@Cerberus I think there should be voting guidance in the Help and that guidance should emphasize and recommend positive reinforcement: consider upvoting any answer that (1) is responsive to the question, and (2) has constructive or potentially useful information; reserve downvotes for (3) "answers" that are just comments, or have no significant value; (4) recommend contributors not downvote answers just because they disagree with the author's opinion

@TylerDurden Hmm that is an interesting perspective.

But it would far deviate from the normal way people vote down on the network of Stack Exchange, would it not?

@Cerberus I think the Help should emphasize that language translation and interpretation has a considerable amount of subjectivity to it and it is important to be tolerant different viewpoints, especially when the text is complex or subtle

Ok but what should happen when someone sees something that he thinks is surely incorrect?

@Cerberus Well, if this were Stack Overflow with hundreds of thousands of users, then getting strict is understandable, but with Latin we have a tiny user base, so it behooves us to create a positive environment where people are not discouraged.

True.

Do you know of another SE site that is more positive than Latin?

@Cerberus Well, when I think something is incorrect, I just abstain from voting on that person's answer and make my own answer that has what I think is correct and I try to make a logical argument for why I think it is correct. That way the OP can decide for themself which explanations they like (or like the most in case of an Accept)

OK I see.

And when would you cast a vote to delete?

Or a vote to close?

@Cerberus When the answer is actually a comment, or otherwise non-responsive.

Hmm then what is the difference between situations where you vote down, and those where you vote to delete?

I never downvote answers that have obvious effort behind them. I might downvote an answer if I thought it was very shallow and the poster obviously made no serious effort at being correct, or if the entire answer was wrong. If I think just one piece of an answer is wrong and I don't want to answer myself (a pretty rare occurrence), I would just make no vote and put a comment describing my opinion.

I think I'd maybe do that if the wrong part were very insignificant.

But what you propose would be a huge change from the way down votes are cast across the SE network, wouldn't it?

Do you think, for our site, that would be realistic?

Do you think people would want this change?

@Cerberus In general my feeling is that comments really only make sense when it seems the person missed something fairly obvious and if they knew what it was, they might update their answer. If their rendering is based on a broad (unfixable) misunderstanding (in my opinion), I just leave it alone and let the OP be the judge.

Are you replying to a specific message of mine here?

@Cerberus Is it really that much of a change to recommend positive reinforcement in the Help? Creating a more supportive and accepting site can only be good for Latin considering its small user base.

If so, you can hover over my message, and click the little arrow that will appear in the lower-right corner of my message.

@TylerDurden Well, it would be a big change for me.

I cannot speak for others.

But basically the working of the system would need to be changed.

Would people want to do that?

@Cerberus I think it is realistic. I think a lot of people are knee-jerk nannies, they just have a different opinion and downvote out of inertia. Simply pointing out to them that there are more positive ways to do things could be a revelation to a lot of people. I know I certainly downvote a lot less these days compared to my behavior 10 years ago. I have more respect for other people's ideas than I did when I was younger.

It would be an interesting proposal.

But it could only work if you got many people to agree with it.

People will generally only really change if they are highly motivated to do so, won't they?

@Cerberus I don't know the mechanics of the help page, but I thought only the moderators needed to agree on changes to the help policy with user "input". Just because positive reinforcement is recommended, doesn't mean a user has to follow that recommendation. Nothing stops them from downvoting away if they want to.

But should we try to change the site if we do not know whether people want us to?

This would be a fundamental change, supposing it is attainable.

@Cerberus I would expect that there is a review period where changes to the site help are open to comments, so there would be feedback.

The normal procedure to change policy is to post a proposal on the Meta site.

Not a unilateral change in the policy documents.

@Cerberus Right, there is a meta post and people can vote on it.

I think the bigger issue might be less that people downvote so much as do they come back to change their vote if the question/answer was updated.

There is a Meta post?

@Cerberus If a change gets proposed, then there is a meta post.

A Meta post is made by someone.

At a moment in time.

Would you want to post this proposal?

@Adam Yes, there is a whole separate issue of fire and forget where people just downvote stuff and never review changes.

And do you really think, even if it were applied, that people would follow it, given that votes are secret>

@TylerDurden Instead, one might delete one's own answer, if it contains a serious error, and post a new one?

A separate issue is downvoting without leaving constructive criticism, though I think these are issues that need to be considered broadly by SE rather than on any individual site.

@Cerberus I am not a moderator. I certainly could draft some proposed changes, but I think it would be up to the moderators to decide if they wanted a change in Help policy/recommendations.

A big change should constitute a new answer, shouldn't it?

@TylerDurden Well, we normally do not make policy unilaterally.

We try to gauge what the people want.

Of course

We would not make a big change unless there were clear support.

Do you think you can muster such support?

