Announcing the ProZ.com dictionary and reference board

Attila Piróth wrote:

What makes a dictionary a good one? Here are some aspects:
1.) Accuracy/Reliability: the equivalents are accurate.
2.) Completeness: the dictionary covers the subject field well.
3.) Easy navigation (typography, layout, cross-references, legends, etc.)
4.) Extras (e.g., contains pronunciation, usage patterns, etymology, warning for incorrect usage, etc.)
5.) Other aspects (such as availability, quality of manufacturing, pricing, etc.)
6.) An average of all these indicators - a single grade given preferably by the reviewer (rather than calculated as an average, as the weights of the aspects could vary from reviewer to reviewer).

Nikki Graham wrote:

But we could change this to include more prompts, for example (if we don't add more boxes):

Please provide comments on this work in the field below (such as how accurate and reliable it is, often you use this dictionary, if it is user-friendly, its strong and weak points, etc.)

What do you think?

Jenny Forbes wrote:

What a good idea! I've had a look at the dictionary and reference page, but can't see how to add a dictionary to it that I'd like to recommend. Am I being dim? Please could someone explain?
Jenny

Nikki Graham wrote:
Jared can correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of the programming has been based on the bluebaord, which is why we have actually managed to get this far in the time we have had available

These are actually in line with our original ideas, which were as follows:

rating for the dictionaries from 0 to 5 on the following:
- accuracy of terminology
- includes explanations to help differentiate one possible translation from another
- value for money
- user-friendly format
- useful

To be honest, I'm not quite sure how these got lost in the process, but we wanted the board to be as simple to use as possible without making it too burdensome for people when giving feedback.

Your points 1-3 coincide with our own ideas, but personally, I feel 4 and 5 are perhaps asking a bit much.

What we could maybe do is be more specific about the information asked for when the feedback box pops up. At the moment it says:

Please enter a short comment related to your feedback on this work in the field below

But we could change this to include more prompts, for example (if we don't add more boxes):

Please provide comments on this work in the field below (such as how accurate and reliable it is, often you use this dictionary, if it is user-friendly, its strong and weak points, etc.)

What do you think?

Cindy Chadd wrote:
I wanted to point out the fact that the board is also for reference books other than dictionaries, so some of the specifics mentioned here wouldn't necessarily apply in every case. I think it might not be practical to have different forms for different types of references, so that might be an argument for keeping it more general.

Nikki Graham wrote:

That's great. Could you submit a support request asking to join the team? Thank you!

Mihai Badea wrote:

Thanks for your suggestion, Nikki. Jared was very quick and has already added me to the team.

I hope more people will join the team. This sounds like a very exciting experience!

Attila Piróth wrote:

I think that these aspects can be formulated in a very clear fashion, so that people in a professional website will not find them burdensome. It will take them a couple of minutes more to fill out the feedback form -- but it will be much more useful. Otherwise there will be lots of comments like "I like this dictionary, I use it daily", which, is not the most informative/helpful. By providing a more detailed structure, this can be avoided.

Perhaps - but my point was not about giving a definitive list, just to point out its importance. If you take a look at the Dictionary review section of the ATA chronicle, you will find two-page evaluations of dictionaries. And it is precisely because of their being detailed, and the multiple aspects that the reader can take an informed decision whether to buy it or not.

As far as programming is concerned, I suppose it makes very little difference whether we have 3, 5, or 8 aspects.

I agree that the same aspects may not apply to all references. I am convinced that the best approach would then be defining the categories first: dictionaries, textbooks on translation, style guides, etc., and then work out different aspects for each. Once again, programmers' input would be welcome, but I think it is relatively easy to establish a framework with, say, up to 10 aspects, and then choose the aspects separately for each category of reference books. Perhaps even two main categories, dictionaries vs. other references may be enough -- but I am convinced that discarding the option of evaluating dictionaries from multiple aspects just because it would not be applicable to style guides is not the way to go.

Admittedly, this is not as simple as it could be. The structure of reviews on Amazon is much simpler -- but I don't think that is the example we should follow. This reference board can become a de facto industry-standard database of reference books, so if simplicity goes against its usefulness, the choice should be simple.