then it is more this kind of use which I see as aggressive rather than the cross itself. I just feel that poiting mistakes can be helpful provided you are not branded as an ignorant, and I fear this might be a way of seeing the red cross when you didn't ask to have your contributions marked like a pupil's work.
> Hope I have been clearer.



Yes, I agree with you: I think pointing out mistakes when nobody asks you to do so is extremely rude, especially if someone does it to people who write in their primary languages, and the mistakes are in most cases typos. If asked for corrections, I think people can use the red cross or anything they want. In some cases, what you were talking about, is just an expression of some people wanting to be more papal than the Pope: some may even wait for someone's typos to instantly point them out and mark them in red. I think a private message is really the way to point out typos.

Fortunately most members don't behave like that, but some cases of this kind of behavior can be seen from time to time. Also, in my opinion, the purpose of this sign is not to point out things of relative nature, such as whether all  British people are English, but rather things related to the usage and structure (language related problems) of certain expressions, or sentences.


----------



## dreamlike

I would even go so far as to say that there's completely no point in pointing out typos -- and some people appear to derive great pleasure from doing so. It's the type of mistake that stems from sloppiness or typing too fast, not because we are lacking in our education... of course sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between a typo and other mistake, but usually it's not...


----------



## Egmont

dreamlike said:


> I would even go so far as to say that there's completely no point in pointing out typos ...


When I first joined this forum, I pointed out a few typos by posting in the threads, though I don't think I ever used a red *X* to mark them. (To me a cross has horizontal and vertical bars, not slanted ones. That may be an AE-BE difference.) I did this because pointing them out in a post is the usual practice in another (non-language) forum in which I participate, where many people think it's great fun. I was called to task by more experienced members who explained to me that it is not the custom on this site to point them out publicly. Since then I've PM'd a few members about their typos, and have been PM'd by other members about some of mine. In every case we have corrected them (and thanked the person who told us about them).

I wouldn't say "there's completely no point in pointing out typos." Since many people here are language learners, who might otherwise think an error is correct usage, I think there is a point. However, accomplishing that point doesn't require using a red *X*. I plan to continue to point out typos via courteous PMs, and hope others will continue to point mine out when I make them - as I surely will!


----------



## dreamlike

Well, maybe you have have a point, Egmont. Now that I'm able to detect all the typos myself, I'm not rather fond of people poniting them out, but it might be useful for less-advanced learners, that much is true.


----------



## LilianaB

Egmont said:


> When I first joined this forum, I pointed out a few typos by posting in the threads, though I don't think I ever used a red *X* to mark them. (To me a cross has horizontal and vertical bars, not slanted ones. That may be an AE-BE difference.) I did this because pointing them out in a post is the usual practice in another (non-language) forum in which I participate, where many people think it's great fun. I was called to task by more experienced members who explained to me that it is not the custom on this site to point them out publicly. Since then I've PM'd a few members about their typos, and have been PM'd by other members about some of mine. In every case we have corrected them (and thanked the person who told us about them).
> 
> I wouldn't say "there's completely no point in pointing out typos." Since many people here are language learners, who might otherwise think an error is correct usage, I think there is a point. However, accomplishing that point doesn't require using a red *X*. I plan to continue to point out typos via courteous PMs, and hope others will continue to point mine out when I make them - as I surely will!




I partially agree with you -- if someone is really a beginner, and quite a sloppy one in addition to that, it may be constructive to point out some typos by marking them in bold, or something like that. On the other hand, I think that it would be wise if people first checked whose post it is, and if it is likely that such a person would not know how to spell basic words. Then a private message may be more appropriate.


----------



## Micia93

Hello 

I don't think that the red cross is aggressive in itself. If you add a proper (and nice) comment explaining why, it should be taken as a mere correction (though I don't remember having used it once!). Anyway, the general tone is the most important, red cross or not (the worst being  in my opinion)
This being said, I also sometimes corrected mistakes (calling them "typos" but which for sure, were not), but always adding "not to confuse our non-native fellows", I just hope it was not considered as particularly rude, since the persons I corrected replied and thanked me.


----------



## swift

Hello everybody.