Well, I think most people will recognize the value of a positive approach, once you point it out to them. Did you know that in language studies it has been proven in repeated experiments that negative feedback is ineffective in teaching people languages and many advanced language instructors have a "no corrections" policy because of that?

I have heard of this school, yes.

But the purpose of votes here is not mainly teaching, I should say?

It is rather to show others how positive or negative people's opinion of answer is.

At any rate, if you desire this change, why not post your proposal on the Meta site?

See how it goes.

It should be noted that votes on SE Meta sites explicitly mean "I agree/disagree with this proposal", not "this is of low quality".

@Cerberus Because a suggested policy change coming from a random user will not be well received. I would no more expect other users to approve of a change to the status quo, than I would expect my next door neighbor to approve of a plan to build a porch in my backyard. A suggested policy change would need to have the backing of the moderators to have a chance of success.

Well, if it is a proposal that people like, why shouldn't they support it?

@Cerberus Because the average person doesn't like change.

In any case, if a moderator supports your proposal, he will probably post a "yes" answer for people to vote on.

Although I suspect moderators are not especially motivated for this change.

@TylerDurden I remember it being proposed that if a downvoted post is edited, the downvoters be automatically pinged. I wouldn't mind such a feature, but it's been shot down and I find it unlikely to come to be in the foreseeable future.

@TylerDurden Then how can it be a success anyway?

@JoonasIlmavirta That would be good indeed, but SE will almost never change anything technical that users request.

I think it would be better if the moderators decided among themselves whether it would be a good idea and if they thought it was good, then they would jointly recommend it. That would give it a chance of success.

Well, I have to be honest: if only for the secret ballot, I do not think it would be practicable.

I think the option to vote down should be removed altogether for this to work.

@Cerberus I agree. I'd also add that different users vote for different reasons, and it won't have much effect to tell them to change their habits. What the help pages say has very little effect on anything in my opinion.

That would be much more extreme

In short, I do not feel very motivated at the moment, sorry.

So, if you want this, I think you will have to do the work.

@JoonasIlmavirta I must confess I have no idea what's in the help pages hehe.

Nor do I ever look at them on other SE sites except perhaps once when I join the site, and then I forget about them quickly.

@JoonasIlmavirta Well, if something is in the help, it gives users and moderators the flexibility to encourage people to be positive.

@Cerberus You're not alone with that. Most of our policy is de facto rather than de iure.

I suppose so.

For example, if there is an argument in comments, then a moderator can just say: "Remember the help, respect other peoples opinions." That's a solution.

May I ask you another question?

@TylerDurden Yes, but a far more efficient way to encourage positivity is to comment in positive ways and act against negative things. We've had an occasional meta discussion on the atmosphere of the site, and I feel that that has way more effect than the help pages.

@TylerDurden Is there anything you think you could do yourself to improve the situation?

And there's the technical matter that local moderators can't edit most help pages.

Well, I try to maintain a positive and constructive attitude in my comments and answers. I often suggest people make their own answers if they have a different translation, instead of just dumping on other people's answers.

Re your comment about negativity - I don't necessarily view direct critical feedback as negative. It's not being told I am wrong that is bad, it's how it's done that might be negative.

Just my two cents, though.

Maybe 2.5 cents.

@TylerDurden OK but is there anything that you could do differently?

@Adam That's worth a whole dollar! It's also important to take some distance and not take criticism of your post as criticism of yourself.

@Adam The negativity we are talking about is people downvoting with no comments or down voting other viewpoints for opinion-based reasons.

This complaint has come up several times on various SE sites.

@JoonasIlmavirta Adjusted for inflation, it might be almost $10 now.

But I would say it is intended to be like this.

Youtube has stopped using down-votes in its scores.

But SE is not changing.

@Cerberus I fully agree.

It's just a different system/approach.

@Cerberus Just because SE has a lot of unnecessary negativity doesn't mean we have to just autopilot into it.

We need a quality control mechanism to remain interesting and useful.

I do agree about downvotes without any feedback, but at least in terms of reputation they try to mitigate it some. For me it's really only an issue when it's trolling behavior because the downvotes still stand even if the account is gone.

@Adam The votes are canceled if an account with low activity is deleted.

@JoonasIlmavirta Oh, interesting!

@TylerDurden I think the system is technically this way for that reason; and without disabling down-votes, and without massive support, I do not see this change.

I only even know because I have seen in my vote history that I had a bunch of downvotes from "user removed", or something like that.

@JoonasIlmavirta If there were 15 answers to every question, maybe some pruning would be ok, but on this site we should consider every answer as valuable and important, even if it has mistakes. We want to encourage more answers.

@TylerDurden My question is still up, though: is there anything you could change yourself, right now, to improve the situation?

@Cerberus I am a perfect human being.

