Library in English - earning points


That is a good point. We do not have an abundance of interesting content in all languages. If someone finds some, and contacts the owner of the content and then makes it available to our members, that is a great service, and therefore that person should be rewarded. It is difficult then to say that that reward should be less than the reward given to someone who creates content on their own, even though the ongoing effort of the latter is much greater.

I think that things balance out in that the good content created by our members, whether of the casual conversation or diary nature, or of beginner nature, tends to be more popular because it is more unique.

We need to find a way of featuring this content better.

I basically agree with everybody here. Although I have uploaded quite a few Grimm stories (and intend to keep doing so since other members have found them useful), I will also record my own content (in Swedish) as soon as things get less chaotic here…

There is still the issue that somebody might find VOA/DeutscheWelle/Gefühlskonserve/et.c. more useful and entertaining than content created by the members, so it’s not that easy to be fair to everyone. If 100 members use a podcast from VOA and only 10 use a random lesson created by another member - which content should generate more points, and why?

As for the display in the library, maybe “free” content could occupy just one slot (per collection), possibly with a “hot” icon (star or similar) next to it, indicating that new content has been uploaded to that particular collection “today”.

Any thoughts?

I want to take back my opinion about only LingQ being able to upload the third-party contents. It is better to have an option for everybody with uploading and sharing contents on their interests.

Like French, I spend hours looking for free Japanese contents. I email to authors to ask for permissions to use their contents on LingQ, but I am approved from only a few authors. Maybe I spend much more time to find one third party content than creating my own. Once I am approved, there are not so many things to do. I download the audio, cut&paste the text, and share it.

The reason why I feel unfair is things like VOA. Those who upload and share contents from VOA can upload contents effortlessly, and just get points. If people need to transcribe, they should be rewarded as they created their own contents.

This is just an idea I came up this morning… How about giving a big points when members find approved third party contents? Members who upload contents from the already-approved third party get smaller amount of points.

About featuring the contents, I think it can be solved when LingQ implements the rating feature. Maybe you can show the top 10 rated contents for each level on the top of the library.

Exactly that is what Emma explain and what I am feeling with VOA aerticles ar first.

Each week I receive the email from VOA with 10 new articles. To import these all in LingQ is a work of 5 till 10 minutes.
It’s right, the content is good and interesting, it may be good to have it in the LingQ library for members they have no practice with import.
But the member who import these has nothing to do, only copy and past and earns the same points as a member who works hard:

Writing a lot of emails to Podcasters for permission to use their pod - often without respons!!!
At least, when they have a permission, they have to transcript because often the pod is without text.
Others create her own content with very good will to help beginners, writing, correction, speaking for the audio file…
and so on, a work of hours.

It isn’t to compare with only copy and past!
That is what I think it is not fair.

I’m not familiar with the length of the VOA podcasts are (or the accuracy of the transcripts), but for the Grimm stories which I have uploaded (and earned a few points for), I have personally listened to each one of them in real time, plus checked the transcript word-for-word (sometimes changed the spelling from older German to modern, e.g. gieng->ging). The total duration of the uploaded Grimm content so far is 3 hours and 59 minutes. Sometimes I’ve had to pause several times while correcting the text. Sometimes I’ve had to convert the audio to another format/sample rate. So, not just 5-10 minutes of work.

I agree with Jeff. It takes about 5 minutes to upload only one item, if everything goes without a hitch. Usually it doesn’t. Sometimes the text is too long so you have to split it up. Or you have to change the audio format, clean it up, or amplify it in Audacity.

Personally I would like to try volunteering my time as a transcriber of French podcasts. The problem is I am not a native speaker, so it would be better if a native or near native proofread it. I would not mind not getting any points for it since I am investigating if this is a profitable way of enhancing my learning.

I’ve been following this discussion and I’ve got to agree with Jeff and Ed. In the final analysis, most members are really only interested in finding interesting content at their level with good sound quality. VOA and other content like it fits the bill very will. Whether it takes longer to create your own content than uploading VOA is really not that relevant. What matters is the final result. Not to mention, as Jeff and Ed point out, it’s not as easy as 5 minutes although it is certainly more work to create content or transcribe podcasts. There is a need for all types of content and providers will be rewarded based on its popularity and not based on how much work went into the podcast. There is simply no other way of doing this.

