Writing is too expensive for good writers

Open Forum
21

A while ago there was someone who had had their assignment minutely corrected, for good or bad.

We all probably want to write and speak “perfectly”, but if I send something in for correction, I definitely not “want” every second word marked with the red pen.

For those who feel that writing is too expensive, there are basically two options:

  1. use more difficult sentences (what is difficult varies from language to language, but experiment with different tenses, modes, topics…)
  2. spend your points on other activities (=speaking)
22

I agree. I don’t know the best solution too. It is not the goal that tutors are looking for peanuts and maybe some tutors would abuse the system it they are paid by the number of errors. I have no idea how to manage my problem.

I think I have to reduce my writing activities or I have to look for other opportunities to get writing corrections. That makes me sad, but there seems to be no solution.

Steve, thank you for your offer to correct my forum posts. My forum posts are really spontaneous and I do not think much about them. They are not done in the way I did my writing submissions. But a feedback can surely be helpful.

23

Vera,

For the writing correction to be useful, you should write spontaneously. This enables the corrector to identify the patterns of speech that you spontaneously get wrong. One correction will not correct this. However, if you save the phrases that you got wrong, or the words that you did not use appropriately, and if you review these in flash cards or lists, you will help your brain to notice these patterns, and eventually get them right, spontaneously. Writing is a record of how you use the language. It helps you when you speak.

I said in my book, and I mean it. As a learner we should strive to write the way we speak and speak the way we write. That way we improve in both areas, and avoid overly complicated language or language that is too colloquial and not really suited to a non-native speaker in most cases.

24

Vera
I understand what you mean, thank you for explaining it to me so clearly. I actually agree with on putting a separate fee for the writing report. I think it should be valued more than 100 points because I think an honest response to the meaning of a personal written text is more helpful for such writing than specific technical error correction. For the rest, maybe we just have to agree to disagree. Everyone is different. But I find this discussion interesting so I want to elaborate a bit.

You say you would be more motivated to submit writing if you knew you would pay according to the number of technical errors you make because it is not hard work to read error free writing.

From the tutor’s side: What is the tutor’s incentive to read the writing in the first place if they are having a stressful day and they must schedule time to correct another person’s personal writing before a specific deadline with a tiny guaranteed minimum payment? If they do read the writing, knowing that technical error correction will raise their payment, would they still be as thoughtful and honest? On a subconscious level, maybe not, .

From the writer’s side: You are demotivated by paying the same amount for error-light writing as for writing that has a lot of errors. You don’t want to submit more writing on that basis. In this case, I think you ARE aware that there are parts of your writing that is error-light even though you said you aren’t. This sort of awareness is part of being a good writer. If I write a simple birthday greeting of a paragraph or so in French, I am sure I am going to be error-light. I would not submit that for correction. If do submit writing in French, it is a detailed description of a situation for example, because I know that I am a little on “the edge” with that type of writing. If I get error-light results, I will import the writing and LingQ my few errors AND phrases that I was unsure about but that I used correctly after all. I would study those LingQs and thereby push the boundaries of “the edge”. If your goal is to become a better writer, then I think you need to cultivate a sense of what you know and what you don’t know, and stay on that “edge”.

In summary, I think, for free or creative type writing (like you do), the service of giving a student a technical correction should not be valued more than giving a student a reassurance that what they did is ok, or for giving them a good writing report for that matter. When you get a writing back with few errors, you can study what you did right as well as what you did wrong. Then, next time, submit writing that covers areas that you are less sure of. This improves your writing just as much as getting lots of technical error corrections, not to mention it will likely result in you getting more technical error correction with your next submission. It also stimulates you to identify and go beyond your safety zones.

I think the ideal compromise solution is to put in a minimum comment per word rate, for example, at least 1 comment per 15 words. Comments can be technical error corrections or style suggestions, with the emphasis on the former. If there are not enough technical error corrections, then style suggestions can be added to make the ratio 1:15

25

Dooo

I think you may be on to something. There is no need to correct every mistake since the learner will not learn from every correction. There is also an opportunity for the corrector to make comments, including positive comments about phrasing used by the learner. We could advise the correctors to make a certain number of corrections of comments per 100 words etc.

What do others think?

26

corrections or comments

27

Steve wrote: “One thing we could do is run a writing clinic for advanced writers right here on the forum. This would be free and correctors would be volunteers. This would encourage people to contribute to the forum. Corrections would consist of general comments and corrections and would not be as thorough as the corrections done in the system.”

I believe it will indeed attract many people to the forum. Understanding that I may or may not be corrected by a volunteer should encourage me to write interstingly and in a friendly manner. It also goes without saying that I do not complain for not being corrected.

I don’t know if we should indicate on the forum that (i) we want to be corrected and (ii) we want the correction be shown in the forum. Perhaps it should be shown, because otherwise the name or the labor of volunter is not appreciated.