@TylerDurden Naturally.

@Cerberus I could be less argumentative I think in some situations.

And I am a perfect-breed dog.

@TylerDurden Heh that probably applies to us all.

And everybody on the Internet.

I do have a possible suggestion, if you'd like to hear it.

Sure

@TylerDurden What if an experienced latinist thinks that an answer is misguiding for a beginner who comes to the site for help and can't judge himself? That to me is the central reason to vote an answer down.

@TylerDurden Occasionally, there is an element in your answer that someone else feels is incorrect. If you double-checked such things before posting, I think that could improve the scoring of your answers a great deal.

@JoonasIlmavirta I think most of OPs are adults who are smart enough to judge wheat from chaff.

@TylerDurden But the OP is not the only reader! The answers are supposed to build up a database of useful knowledge.

@JoonasIlmavirta Also, it is important to remember that reality is not black and white and when you start Wheelocking every answer it creates dogmas that in the long run are not helpful.

And it's normal for the OP to be a beginner. If I ask a question in something I barely understand, I'm grateful for all votes in both directions that any answers get. They help me decide what to trust.

@JoonasIlmavirta There is danger in deferring blindly to authority. I remember a fight in the Aviation SE which developed over the definition of "lift". It became very dogmatic, with the traditionalists shouting down the minority who clearly understood the physics of the situation better.

A minority viewpoint is not necessarily incorrect. Also, sometimes EVERYBODY is wrong.

For like 250 years Newton's theory of light was widely accepted and Thomas Young got insulted and downvoted by virtually everyone in the scientific community. Then eventually by the late 1800s they found out he was right.

@TylerDurden True, anyone can be wrong.

If I find myself in a minority of one, it's very likely that I'm wrong. Not always, but certainly most of the time.

On the other hand, climate change deniers and flat earth conspiracy theorists also use that same line. Anyone who holds a minority opinion can be right, but you have to do the work to prove it, otherwise you're just asking for people to trust that person as an alternative authority.

@cmw Exactly. Going against the scientific or scholarly consensus is certainly allowed, but that tends to come with a heavy burden of proof.

@JoonasIlmavirta You know when Tesla first began recommending alternating current everyone without exception laughed at him as a fool... except Westinghouse who eventually became one of the richest people in the country. Often it is better to stake a single genius going off on his own, then follow the herd going the wrong way.

Meanwhile, who's your favourite author?

@TylerDurden AC proved itself the best solution. It had the burden to do so and did it successfully.

In the matter of Latin translation divergence of opinion I think helps everybody gain a deeper understanding.

@Cerberus One book I have recently discovered is the Colloquia Latina of Erasmus. I think I am going to learn a lot from that book.

@TylerDurden Ah, do you mean Colloquia Familiaria?

I think we read some of those!

Or parts, I don't remember.

Right, Colloquia familiaria et encomium moriae

About the practices of various peoples.

I remember something about inns in different places, I think.

Any specific part you're interested in?

I don't know the work well at all.

I have not started it yet.

Right.

So how do you feel about my suggestion above, about double-checking your posts?

@Cerberus Well, everybody can always do more work on their posts. I think a certain amount of flak I get are legitimate errors, but the bulk it is over subjective issues. I tend to focus on understanding Roman thought and concepts when I translate, whereas most classicists think in terms of English equivalencies. Thus, it is hardly surprising the average Wheelock thumper hates my answers.

@TylerDurden An example I remember is cupido laudari.

Did you check whether that was possible, before posting your answer?

We have a site full of language geeks.

You cannot expect them to overlook little issues of syntax!

Like take enim, for example. The Wheelockian knee jerk reaction is just to translate it as "indeed" which is just so vague and shows no respect for the Roman concept which has no direct English equivalent. When I read the bible my stomach turns over every time I read "verily" which is like in every sentence.

I have never used Wheelock.

Nor any English grammars.

If a grammar it is.

@Cerberus I actually got that phrase out of a classical author. It was not the exact phrase, I think the exact phrase that I was borrowing from was cupidine laudari or something like that and I adjusted it to the required case. In any event, I borrowed that from a classical text.

@TylerDurden What if, next time, you checked such a feature first?

To really make sure it was as you remembered it?

I know I misremember such things all the time.

@Cerberus Well, if I am borrowing a phrase from a classical author like Cicero or Ausonius or whoever, I have a reasonable confidence they know their own language.

@TylerDurden No, I mean, make sure you are in fact taking a phrase from a real author, rather than misremembering.

Human memory is prone to errors.

Canine memory is no better btw.

@Cerberus I usually cut and paste.

But not in this case?

Cut and paste is good, if you are using a source to make a point.

@Cerberus Obviously I should have quoted the ancient source. I had no idea the Wheelockians were going to freak out about it.

Well, isn't it a rather important thing?