All this being said, I’ve mainly used member-created content for my studies; for German, in particular Irene’s and Vera’s. There is still so much content from both which I haven’t yet had the time to check out. So, don’t despair! :slight_smile:

Yes, now I understand that LingQ cannot reward fairly to all providers. When I upload the third providers contents, I do have to change kanji, delete furigana, split up the long text, and so on. But compared with creating own contents, it is not a big deal. That was why I was thinking it was unfair. However, I understand some people need more time to do this and there is not way to find how much effort was needed to upload that content. So I won’t ask you to do something with it anymore. As being a tutor, I create contents for learners, not for my points. Once in a while, I might feel uncomfortable, but I will be fine. Maybe what I need is feedbacks and kind words from members who used my contents. So I am waiting for the rating feature to be implemented (although I must not get nice scores all the time. but that’s fine too:-))


You make a good point. I am very keen to have a five star rating system for our content, and also to be able do divide it by difficulty, at least in three levels. The rating system, in my view, should be for each level.

The most important goal is to obtain the best possible content for learners and to make it easy for users to find content at their level and of their liking. That is very important to language learning success.

The rest is of secondary importance.

My opinion is more with Irene, Vera and Serge. I understand that it might take some work to upload a third party content but it is still not compared with having to do the transcript or creating the content. I think that there should be a differentiation between the points earned from uploading already existing content with transcripts provided from all the rest of the cases. There is the fact though which balance out the things: It seems to me that those who create their own content they also “earn” more students, so creating content is better advertisement for a tutor than an already made content.

Another point. What happens if the person for example who has granted the rights for uploading third party content for any sort of reason they stop doing so. I think that if lets say the person who uploads the VOA which seems that there are a lot of podcasts will stop, then the situation could even cause conflicts who will get the turn. The things are still clear now but if this community will grow and there will be more people uploading staff then the things will become more complicated. There should be some centrilized regulation to handle the whole matter.

And a question which I forgot to ask. When we send an email to providers for using their content do we have to say that we are having some profit out of this or not?

“It seems to me that those who create their own content they also “earn” more students, so creating content is better advertisement for a tutor than an already made content.”

Yes! That’s what I was thinking of in my previous post. Although I use third-party content now and then, I use much more content created by the members here. Whenever I find something I haven’t seen before, I save the entire collection. And as for advertisement, the tutors are (hopefully) pushing the courses in the “proper direction”, using only their own material. :slight_smile:


It is sufficient to tell the content providers that the content is available for free download and distribution by anyone, and that they will be acknowledged with a link and description for every item that is used.

Thanks! I ll keep that phrase somewhere in case I ll find anything! Actually I found some podcasts in Russian but they are scientific and techinological related and probably not very interesting for most people…

Let’s try to put things in perspective. We are trying to make LingQ succeed. To do that we have to continue to improve the learner’s experience. Fixing up the Library, improving how we present content, allowing learners to rate content, encouraging people to provide content, in all languages and of all kinds, all of this is much more important than spending time making sure that everyone is equally compensated for their effort in providing content, which in any case cannot be achieved. We have no way of measuring how much effort goes into loading content.

People can compete in loading VOA or similar content. If there are duplicates of some content, and If we are made aware of duplicates, we will reject the last one and keep the earlier one if they are of equal quality. Once we have a rating system we will also be able to eliminate unpopular items.

I appreciate everyone’s interest and support. Please stay with us as we work these things out. We may find a better way of doing things in due course, but it is not something that we can afford to spend a lot of energy on right now.

I see it as a very positive sign for LingQ that we are having this discussion! Nine months ago there was a lot less content in the libraries, learners were grateful for something, anything, with a transcript and audio.

I remember thinking when I joined, “Sooner or later LingQ will get so big and successful that they will have to impose some quality rules for library content, because they will have enough providers that people can afford to get choosy.” We are getting there!

In re typing up transcripts of podcasts, I’m with Edward on this one. I might (if I get the time) be interested in typing up a transcript or two in French, German or Russian, as listening practice, and do it for free, providing that I got some feedback from the native proofreader about the mistakes I was making. It just takes a bit of coordinating…