The End of the Long Testing Phase

The end of the testing phase is an important step. However, automatic translation in particular will likely remain the area where quality is demonstrated in everyday use: With irony, dialects, or political terms, something can quickly come across differently from the original. It’s good that this is being preserved.

I also find the announcement that posts will no longer be deleted interesting. How will clear violations of the rules be handled then—will it remain a matter of temporary deactivation by Aivor followed by a later review by you? And is there anywhere a comprehensible record of the criteria for when Aivor intervenes?

That sounds like a reasonable middle ground: discussions remain visible, but problematic passages do not simply disappear into the digital void without comment. Quotes in particular will probably be interesting—if the “red pen” is applied there as well, it should perhaps be possible to tell that changes were made afterward. Otherwise, a quote may eventually appear cleaner than it originally was.

And when it comes to translations, Aivor will probably occasionally have to reach for the coffee cookie as well: briefly take it apart, check it, and put it back together. Is there actually a change log for such subsequent edits that regular members can see?

That’s exactly where I see the most important point of transparency: If posts or quotes are edited afterward, this should be apparent to everyone—ideally with an indication of who made the change and why. Otherwise, although the discussion thread remains intact, the context can still shift unnoticed.

Is there already an edit indicator or a log for this? And when translation errors occur, are only the automatically generated versions corrected, or can Aivor also modify the original post or the original quote?

In my opinion, the red pen should really only be applied to rule violations in the original—the translation errors, on the other hand, should affect only the automatically generated version. Otherwise, “correcting a translation” can quickly turn into “rewriting history after the fact,” and as everyone knows, the internet forgets everything except the important note.

That’s why I think a visible edit marker showing the reason and time would be quite important, including for cleaned-up quotes. Perhaps a short note such as “moderated” or “translation corrected” would be enough, with details in the edit log. Is something like that planned for the final version, Micha?

I completely agree: translation errors must not be conflated with moderation. The automatically generated version can be corrected, while the original should remain unchanged. In the event of a rule violation, intervention is understandable, but even then it should remain visible that moderation took place and when it did—otherwise a discussion can quickly end up being “smoothed over” after the fact.

“Moderated,” along with the time and a brief reason, would probably be the minimum; an internal log could then record the details. Micha: Does this change marker already exist, or would that be something to address after the testing phase? I consider this particularly important for quotes, because otherwise it becomes nearly impossible later to distinguish the original wording.

I’d also prefer that to be visible rather than happening silently in the background. A small “moderated on … because of …” directly on the post would already go a long way; otherwise, you later find yourself wondering whether the discussion really went that smoothly or whether someone simply did a good cleanup job.

For translations, separate labeling would probably make sense: “Translation corrected” is different from “Content moderated.” Micha, is there already a technical solution for this, or will it initially end up on the famous “we’ll do it after launch” list? We all know that list—it’s patient and surprisingly spacious.

I consider the separation between the original, the translation, and moderation to be crucial. Especially in a bilingual forum, otherwise no one can tell whether a wording genuinely comes from the author or was merely altered by the translation. I have already encountered discussions where a silently corrected translation suddenly sounded considerably harsher than the original—this causes unnecessary arguments.

My suggestion would therefore be: Leave the original unchanged, mark every corrected translation with the time and reason, and at least add a brief public note in cases of moderation. A complete change log does not have to be visible immediately, but the option should be available. Micha: What currently happens if a translation is factually incorrect—can the version be corrected afterward without the original translation text disappearing completely from somewhere?