I understand that the corrections made by volunteers may in a way compete with the existing services of the tutors. I am not the one who decides. However, I think the volonteer-based “writing clinic”, in the frame of the forum, could eventually become an attractive feature (we all like free lunches), a kind of attractive social interaction from which LingQ only wins.

I will be thunkfull for any corrections but in no way demand them. I will install Russian fonts in my system to correct Russian of anybody here who will ask for it.

28

I just corrected a text in English. It has 166 words and took me about 20 minutes to correct. There was a mistake every 12 words. The text was clear and easily understood, with little time spent trying to figure out the meaning and little need to completely restructure sentences. In other words it was easy, much easier than many I have done.

I mention this for reference on the subject of how many corrections a tutor should be expected to make, or a writer should expect to receive.

Ilya,

Thanks for your input. We should wait with implementing this until we have writing correction an editing on our forum, otherwise we will have a lot of useless corrections. But I am curious to hear the views of others.

Obviously we are concerned about increasing the activity and participation of people on LingQ. We need to greatly increase the number of our member, and especially paying members. That has to be our main task over the next 6 months.

29

Thank you Steve. It is quite a time indeed, 20 minutes. I thought it would take less. You are right it is all not worth implementing until a spell-checker or something does work on the forum. It would be intersting (but I don’t mean to trouble you) to have a look at my errors. I would be happy to chat with you in Russian.

30

Vera

Another option to ensure you are going to get a lot of technical errors corrected would be to get a grammar checking program, either as part of your word processor or maybe there is a commercially available option. Before submitting, run your writing through the grammar checker. If it finds a lot of mistakes that you are not sure about how to fix, then submit the writing to a human being (your tutor). Grammar checkers are not 100% reliable but they should give you a general sense of how many technical errors your writing contains.

31

Hi Vera,

I understand your concerns about costs. I don’t have those so far but someday I would have the same problems. With the great suggestions made by Steve, Ed, jeff and others, these problems can be solved without making the writing system so complicated.

Simply write spontaneously or send to writing only troubled, doubtful sentences and not the whole essay. That’ll reduce your costs and you’ll get more.

32

Thank you for all your suggestions but they don’t solve my problem, I think. But I understand that it is not possible to change the LingQ system.

I’m sorry, I don’t want to annoy anybody, but all the suggestions seem for me not to hit the nail on the head. I’m looking for a possibility to get corrections of text that I wrote without thinking about the cost. And the idea to pick up only a few sentences of a story for correction is not satisfying.

Like I wrote above the only solution is to reduce my writing activities or to look for other opportunities to get writing corrections.

33

Penpals?

34

I don’t have time to throw my comment right now. Keep on good discussion!

Valちゃん,

Oh! Don’t get me wrong. I was not talking about just you, although that letter was a bit difficult to correct. I was happy to help you and it made me even feel great that you had a very good time with 磯部社長 :smiley:

35

In my experience Vera’s experience is not that common. When I correct writing I usually find an error rate of between 10-15 words per correction. these people are getting full benefit from our writing correction system, including the report. We have plans to make it better, and at that time we could look at a system which would stop a correction once a rate of, say, 15 words per correction is reached, with the text then returned to the learner. If on the other hand the correction ends up at a lower error rate, say 25 words per correction, some points could be returned to the learner. However, for the time being we will stay as we are.

We will also introduce the grading of tutors and correctors, and the freedom to choose correctors, all of which will ensure that our correctors meet the demands of each of our learners. We will continue to evolve. Our goal is that the quality, usefulness and reliability of our corrections will be the best anywhere.

36

The quality of my corrections was always fine. The tutors on LingQ do it well, but grading of tutors and correctors is a good idea.

I think it is a problem to stop the correction when 10-15 words per correction are reached. I did not correct a lot of writings but there were always a high rate of errors because these users were not experienced in writing. Then there must be a possibility to mark up which part of the text is uncorrected.

Hi Edward, thank you for the Link. I think, this could be a possibility.

37

I don’t mind a public rating system for tutors but, as a tutor, I would prefer to have a chance to publicly opt out of being rated. So students would know that I chose not to be rated.

I would like the choice to opt out because I think people who will rate avidly are a self-selecting group that would generally go for a certain type of tutor, and I know that I am probably not that type.

38

I want to add that in languages with complicated ending system a beginner can do mistakes almost in every word, but a correction of these errors does not take a lot of time (I suppose). A tutor just types the correct ending.
So, I don’t like the idea do not correct writings with many mistakes. The suggestion to return some points for writings with a few mistakes seems more sensible.

39

I am for creating a minimum ratio for feedback, suggestions or technical corrections. But as I mentioned above, rewarding writing that is low in technical mistakes will just create the illusion that improved writing is about not making technical mistakes rather than about pushing your limits. Not to mention skewing the correctors outlook.

40

I agree with Cakypa. I’m as a writer expects that my errors would be corrected. That is, why I pay for a correction. I would think, I did it fine, when errors are not shown.
Correctors should not go over the top and expect writing of a Nobel Prize winner from a student. Unless the student has this goal :wink: