Alle Sprachen    |   EN   SV   IS   RU   IT   FR   RO   PT   HU   LA   NL   SK   ES   HR   BG   FI   NO   CS   DA   TR   PL   SR   EL   EO   |   SK   HU   FR   PL   NL   SQ   RU   NO   ES   SV   IT   DA   CS   PT   HR   RO   |   more ...

Deutsch-Englisch-Wörterbuch

Online-Wörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch: Begriff hier eingeben!
  ä ö ü ß
  Optionen | Tipps | FAQ | Abkürzungen | Desktop

LoginRegistrieren
Home|About/Extras|Vokabeltrainer|Fachgebiete|Benutzer|Forum|Mitmachen!
Übersetzungsforum Deutsch-EnglischSeite 2993 von 3108   <<  >>
Types of entries to display:     Linguistic Help Needed   Chat and Other Topics   Dictionary and Contribute!  

English-German Translation Forum

Hier kannst du Fragen zu Übersetzungen stellen (auf Deutsch oder Englisch) und anderen Benutzern weiterhelfen. Wichtig: Bitte gib den Kontext deiner Frage an!
Seite
|
#
| Suche | Richtlinien | Neue Frage stellen
Frage:
Lengthy bible verses » antworten
von aphoenix (US), Last modified: 2017-09-05, 02:17  Spam?  
Does this belong in dict.cc?  https://contribute.dict.cc/?action=show-history&id=1322902  (Thanks, Jim for pointing out my error).
Antwort: 
von Jim46 (US), Last modified: 2017-09-05, 02:30  Spam?  
 #877945
It seems out of the realm of a dictionary to me.
Antwort: 
So you think many of these entries are inadequate?  #877946
von parker11 (DE), Last modified: 2017-09-05, 04:51  Spam?  
Antwort: 
von aphoenix (US), Last modified: 2017-09-05, 05:39  Spam?  
 #877947
4;parker11, I don't see how your question is relevant.  I checked (before posting the question), and found that most of the Bible verses included in the dictionary were (a) well known, and (b) much shorter than the one I cited.  There are quite a lot of verses in the Bible.  I assume that we do not want to include them all.
Antwort: 
Wo ist das Problem?  #877958
von christinchen (DE), 2017-09-05, 09:54  Spam?  
Wer soll denn definieren, was in dict gehört und was nicht? Bei über 1.000.000 Einträgen findet jede und jeder einen Eintrag, der in den eigenen Augen "überflüssig" ist. Das anerkannte Kriterium ist falsch oder richtig.
Deswegen meine Frage. Die Unübersichtlichkeit kann es in diesem Fall nicht sein: egal welches Wort du eingibst, der Eintrag landet ganz hinten. Dass der Eintrag nicht verifiziert ist? Dieses Schicksal teilt er mit 3745 Einträgen. Wenn so viele Einträge "hängen", dann spricht das vielleicht für ein strukturelles Problem, wenn es überhaupt ein Problem ist. Sie werden ja gekennzeichnet.
Antwort: 
Sehe ich auch so wie Christinchen. Im Zweifel Paul fragen.  #877959
von parker11 (DE), 2017-09-05, 09:59  Spam?  
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2017-09-05, 12:27  Spam?  
 #877970
Seems to do no harm. I guess we can keep it.
Antwort: 
I would love to vote to delete it.  #878403
von polarjud (US), 2017-09-12, 03:36  Spam?  
I guess that Paul is most interested in generating hits, so it is hard to say no to any class of entries.  I can understand that, certainly.  But Paul, you have in the past, complained about the number of unverified entries causing you to impose restrictions on new entries.  Here is a golden opportunity for you.  Do not allow entries longer than x characters or y words.  At least not in text that is unbracketed.
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2017-09-12, 11:08  Spam?  
 #878432
Generating hits is not a direct function of having more entries. Generating hits means being useful for the users, so they come back, tell others about it, or create links to dict.cc. Search engines makes web sites more prominent in their results lists if they can measure high user satisfaction with them.

If pages look cluttered and chaotic due to too many similar or useless entries, this is not being useful, it's counterproductive. So it's not hard to say no to useless entries (except for upsetting those who added them, that's always trouble).

Entries already have a length restriction. But: The longer an entry is, the closer it is sorted to the end of the search results list. So for https://contribute.dict.cc/?action=show-history&id=1322902: If you search for "Erde", you will see that this entry is not blocking the most important translations like "soil", "earth" or "ground". You'll need to click through to page 3 to even find it. But if you're reading an old book, for example, and stumble across the term "Ruchlosen" or "knowest" you will at least get an idea or be reminded of the meaning of the word because of that entry.
Antwort: 
von aphoenix (US), 2017-09-12, 14:15  Spam?  
 #878439
Wouldn't it be more useful to have entries for "Ruchlosen" and "knowest"?  They'd be much easier to find.  I'm not suggesting we need every archaic verb form, but "knowest" appears 100 times in the King James Bible according to https://www.artbible.info/concordance/k.html.
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2017-09-12, 16:22  Spam?  
 #878445
Could also be useful, but I find inflected and rare forms more useful when embedded in example phrases, so they don't clutter the search results pages when searched for from the other language.

An example: For "Ruchlosen" please see dict.cc: wicked - I'm quite happy to have it at the current position on this page. The most common translations for "wicked" are on top, so most users don't even need to scroll. Users searching for special cases or more detailed information usually accept investing more time in their research. In my opinion that's the best tradeoff in accommodating all kinds of dictionary users.
Antwort: 
Not a hard or useful translation task  #878474
von polarjud (US), 2017-09-13, 03:42  Spam?  
Anyone can look up a bible verse in an English-translation of the ancient Greek/Jewish text and also look up the same verse in Luther's translation to German.  What does that add?  I would argue that it actually subtracts.  Translations of more than three words of biblical texts should be forbidden.
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2017-09-13, 11:15  Spam?  
 #878503
Not everyone has an English and a German bible at home or has the time or even the idea to research this online. People might also come across these words outside of a biblical context. For me it's not so much about bible quotes, it doesn't have anything to do with being religious or not, it's about example sentences/phrases. They can be quite useful, as I tried to show.
I'm not saying "please add masses of bible quotes", but if I come across such an entry, I would rather keep it than delete it.
Antwort: 
I won't endorse any, but neither will I vote to delete given your wishes  #878589
von polarjud (US), 2017-09-14, 03:26  Spam?  
Antwort: 
von Paul (AT), 2017-09-14, 11:04  Spam?  
 #878611
Thank you!
nach oben | home© 2002 - 2018 Paul Hemetsberger | Impressum
Dieses Deutsch-Englisch-Wörterbuch basiert auf der Idee der freien Weitergabe von Wissen. Mehr Informationen!
Enthält Übersetzungen von der TU Chemnitz sowie aus Mr Honey's Business Dictionary (Englisch/Deutsch). Vielen Dank dafür!
Links auf dieses Wörterbuch oder einzelne Übersetzungen sind herzlich willkommen! Fragen und Antworten
Werbung ausblenden