My approach:

*The person is a newbie and provides a wrong translation or a misleading explanation* that shows the contributor misunderstood a portion of the sentence being translated or discussed. > If you are aware of the nature of the contributor's mistake, then please add your comment and use an appropriate icon or correcting mark, but also be kind: we don't want newbies to run away or make them feel humiliated. But if your correction stands on the side of proofreading, you might want to contact the contributor through a PM instead of publishing your correction; otherwise this could divert other contributors attention from the main topic being discussed and result in long, messy, confusing threads.

*The person consistently provides wrong translations or misleading explanations* and seems to pay no attention to fellow contributor's feedback. > If your efforts prove to be unsuccessful, showing your concern to the moderators is always a good idea.

*The person is a respected forero and obviously made a mistake* but you don't want to embarrass him or her. > Think of sending him or her a PM. Unless you don't want to start a converstion with that person, thoughtful corrections are always welcome by PM. If that Senior Member has disabled private messaging, then you have two options: 1) go back to the thread and post your correction or 2) ask a moderator to contact the contributor for you. But first you must make sure that your correction is worth the effort: you don't want to bother a moderator about a careless typo. 

Finally, when it comes to "aggressiveness", it all depends on two things: 1) the emphasis you put, three  are far more emphatic than a single ; and 2) how the contributor being corrected receives the message. Sometimes I get the feeling that the other part takes it all too personally, no matter how kind you prove to be, and I'd rather stand aside and let someone else point the errors out whenever they occur. And sometimes, even five red crosses in a row look milder than some supposedly "instructive comments" I've read on these boards.

About alternative ways to correct other people's mistakes, perhaps you will find this thread interesting.

Oh! I almost forgot. I wouldn't say the red cross icon is aggressive. I think it's *awful*.


----------



## LilianaB

Hi, Swift. I agree with everything you said, except the point about some foreos complaining that some people provide vague explanations, or incorrect explanations to support their versions of certain translations. This is something very relative. Many people speak in idiolects, or sociolects, marked by generational differences, especially in some countries which went through quite radical political processes at the end of the 20th century. Everything has to be looked at from a certain angle. If, let's say, three foreos in their twenties are saying that something does not sound right, it does not mean that people in their 40s would consider it not right -- just as an example. What native speakers find correct or not correct is subjective to a large extent. It all depends on the variety of the language, the area, sometimes even town, or village, their family and personal preference (expressions that they love and that some of their relatives have been attached to for generations), on the age of the people, education level, profession, and many other factors. If someone who has never seen snow calls hail snow, it does not mean the hail will become snow.


----------



## dreamlike

There's one more important thing that I haven't seen anyone mention yet... prescriptivists vs descriptivists... I hate it when people point out mistakes that some don't even consider to be mistakes...


----------



## Embonpoint

I think the  is great, as long as it is used correctly, to indicate a clear error. I personally use  for something which I think is odd or awkward but not wrong.


----------



## dreamlike

Personally I tend to use  to point to some glaring errors rather than mere typos. If I happen to point out the latter, which I do on rather rare occasions, I don't use icons at all.


----------



## Embonpoint

dreamlike said:


> Personally I tend to use  to point to some glaring errors rather than mere typos. If I happen to point out the latter, which I do on rather rare occasions, I don't use icons at all.



Me too. I use the  mostly when learners give several examples and say "which of these sentences is correct?" I also use it when I make up my own examples to show what is correct and what is not.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Glasguensis said:


> ...if you answer  incorrectly, all a subsequent user can do is to try to make it  abundantly clear to future readers that your answer is wrong. Sometimes  they do this forcefully (after all, a timid correction might leave  future readers unclear about the certainty of the correction). Consider  the following :
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not all British people are English...
> Actually not all British people are English...
> *Wrong!* Actually not all British people are English...
> This is complete rubbish. Actually not all British people are English...
> Don't talk about subjects you know nothing about. Actually not all British people are English...
> 
> 
> 
> Is the red cross icon really any more offensive than the alternatives?
Click to expand...

Saying "you're wrong", however you say it, is always offensive (and hazardous, as we all know we too are prone to errors).
I would not use any of those alternatives — I would explain _why_ I think the poster is wrong; e.g. 





> _Well, a Scot is British, though not English; so can you really say that all British people are English?_





Embonpoint said:


> I use the   mostly when learners give several examples and say "which of these  sentences is correct?" I also use it when I make up my own examples to  show what is correct and what is not.


I fully concur with that, and with the initial suggestion that using  to judge other people's answers is neither polite nor considerate.


----------



## dreamlike

JeanDeSponde said:


> Saying "you're wrong", however you say it, is always offensive (and hazardous, as we all know we too are prone to errors).
> I would not use any of those alternatives — I would explain _why_ I think the poster is wrong; e.g.
> I fully concur with that, and with the initial suggestion that using  to judge other people's answers is neither polite nor considerate.


It is only so when some people are so inconsiderate as to put a bare  rather than offer some additional explanation. If it's followed with one, then it's fine to me. It's a little space-saving, compared to writing "incorrect", for instance.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

dreamlike said:


> It is only so when some people are so inconsiderate as to put a bare  rather than offer some additional explanation. If it's followed with one, then it's fine to me. It's a little space-saving, compared to writing "incorrect", for instance.


Writing "incorrect" is just as offensive as "you're wrong" — and useless once you've provided additional explanation, isn't it?


----------



## merquiades

I tend to use the indirect method.



> All British people are English


Be careful, don't say that to a Scot! In quite a lot of countries you can find people who confuse Great Britain with England, but actually England, Scotland and Wales are three nations within Great Britain.  Check out this map.

If someone makes a glaring mistake.  I'll quote it in my own message and then make sure I write below the correct version.



			
				Englishlearner112 said:
			
		

> The Scotch now want the independence from the Great Britain.


Yes, more and more Scottish people do want independence from Great Britain, but most Scots probably don't.


----------



## dreamlike

JeanDeSponde said:


> Writing "incorrect" is just as offensive as "you're wrong" — and useless once you've provided additional explanation, isn't it?


I don't know, I don't want to be adamant about it. It's just good to first state that someone has been unfortunate enough to make a mistake, and then provide an explanation.


----------



## LilianaB

There is a big difference,however,  between making a mistake and having one's own opinion. Sometimes people who have different opinions may be accused of making mistakes, especially in relation to things other than strictly grammatical.


----------



## Embonpoint

LilianaB said:


> There is a big difference,however,  between making a mistake and having one's own opinion. Sometimes people who have different opinions may be accused of making mistakes, especially in relation to things other than strictly grammatical.



Is the issue here with fact that the  exists, or the fact that some people misuse it? 

I would hate to see it go away as a lot of people are visual learners and a colorful symbol can get the point across:

Jack throw the ball.
Jack throws the ball.


----------



## Moon Palace

Embonpoint said:


> Is the issue here with fact that the [cross] exists, or the fact that some people misuse it?
> 
> I would hate to see it go away as a lot of people are visual learners and a colorful symbol can get the point across:



The issue seems to be dual indeed. Now, I wholly agree with you regarding visual symbols, hence the title I gave to this thread: how about *replacing it* with something that would appear less blunt, so that even if it was misused, it would at least not appear so disparaging. I cannot quote the post I have read out of politeness, but let me try here to reproduce the pattern, so that everybody can try to put himself or herself in the shoes of either a newbie or somebody who merely reads the post after searching the dictionary, and see how you would feel : 



> All French people likes frogs.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not true. I am French and I don't like frogs.
> 
> 
> 
> Barack Obama is not American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong: it has been proven that he is American.
> 
> 
> 
> Shakespeare is not the right author of his plays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must say _true / real_, not right in this sentence.
Click to expand...

I can assure you that the post I am referring to had no more than that amount of words, and it led me to wonder whether this was the right "image" we want to convey to potential members, readers, or newbies who can - just like any member - make mistakes. I don't think it is, which is why I was suggesting to find another symbol that could convey the same message of a mistake / wrong statement, but without the colour red maybe or with a different symbol. 
To me, we can all make mistakes, but by the same token, we cannot take on the attitude of a teacher marking students. Even teachers are trying to change their habits to appear less blunt. Why not WRF?


----------



## dreamlike

I think you're looking too much into this. Prior to reading this thread, I didn't even think about the potential message it may convey. It was a mere red cross to me. No more no less. And it still is.


----------



## Embonpoint

Moon Palace, I think there are a lot of less blunt emoticons at our disposal when we don't want to indicate a clear error.
They include ,, and my favorite, .

If people are misusing  when one of the above would be more appropriate, perhaps some consciousness-raising would be helpful. But I don't think taking away the possibility of being crystal clear in marking an error is a good idea.


----------

