M> Translate Video Exclusive Chat Jake Brukhman man & Kenny Rowe (Crypto Talk on Rise)

[Keaycee]

Goal: Translate Video Exclusive Chat Jake Brukhman & Kenny Rowe (Crypto Talk on Rise)

The file name is: [TRANSCRIPT][.srt][English] "Exclusive Chat Jake Brukhman & Kenny Rowe (Crypto Talk on Rise)"
It's in Folder: /RChain/Members/Marketing-Community Dev/YouTube

• create a complete transcript in English with timed links to subjects before 2018-03-30
• Correction of transcript errors
• Mandarin
• French,
• Greek,
• German
• Spanish
• Portugese
• Dutch,
• Serbo-Croat,
• Italian,
• Russian,
• (or add other languages)
• promote video on all channels and other outlets

Time: 2weeks

[dckc]

Please move the budget to the individual per-language issues and take it off this one.

I suppose a budget for cleaning up the English translation could stay here.

[BelovedAquila]

@Keaycee I will be working to review the English transcript, hope you don't mind?

[Whisker17]

Cool,I'm looking forward to contributing myself to it.

[Keaycee]

You're welcome @BelovedAquila
The English transcript corrections will completed in a few @Whisker17

[Keaycee]

I'm done with the English transcript. Now completed

[ResonanceXX]

@Keaycee Hello. Minor text issue. Telegram text shows Jake Brukhman but that was in @lapin7 translated version to groups. Is it then fair to suggest Jake/James Brookman is the English form of the name. Otherwise everything is fine.

I have only assisted in changing the srt. file's heading to Jake. You can then follow through on the surname. Cheers!

[BelovedAquila]

@ResonanceXX you are right I just observed that too,the appropriate is Jake Brukhman

[Keaycee]

Thank you for your observation. noted and corrected on the new threads and srt file.

[BelovedAquila]

Actually made the adjustment in the transcript file name, good now.

[Whisker17]

I don't think this transcript works since it doesn't a time axis (xx:xx:xx,xxx --> yy:yy:yy,yyy) like other worked transcript, is that right? @Keaycee

[ResonanceXX]

@Keaycee @BelovedAquila Very up to date. cheers.

[Keaycee]

It does has a timestamps @Whisker17

[Whisker17]

@Keaycee Do you ever have a try?It doesn't work if you change the .txt to .srt

[zsluedem]

@Keaycee It is not a norlmal .srt format. What that means is it doesn't fit into the youtube subtitle.

[Keaycee]

I'm going to get that fixed today @zsluedem @Whisker17

[dckc]

I removed the misleading budget.

[Keaycee]

I have fixed a new transcript with the timestamp, but still need sometime to review it completely.

[Keaycee]

@lapin7 @Whisker17 @zsluedem @ResonanceXX @BelovedAquila see issue #251 and suggest a budget for this thread.

[dckc]

#251 is an example of what not to do. It has caused a great deal of concern, including suggestions to stop the bounty program altogether. (cf executive committee March 2)

[ResonanceXX]

@Keaycee Hello. The source file being changed, does it render our previous work on the document irrelevant?

[Keaycee]

@ResonanceXX It was hard for me to do it. @Whisker17 and @zsluedem tried to convert the transcript back to srt but it failed, probably because it was not in the right format. Now i've got it back to a right format. So i'm still reviewing the document.

[ResonanceXX]

@Keaycee okay. Lets get on with it. Cheers.

[Whisker17]

@Keaycee Do you finish the review,I find the transcript with lots error and I've correct it now.And I think you'd better add the name who say this sentence such as "Jake: xxxxx Kenny: xxxxx"

[Keaycee]

No need for that, I'm still doing some correction on the transcript. @Whisker17

[BelovedAquila]

@Whisker17 should I suppose you made an exaggeration? Presently working with the transcript made by @Keaycee and have attained some level of progress on it, so you waking up to drop a new version is what I can't fathom, if there are issues there comment on them on the main transcript already in use, so you don't end up raising a misunderstanding as that found in #266

[Whisker17]

line 6 this is a sentence,I dont know why you break it.
line 50 This should be this
line 53 Met should be met
line 77 I dont know what you hear
line 95-96 Crypto Kitties should be right
line 97 should be "apps, you'll know that during the"
line 108 should be " the network and we","wait" is for what?
line 109 112 118 122 125 130 131 137 139 141 145 should have a break but you didn't
line 127 Filecoin is a word,not "file coin"
line 133 "like coin" is what? It should be "Litecoin"
line 144 "Syrians" is what? I think it's "Ethereum"
line 146 "manes " is for what? It's "names"
that was what I found when I translated,maybe some problem,but it truly bothered me a lot,so I wanna review this again.
Is this enough? @Keaycee

[Whisker17]

@BelovedAquila cool,it's OK,I'll do my translation,thanks for your advise.

[ResonanceXX]

@Whisker17 Be informed, extensive work done on the document precedes the error you have pointed out.

Except a newer document was created, which would be needless.

