How do we get more content in the Library?

There has bee discussion on anther thread about how to increase our content in various languages. Problems range from
how to record something
what kind of content is needed
how to find another person to engage in a conversation
what kind of third party content can we use

I would encourage any discussion to take place here.

some ideas from me

  1. We prefer to have only native speakers for each language. In a dialogue, at least one of the speakers should be a native speaker.
  2. The existing LingQ libraries, in a number of languages, are examples of what we need. We can also discuss the subject here.
  3. Think of what you would want for the language you are learning and create the same in your own language.
  4. If you find content that we can use let us know…either to share or for others to import.
  5. If your native language is not yet available in LingQ why not make some content available on a blog and then upload it when we get your language going at LingQ (hopefully before the end of the year).

I welcome more comments.
5) If you have technical issues please ask about them on the forum.

Jeff had this to sa

For what it’s worth, I don’t sound like myself in interviews on the local radio - and that is in my native tongue… I’m not only thinking of the voice itself, but also unexpected intonation and accent.

With that in mind, it is probably only normal to think of one’s own voice/accent as somewhat disappointing.

As for Björn’s other two problems, I would also have difficulties knowing what to talk about and be unsure whether somebody would find the contents (if I came up with something at all…) “interesting”.

Slightly related to the first problem is that I don’t speak “standard” Swedish (well, who does…), so the beginner would probably “find” many dropped endings, slurred consonants, entirely different verb forms (weak verbs made strong, and vice versa)… Well, maybe people start to speak Gotlandic Swedish in Hong Kong/Puerto Rico/Vancouver. :wink:

I replied as follows

jeff,

I DO NOT CARE WHAT YOUR ACCENT IS. We would love to have some Swedish from you.

I can assure you that whenever we get content in whatever language we get criticisms from speakers of that language…he/she speaks with an accent, her grammar is no good etc/ WE IGNORE THEM!

As to what to talk about

  1. Talk to a friend about anything
  2. Record something from Wikipedia, we have permission
  3. Record some Strindbergh or any author that can be found on gutenberg
  4. If you find some content we can use, let us know.

I would love to redo our beginner Swedish content with both male and female voices. At present we only have it in one male voice (who has of course been criticized by other Swedes).

Anything to improve our Swedish library would be appreciated.

Thanks for the support, Steve! I will explore my recording possibilities at once (last time I checked, the volume seemed to be a bit low).

I tried to record a few texts too, but the volume was way too low.
I could barely hear myself on my iPod.
Does anyone know how to get the volume a bit louder?
Do I need to download a special program?
(I have been using Windows’ Voice Recorder)

Thanks.

I first tried Windows’ own recorder (probably the same as you did). Yesterday I downloaded Audacity (the preferred application, it seems) - still very low volume. Since I have my listening voume on 10 (out of 100) and can hear everything (podcasts, music, radio et.c.) perfectly, it would be strange if I had to raise the recording volume a lot more than that. I looked around for answers and found that the advanced microphone settings (and soundcard settings) had a “boost” checkbox which in fact got the volume a bit louder.

Good luck!

I have downloaded a free copy of audacity and found that it is very easy to amplify recordings after you have made them.

Just mark the whole track, then Effect → Amplify

Steve,
The best way to get more content in the library is motivation. The best source of motivation is: money.

LingQ has started giving out points to content providers, and I think this is going the right way. I think you need to emphasis more on this to the members. For example, I myself have rewarded some points, but I don't understand how the points are calculated. Perhaps LingQ should make it clearer to its members.

We also needs to take into consideration the quality of the content provided. This is indicated by the number of subscriptions. I guess the current reward system is doing this, but again, I cannot be sure.

Edwin,

Of course you are right. People want to get paid for content and yet only want to select content that is free. Human nature.

Our compensation for content can only come from confiscated points, since we do not charge for content. We had originally hoped to allow members to charge for content. We may yet introduce a tipping jar for content.

The amount of confiscated points, and therefore of compensation, will vary from month to month. As long as we have so few members, the amount of compensation will be low and unsteady.

When we get into the new system, and hopefully have more users, and a steadier stream of confiscated points we will make a greater effort to explain how it works.

Content earns points based on usage. Any content created now will continue to earn points as long as it is used. We will introduce an evaluation for both sound quality and content, but that is just one more thing we have on our list.

We will also make it easier for all members to tutor, so that members will be able to finance their studies as they go. This is all coming, slowly.

Steve
what is a “tipping jar” ?

What do you mean with “to earn points as long as it is used”?
What happened when the member deled the content from his WorkDesk or out of his archive area? Will the points then be reduced?

It is not only the sound quality, I think it is a great different if a member copy and past an item from VOA or wikipedia or another make a podcast, a transcription from a podcast, a conversation or another self created item.

The tipping jar was discussed in another thread - in restaurants/cafés/bars where it’s common to find a glass/jar filled with money (usually coins). That is, paying a little extra if you find the service particularly good.

The LingQ version of that would be to be able to donate points or a dollar here or there (usually via a link to Paypal or similar) to keep the web site running.

interesting Jeff - we have those things not as glass but as box and the coins are going for charity or aother good.

Irene,

A tipping jar is for tips. A charity box is for charity. A piggy bank is for your own savings.

We would only institute a tipping jar for members to donate points to those people who created content that they particularly appreciated. This would go directly to the content creator’s account.

Re the issue of what happens when an item is deleted. Nothing happens. What is more, once we remove the existing 5 item limit, in a few weeks, we think that few people will delete content.

We need an objective and easy to manage way to allocate points out of the monthly confiscated points. Once we start promoting membership more aggressively we, hopefully, will have more members, and more points to allocate to those we create content. For some people this is already not an insignificant number of points, and the content just keeps on earning. The better the content the more people will use it.

We have found that for most languages beginner content is the most popular. So keep the content coming. It is an investment in the future, for the contributor, for the members and for LingQ.

Thanks Steve, now it is clearer.

Only, how I mentioned before - you challenge all members to bring items in the library but YOU (LingQ) don’t want to have an eye on: the quality for the content, the sound and so on.

Now we have a lot of articles in the library they are only copy and pasted (VOA, Wikipedia) - for this the provider get the same points how a provider who transcript a podcast or created self a podcast, a conversation or an own text. In my feeling the work is not to comparable.
I see the difficulties for having a control but how can that be fair?

Often I see mistakes in the items (spellings, different from written and spoken and so on) - I have those too in my parts it is humanly.
When you have more and more providers they (or we all) should have an adress that the member who find mistakes can give a feedback for the faults and the provider can do a correction.

I think this would be good in each case because each member could give a feedback and the provider could learn out of it.

You wrote “the better the content is, the more people use it”

For testing a content I have to take it on my WorkDesk. Then I have to listen to and to read - after that I can decide it is good or bad.
Where is here your sign for an assessment? That can be only AFTER taking the item.

I see we should have here a way for EDIT !!! Ofte I can see a mistake first after sending.

Thanks for the input Irene. As I have said before, we are proceeding slowly to make the site better. We are sticking to our own list of priorities. All suggestions are welcome and do influence us, but we cannot respond immediately.

I agree with Irene. I think LingQ should pay more attention to the uploaded contents. Not only the problem of the contents qualities, but there are also copyright issues and so on. You cannot rely on members to do the right thing all the time. In addition, there are the same copied contents from the different providers at the Japanese section. If more members start uploading contents, then the same thing will happen more frequently. I think LingQ need to be aware of the quality of the library itself.

Yes, making my own contents is really hard work. For me, it is way easy to just record a podcast, let you transcribe it, and get 500pts. Even my contents last 30 seconds each, it takes a lot more time to create. I feel it is a bit unfair, too. But I am doing this, because I am a tutor. Earning points will certainly motivate me to create contents. Getting feedback on the contents must do it, too. So I like Irene’s idea to have feedback thread on each item.

When members point out problems with content in our Library we usually react. We will correct major inaccuracies in transcription. We will pull contact where there are copyright or other issues. We may, in the future, set up a volunteer advisory editorial board for each language. However, we do not want to worry about the occasional non-standard usage of language.

I have said many times that we intend to introduce a system that will enable learners to grade the quality of the content. There is no real benefit in making the same points over and over again.

We pay points for podcasts because they are a form of advertizing. The content is paid for from confiscated points. Starting next month we will be spending quite a bit of money on promotion which should increase the revenue for content providers.

Yes it takes time to make original content. Original content should be aimed at beginners since that kind of material is not easy to find. Natural conversations are also very popular. Such material is also much more in demand by our learners. On the other hand, if there is good third party content that people like, then that should be rewarded. If original content is popular, then that will be rewarded. What matters is what the learners want.

We have to find an easy way to reward contributors. Usage is the easiest. I do not think that you can judge the system based on the small number of users we have today. We appreciate the effort of the content creators and providers and if we are able to get LingQ properly launched I think you will see that providing content will be an excellent way to pay for all of your learning activities at LingQ.

Perhaps each language library needs its own moderator, who has the e-mails of all the contributors and who can edit or delete inappropriate content?