I can see your concerns, so that is why right now the system is also taking into consideration the number of uncorrected journals as well. This was mentioned in the announcements and also on our Discord server. We will adjust things as necessary, but the minimum ratio of 1.0 will most likely stay, or be language specific.
There are countless ways to correct a respective text, so it’s not necessarily a bad thing to get multiple corrections from different speakers. This also opens the door to having more native speakers checking the corrections other native speakers have made.
LangCorrect is a community-driven language learning platform. If people are abusing the system and not wanting to take effort to make corrections, then that just doesn’t help out anyone. Out of curiosity, what ratio do you think is fair? Do you think it is fair to receive more corrections than you have made?
If I’m among one of the top 5 users who made most changes in a month, it would be just RIDICULOUS that I am not allowed to publish new journals.
You are/were in the top five for your respective languages. There are quite a number of users who have made more than 500 corrections for the current month. It is not difficult to do, but it does require some commitment. You will eventually reach a point where you will have a large buffer, or just correct a Journal every time you write one.
I am totally agree with you. I have made the correction for one of the three entries uncorrected just now, the two in simplified Chinese left were about a local dialect that I am not able to correct. And there is no uncorrected journal in traditional Chinese. The current corrected journals were already corrected for more than one time or two, is it really necessary to make them corrected for that many times?
If counting the number of journals that I have corrected, I believe my ratio is nearly 1.0. It is because of the length difference that my ratio is below 1.0 now.
I am very happy with this website as I have made a lot of improvements with my targeted language and even made friends throughout the writing and correction. I understand that the ratio function is to prompt people to help each other and facilitate the turn-over of the correction. But given that there is already no old journal uncorrected in the Chinese category, I believe that we should be able to publish again.
The moment that I visit the website is the moment that I want to publish my journal, and if the publish function is disabled, I will definitely forget to visit the website again.
the two in simplified Chinese left were about a local dialect that I am not able to correct
We do not currently support dialects, so thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will need to come up with a solution for this scenario sometime tomorrow. However, if that Journal does get corrected before then, then you will be able to publish a Journal without issue.
Edit: You should be able to post now. A better solution will be released tomorrow.
Hi masemue, first of all, I want to thank you for the prompt reply and thorough explanation. I can see you really devoted a lot to this community and some of your words make a lot of sense, but no matter what, your response did not convinced me that much.
Do you mean the current rule is that one can post new entries if there is no uncorrected journals left? If that is the case, it’s better than the original one. But still, in terms of retaining active users and building up a mutual trust community, I don’t think 1:1 will be the best solution.
Because I feel like I am forced to make more corrections than I want. Think about this: my journals can be corrected by others as many times as they want to, which means I have to contribute the same. At the first glance, it seems to be very fair and is almost the fairest way of doing things. How much you invest, how much you can get. But is this really the best solution to active this community?
What if someone just wants his/her journals to be edited once or twice, as too many ways of editing will cause confusions for beginners, while repetitive changes for advanced learners are just not as helpful?
Let’s take myself as an example: The most idea case is that each of my journals can be edited twice, and I’m more than happy to give out the same amount of corrections and suggestions to others as well. But what if I got three times of editing or even more? That means I have to do extra work to keep my 1:1 ratio that I don’t necessarily have time to do so. If you were me, will you be happy about this?
Hey, no one wants to abuse this system. No one is saying that he/she doesn’t want to make devotions.
I would say this is the best language exchange platform I’ve ever used. I’ve been a loyal user of lang-8 for a very long time and finally chose to migrant to your platform, because the function of lang-8 is no longer up to date, and users here seem to be more active. I do met good friends on this platform and I really appreciate it. That’s why I have to make this complain, because I like this place, and I can see myself keep posting in the future. If not, why would I bother to spend time explaining all these?
It’s all about user experience my friend. For any product, a user-friendly system should be its priority.
A "community-driven language learning platform " doesn’t necessarily mean you have to force your users to do things you want them to do. You should encourage them, award them prizes, rather than to regulate them in a stringent way.
Since you are the administrator of this platform, I am sure you can see all the data in your CMS or whatever system. If I don’t remember wrong, I am ALWAYS on this list in my respective language. If an active user like me cannot have the access to post new journals, how many else do you think there will be that can qualify this 1:1 ratio requirement?
I feel like this question is kind of offensive.
As I’ve mentioned, you can see all the data on this platform, which means you can also see all my past corrections.
I always tend to give detailed explanations to those changes I made, as I am a professional editor and that is just how I want to be treated, so I offered that to others first. Then do you think it is fair enough that only the number of journals I corrected matters? What about those time and energy I invested?
As for the number of the ratio, I have to say I don’t have an exact answer. If you really want a reasonable number, I’m sure you will have to do a great amount of calculating, factors that should be taken into account include: active users of a respective language, average numbers of new journals in a certain amount of time, and many others. This ratio could be varied from one language to another. (Then you might say this is unfair again… what if you go with the lower number?)
Here is my suggestion: why don’t you look at the current ratio situation of all your active users in each language separately? Do your research first before making a final decision?
As you’ve mentioned, this is a community, and it is a rather small community compared with FB, twitter and etc. We are gathering here because we want to exchange our languages. I believe we all agree that this is an EXCHANGE platform, not a RECEIVE platform. Why don’t you have more faith in your users?
It’s to early to say for certain, but you will more or less keep getting corrections from two native speakers per journal. I don’t see this trend changing even with the new ratio watch. Older journals do not typically receive corrections once its age has passed. This is at least the case for English journals where there is an abundance of. However, I can definitely see your concerns considering the lack of students writing in Chinese. The journals that do get published are relatively short, and with the current system + the lack of Journals, they can easily receive a lot of corrections from different speakers. Which is not ideal nor desired!
I personally enjoy taking time to correct users I am following and interacting with. I am also happy they are studying my language, and quite honestly, do not think too much of it. If I was getting flooded with corrections and struggling to keep a 1:1 ratio, of course I would not be happy. It would take a lot of time out of studying and practicing. If I felt overwhelmed like that, I wouldn’t mind taking a personal day, or even doing something else to get my study in—like reading.
I would argue that the platform is already user friendly, but I am not denying that there aren’t improvements to be made. I can’t see how a correction ratio would increase the learning curve to the point where it decreases the user friendliness. (I am not a UX engineer).
As you have mentioned, it will take some time to find the right balance that will help promote a healthier and fairer community. I will continue to listen to feedback and do the best I can~
Thank you for the kind words Emily. We’ve come quite a long way since initial release, and there were things that were controversial and difficult, but everyone eventually got onboard with it. As always, it’s through feedback, suggestions, and complaints that we have grown to what it is today.
Lastly, I want to apologize. I did not mean to offend you, and I am sorry it came across that way Emily. I was just trying to understand why a ratio of 1.0 was so difficult or unrealistic.
As I was saying on Dicord, I see three main issues with the current ratio:
It doesn’t take into account languages having few posts. Some people can’t correct because there’s simply nothing left to correct. It seems to be summerteawater’s case with Korean, and I know it was also Atomcdismantling’s, an Indonesian user I used to correct, who once told me he did want to help back but couldn’t since he couldn’t find an Indonesian diary.
Invertedly, this favors English speakers and to a lesser extent, speakers of very widespread languages. There are so many English natives devoting their time to corrections that everything gets corrected in no time, and still you can find plenty of users with hundreds of corrections received and zero given.
As Emily pointed out, the ratio should ignore multiple corrections on a same post, because it’s true you can’t help if your diary gets corrected 4, 5 times, forcing you to correct 4, 5 times more.
Reducing the ratio to 0.5 and wating till April for the changes to be implemented seem like good ideas to me.
Also perhaps a warning message, before effectively writing someone, would be some kind of “softer” measure, to avoid “punishing” them right away. I don’t know if it would be possible. I’d be in favor of restricting posts only to users having really abusive ratios, like thousands of corrections received for zero given.
We are gathering here because we want to exchange our languages. I believe we all agree that this is an EXCHANGE platform, not a RECEIVE platform. Why don’t you have more faith in your users?
I think you’re being very optimistic here. Seeing folks with hundreds or thousands of corrections and zero given is not uncommon, although we can’t say it’s a majority. This is why masemune’s idea in itself seems good to me. Some people don’t even take 2 minutes to drop a single “thanks” to their correctors. Hard to trust folks who don’t have the basics of politeness.
I tend to avoid correcting those who never thank and/or never help back. It sends the message – at least, I hope it does – that you can’t be a mere taker in a place that is meant to be collaborative. I see it as a matter of respect and fairness for people who do work in order to help the community, starting with devs themselves.
Hi masemune, I’m glad that we reached a consensus that we all want this community to be a better place, and I do appreciate what you and your colleagues have done. Your willingness to listen and make changes swiftly means a lot to us.
It indeed is, as long as it doesn’t insist on imposing this 1:1 ratio.
The minimum being 1:1 in infeasible because most people will overshoot by a little, which will push down other people’s ratios, which will push them to make unnecessary corrections, which will bring down THOSE peoples ratios. That doesn’t even include people who will overshoot by a lot just because they feel like it. Whatever the minimum is, it MUST be below 1. If close to 1 is really desirable then I think .9 would work, but honestly I think keeping it at .5 might be fine.
If it stays as it is, I probably won’t continue posting. While I appreciate having 5 different people correct my journals, I can’t keep up with that number corrections.
We’ll keep the minimum to 0.5, and maybe increase it to 0.65 down the road. If you’re below the minimum and there are no uncorrected journals, then you’ll still be able to create a post. However, I do like @monsieur_elephant suggestion on restricting people who have really abusive ratios, so additional logic will be added. This will only be applied if there’s a decent amount of journals in their native language(s).
I think the decrease in ratio is a great idea. Not that I have a problem with the ratio on my end, I just think that one of my target languages, Slovenian, has too few posts to be able to attract people who could correct things …
Not everybody is as much into correcting entries as I am, and if there’s simply nothing left to correct they have no chance of posting a journal, which then will dissuade them from doing anything here at all.
I reckon that the ratio should somehow be adjusted by the popularity (both number of people speaking the target language who are signed up to langcorrect and users trying to use that language).
English, Spanish, French, even German give natives ample opportunity to correct things. Slovenian (or the aforementioned Indonesian) are a completely different story.
Posting a summary here based on discussions from email & discord.
No decision has been made yet.
Here are some more thoughts and suggestions by various members:
Ability to essentially lock a journal from receiving further corrections. This can be done automatically based on some user defined setting (ex: after 3 different users have corrected the journal) or global setting (ex: after at least 1 user have corrected the journal and after Y days have past since the journal was created).
Use user stats instead of just corrections and posts for weightings or make a ratio for each language pair and compare the users ratio to that (with a small margin). @hippopotamus suggestions:
I would like to add that quality feedback that explains why is always better that just a correction. This unfortunately takes more time and a lot more effort. It is important in introducing ratio restrictions, not to promote quantity over quality.