Secondly, with my experience in the work, we generally make the edits on the document, leaving behind edit marks for the correcting contributor to make amends.

That is done there. And the corrections are made more genuinely.

[irynapopova61]

Hello, can i translate it to Ukrainian ? @Jake-Gillberg

[Jake-Gillberg]

@irynapopova61 I do not think that this is a good target. If you would like to summarize the content into a blog post and translate it, I would support that effort.

[Keaycee]

@Whisker17 Thank you for your observation, I've input the corrections. It's nice collaborating with you.
@ResonanceXX Let's take another review on the doc. Cheers

[Whisker17]

@ResonanceXX I see,and all I want to do is to make this transcripts more precise,and you are right,I totally agree,thanks for your advice

[ghost]

Issue #488 is Done.

[Whisker17]

This transcript‘s word account is 8897,since the price of a word is $0.2,so I think the total budget should be $1800.

[BelovedAquila]

Issue #464 is Done.

[Jake-Gillberg]

@BelovedAquila, @Keaycee, @Viraculous, @Whisker17 Please explain how this issue justifies a $5000 bounty.

It looks like all this issue might be representing is gathering the correct English subtitles. #463, #464, #465, #488, and #500 all are where the actual translation takes place. Aside from my concerns expressed here: #483, it seems to me like there is some double-dealing going on in these issues.

@Keaycee Please justify the combined $4846 claimed across the issues listed above.

@BelovedAquila Please justify the combined $2880 claimed across the issues listed above.

@ResonanceXX Please justify the $938 claimed on this issue.

@Whisker17 Please justify the $1440 claimed on the associated issue (#465).

@staff91 Please justify the $1440 claimed on the associated issue (#488).

@jkost401 Please justify the $600 claimed on the associated issue (#500).

@pavlos1851 Please justify the $540 claimed on the associated issue (#500).

[Jake-Gillberg]

I believe that subtitle translations are worth much less than video translations. I appreciate your work, but I am currently valuing video subtitle translations at .05/word, not .20/word.

[Keaycee]

@Jake-Gillberg The proposed budget for this work is $1800. However, I suggest every participant who worked (@BelovedAquila @Whisker17 @ResonanceXX on this thread should review their budget on this issue.

[Jake-Gillberg]

@Keaycee, @Viraculous. I see that you changed your vote from $5,000 to $1,800. Please tell me why you initially voted $5,000, otherwise I must assume that your intent was to defraud the bounty program.

Also, you have not offered an explanation for the $1,800 budget for this issue. Please explain what value was derived from this issue.

[Keaycee]

@Jake-Gillberg I asked everyone who participated on this issue to review their votes to be matched the proposed budget. There was no intent to defraud the system, I commented on this issues 24 days ago, asking the participants to come up with a budget for the issue. @Whisker17 came up with the proposed budget for the issue, which was $1800. I must say people vote as a result of example of the budget seen in the budgetvote especially when we were still using the spreadsheet. Please @Jake-Gillberg , @dckc @BelovedAquila review your vote on this issue.

[Jake-Gillberg]

@Keaycee You voted too. Please explain your reasoning for the amount you voted. There are logs of $5000 votes on this issue.

Just had a conversation with @Keaycee in which he claimed that generating the original English subtitle file would take "3-4 days" for someone with experience. I was able to download the youtube auto-generated subtitle file within minutes. From here I would guess all it would take is a scan to clean up anything the machine missed. 2 hours worth of work TOPS. This in no way justifies a bounty of $5000 or $1800. Keaycee's response to this information was, "Well, it's a decentralized and a collaborative system". Due to my judgement that the work done and budget proposed for this issue was not in good faith, I am modifying my vote from $100 to a large negative number.

[Keaycee]

@Jake-Gillberg The amount of time i spent doing my job does not matter, What matters is the quality of work done. To download an auto generated subtitle file only takes minutes. What consumes more time is the reviewing and correction on the script. @Jake-Gillberg Kindly put up the whole conversation i had with you on discord on here for everyone to see.
@Jake-Gillberg I understand you have personal problem about translation jobs, but it think it's more personal voting -99999 and @dckc voting -5000. I made reference to issue #251 . You can take a look at the budgetvote on issue #251 on the spreadsheet in january.
12,000 @Whisker17
14,000 @Tonyprisca13
10,000 @LiliNL
10,000 @kaka56
10,000 @Viraculous
10,000 @Mervyn853
11,500 @noordaa
12,000 @ICA3DaR5
12,000 @BelovedAquila
10,000 @lapin7
10,000 @Ojimadu
All this votes was as a result of the misleading vote made by one person and was seconded by other participant. However, the budget was corrected $1,000 by @lapin7 regardless of the vote of outrageous votes of the participants. Again, sometimes members vote outrageously because of the misleading votes placed by others. Looking at the votes above, the intent was never to defraud the system, but rather vote seconded to backup the first example of vote placed.

The spreadsheet is no longer in use and some coop members do not know how to use the webApp effectively.

Now @Jake-Gillberg and @dckc voting an outrageous negative vote on issues created by me. I must say, if issue 462 was created by @lapin7 you both will have that decency not to behave or act like this. But because it was created by @Keaycee .

What justifies your act of negatives vote, was it the conversation on discord or comments on github or the quality of work done? @Jake-Gillberg

@dckc and @Jake-Gillberg I think you guys are trying to centralize this system and also discourage coop members. We don't have a lot of participating coop members on github and many of them aren't active members.

I understand that @dckc @Jake-Gillberg do not support my work, thereby calling other friends to downvote my budget. This is no longer official, rather a personal decision of loathing and resentment.

The system is decentralized and collaborative, we're here to collaborate with other coop members for the best interest of RChain, and not to discourage coop members from participating.
Example: If Mr A spot an error where Mr B doesn't see it, as a coop, It's up for Mr A to address or correct such errors rather than leaving it for Mr B to spot it out.
As we collaborate together, correct errors together, we learn and don't make same mistakes tomorrow.

[Keaycee]

[Jake-Gillberg]

@Keaycee you are welcome to share the whole conversation if you like.

@Keaycee, yes, the time it takes shouldn't matter, but we should pay for RESULTS not EFFORT. My request about the time it took (or would take someone with experience) was to get a gauge on the amount that the RESULTS are worth.

I compared your corrected script with the auto-generated. I removed the punctuation and capitalization in your work for easier comparison. See the results here. I agree that you did a good job reviewing the auto-generated transcript, but fail to see how these changes constitute more than 2 hours of work, let alone 3-4 days and ~$1,800. I also spot-checked the timestamps in your file vs the auto-generated time stamps and couldn't find any major differences (<1/20 second difference).

It seems like you maybe used an inefficient process to create the English reviewed transcript (hence the different timestamps), and that might be where our misunderstanding is coming from. Is this the first reviewed English transcript you have compiled?

@zsluedem, it looks like you have experience getting and reviewing the youtube auto-generated transcripts. Can you comment on the amount of time this takes?

[zsluedem]

@Jake-Gillberg For a one-hour videos , it would take about 1.5-2 hours to review the English transcripts.(For me ,it would take a little longer because I am not an English native speaker)

[Ojimadu]

I agree with much of what Jake Gillberg has said but I don't think the negative budget given to this issue is equitable. The participants might have erred but clearly work was done and should be rewarded based on the result. Giving a large negative reward seem to me like a disincentive. I don't know how the Negative budget works, if it affect the participants rewards on other issue or not.
@Keaycee thinks it's more of personal sentiment that @Jake-Gillberg and @dckc voted a negative budget on this issue. We shouldn't create/imply a situation that anyone feels he/she is being targeted or anyone is on a vendetta. I see that among issue #462, #463, #464, #465, #488 and #500 only #462 and #463 has a negative budget while all of the issues mentioned above stemmed from this issue.

@Jake-Gillberg and @dckc I would suggest that the negative votes on #462 and #463 be reviewed based on the results of work done.

[dckc]

@Keaycee 's justification for a $1800 vote was "people vote as a result of example of the budget seen in the budgetvote"; i.e. based on @Whisker17 's suggesion of $1800. That suggestion was based on $0.20/word, which is the sort of rate used to justify actual translations (and very expensive ones at that) and not just the clean-up of the input.

I see no response to questions about the original April 1 question about the $5000 vote.

My vote is indeed intended as a disincentive for that sort of voting.

As to the long list of other issues, in some cases I ran out of time. But for example, the Italian translator responded in a collegial manner to Jake's requests and agreed on a budget of a few hundred.

[Keaycee]

@dckc I answered that seven days ago. Can you check the history of the budgetvote on #462 on the webApp. The budgetvote was placed firstly by a participant. I was the third person seconding the budgetvote when it was $5,000 on the webApp. There was no intent to defraud the system as most voting actions are base on my explanation seven days ago.
@dckc, I replied earlier the basis for the calculation at $1800. @JakeGillberg says he values transcript at $0.05 (around $400 based on his calculations) but voted $100 because he opines that the work would be done on two hours for a person with skill. Only to vote a largely negative budget later on.
About the $5000 vote, I sent a reply four days ago. I admit I made a mistake there but you subjectively decided that the downward budget review was an intent to defraud of which there was no such intent.
I understand that @dckc and @jake voted on this issue based on their personal assumptions but I don't understand the rationale behind the negative votes given on #463 as well.

[dckc]

At @lapin7's request, the current pay period in the web app is now 201804 and we can no longer edit 201803 votes. I suppose we are now into the Centralized Payment process part of the program for March. I get the impression @lapin7 is reviewing invoices with translation work, so he can take your responses into account.

[lapin7]

@dckc

I suppose we are now into the Centralized Payment process part of the program for March.

Technically we're in the Centralized state, but the rest is pretty decentralized. I only check if invoices are technically speaking OK. I don't check the arguments for entries. So generally I won't take any responses into account. Too time consuming.

Everybody can discuss votes, but that does not change the rewards or budgets. Only the figures entered in the Bounty App change the averages.

It's about the numbers not the text.

Explanation of numbers comes later, if needed.