I do not know Wheelock, and yet I freaked out!

I did not realize that the grammar would be controversial.

OK, I see.

Then maybe just check bits of grammar that are central to a post.

I think that would make your voters happy.

Check more things.

You want your Latin examples to be correct, don't you?

No, I want them to be understood. Language is the medium of understanding. It is more important for an idea to be conveyed faithfully than for something to follow a rigid grammatical dogma.

A rigid grammatical dogma?

I'd have to go get it, but I thought I remembered Wheelock giving a few other phrases for enim. I might be conflating it with one of the other books I have, though.

@TylerDurden Don't you think the poster is looking for an answer that is proper Latin?

Or they added more in my edition that wasn't there before.

Well, the problem is that what is "proper" by modern schoolyard standards, often sounds stilted and unnatural and would not sound natural to a real Roman. I try and aim at what a real Roman would say, not follow what some Etonian professor would write.

That's why I often cut and paste from classical sources, I am guaranteed that it is real Roman phraseology.

@TylerDurden But, if no Roman that we know of has ever used noun + supplemental passive infinitive, would you consider that natural?

@Cerberus I am trying to find that expression.

That is what "correct" means to me: has been, or could have been, written by an actual Roman.

@TylerDurden Good!

I tried, too.

@Cerberus To me this is much like natural science: nature decides what's right, not scientists.

Hmm, hmm, though with more freedom to fill in the gaps.

@Cerberus I found a pretty close one: "simul audivit voluptatem a philosopho tanto opere laudari" so it is voluptatem laudari = pleasure to be praised

As soon as he heard pleasure to be praised...

@TylerDurden Hmm that would not be how I read it.

I would read it as an accusativus cum infinitivo.

He heard that lust was praised very much by a philosopher.

Right, it is not really an analogous match

See, this is fun work!

We seem to remember a certain construction, then we try to find it.

And read it, translate it with an open mind, consider alternative interpretations.

Ahh, here we go, I looked in the digital book

Good translations.

Though context is key.

sub Alborti effigie inter Belli facci Duces expressa composuille elogium quod ipfe recitat plenum erroribus ab alimagis quo magis cupido laudari quoquo modo Albertum quam geftorum ejus perito fugmoslupponendos quibus etiain fogitur fuiffe ante Pamultum Bethléemicus atque Ascaloniteadulatio nus Episcopus

@Adam When I translate enim I consider it to signify either necessary or at least corroborative auxiliary information. There is no English word that has this concept, so every sentence where it occurs has to be phrased differently depending on the context. The problem is that someone comes along and says, "that translation for enim is not in Lewis & Short" and the downvotes begin.

@TylerDurden Ah, I think that is the adjective cupidus?

The quotation has copy-paste errors, by the way.

I actually don't quite understand that sentence. It just came up in the search for cupido laudari

Yes, alimagis is not a word.

> an elogium, which he himself recited, full of errors, by someone, who was more desirous that Albert should be praised in whatever way, than knowledgeable of of his deeds

So this looks like the adjective cupidus + a.c.i.

Which I suspect is not classical Latin...

That is, I would not construct cupidus with an a.c.i., would you?

With an plain infinitive, yes, perhaps.

At any rate, it is not the noun cupido, is it?

Yes, it is polluted Latin. I think the expression I had found was indeed late Latin. I remember feeling guilty about it at the time, but I said to myself, well its an ecclesiastical question, so it is ok to use late Latin.

I remember the phrase I found was definitely that crude Greek-christian-trying-to-speak-Latin-esque style

Haha.

But considering it was a Christian question, I thought that would be ok

You know, if you had qualified it as "possibly used in ecclesiastical Latin", then I think that would have prevented all those comments, and down-votes, too.

@TylerDurden I understand your reasoning.

So I think catering to the grammar Nazis would help you a lot in this matter, if you're willing.

Thats what they are; grammar nazis.

Paravatis humogiv ergo nominus, as could be said to describe such a situation.

> I am not 100% sure, but I seem to remember the following construction can be used in ecclesiastical Latin: ...

@TylerDurden If only you had introduced your example thus!

@user346760 Hah lorem ipsum?

@Cerberus Haha that's exactly the spirit :D

Tsk, tsk!

I am sure I will get better at defending myself against the modicilli ingenii over time. I just need to note my sources, and then rub their noses in it, when they say it is bad Latin and it turns out to be Cicero

@TylerDurden Right!

Do make sure it is exactly the same construction, though, before using it as a source.

But, really, I think qualifying stuff can also solve much of this problem.

When people think you claim certainty or authority, they are merciless.

When you hedge or qualify, they will recognise and appreciate the modesty.

Does that make sense at all?

verecundia autem meum lumen non est

Hehe.

It's one or the other, humility or perfection!