| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51] > | New at ProZ.com: Outsourcer "willingness to work again" feedback for translators Thread poster: Enrique Cavalitto
|
|---|
| I'm not satisfied yet, but I'm still proposing the same easy solution. | Jun 27, 2006 |
Henry wrote:
You have now posted fifteen times to this thread. Reviewing just your first three posts, I see a number of criticisms raised. You argued that "True pros don't work for bottom-feeder rates" and you asked, "How long before revenues are collected from outsourcers?" You speculated on our true intentions with this ("money", as usual), and you offered up your unsolicited business advice.
So sorry I spoke out of turn, I'm sure.
Your comments ranged broadly like this, but your main request was that we provide a means of opting out with no trace in the profile.
We did that.
Yes, you did. Then it occurred to me that not having it appear was not the main problem I had with the new innovation. It is the collection and storage of data, as I've said.
And it is not just this thread. I don't remember hearing a positive word from you, either out here in the public forums, or during your time as a moderator.
Hmmm...I don't remember reading anything vaguely complimentary in the "moderators private forum" for which you forgot to turn off my e-mail notifications after you decided I was no longer fit to moderate here. Very interesting indeed seeing what people really think of us behind our backs, don't you agree?
But really, does that have to do with anything? If you want to surround yourself with "yes people" that's your prerogative. I guess I misunderstood: I thought you were asking for people's opinions on and desires regarding your new feature.
I know others share your concerns. But you are the most vocal and I guess at this point I just want to confirm that I am dealing with a reasonable human being and that there is some hope of satisfying you. So I asked *you* a simple question: I wrote:
Valid concern, Terry. Can we close out the prior matter, first?
It is a legitimate topic for discussion. But may I ask a question before we begin? I'd like to close out the prior matter first, to confirm that we are making progress.
My question: Are you now satisfied on the issue of choice, and control over your profile and marketing choices? Please, say yes, you are satisfied that adequate choice has been provided, and let's lay that one to rest. Then we can turn our attention to information and privacy, and any other concerns that you have, one by one. Throw me a bone, here, Terry.
I'd love to throw you a bone, or a whole steak if you like.
Have you made a profile that does not SHOW this information is being collected? Yes. Nice job.
Do we have control over our profiles? Yes. Nice job.
Do we have control over the data you are collecting and what you're going to do with it? No.
Is there adequate choice over the data being collected? No.
Do you just desperately want me to say, "Good job, Henry"? Because if you do, that's no problem. Good job on the site as a whole. And a good job taking the visible traces of the non-voluntary data collection effort off the profile pages. At first I thought that would be sufficient, but upon further reflection, I realize it isn't.
So can you now answer my question:
There is an easy technogical "fix" for this that would allow ProZ to collect data from the willing and not collect data on the unwilling, thus pleasing all the members. Why isn't the site implementing this fix?
I agree fully with Luis, in his post above, BTW.
And Susana, thanks for your kind words, but I don't mind having my reason questioned. Heck, my husband does it all the time!
[Edited for title as more posts had intervened making original title non-responsive.]
[Edited at 2006-06-28 00:04]
| | | | | Hello, Luis! | Jun 27, 2006 |
Thanks for joining the discussion and contributing your knowledge.
If I may, I wonder: How do you critique the Blue Board? Have you noticed that it is provided solely for the purpose of expressing one's personal "likelihood of working again with a given outsourcer"? (This is not a gimmick; that is what we provide the Blue Board for, and what we take pains to enforce.)
We can take this discussion offline, or leave it here, as you prefer...
| | | | | 2 Larissa :) | Jun 27, 2006 |
Larissa Dinsley wrote:
Kostya, but you can't compare:
1) If you are offered a job by an unknown agency you have absolutely no way to know if it is good or bad. Here BB comes handy.
Larissa, you know how much I respect you but I just don't think you're being objective or consistent in the slightest here. On the one hand, you argue against collecting information about *you* on legal grounds but at the same time when it comes to information being collected about outsourcers the only criterion that concerns you is how useful the feature is...for you.
2) if an agency contacts a new translator, they can ask him/her to do a test translation or check his/her references (which the translator himself/herself will be willing or not willing to give), or evaluate his/her membership in a professional organisation.
I am 100% against evaluating translators via tests/memberships of organisations. As someone who regularly outsources work I can tell you that the former are generally useless and the latter is as good an indicator of quality as a degree in translation.
My personal logic here is as follows: I have now troubled about 10 clients with whom I worked once or twice in the last year and who I felt would be willing to spend a couple of minutes of their time doing me a favour. I also asked 1 or 2 regulars who I knew would be very happy to do this. This was an unpleasant process because I don't like to bother people and there is a very small chance one of them might get annoyed and decide to never work with me again. However, since most of these clients don't have much work in my pairs I can probably risk that, especially given how improbable that scenario is. As a result, I already have 8 *permanent references* and none of my regular clients will ever have to be bothered again. Further, I hope that this may help to reduce the need for me to waste my time doing translation tests for new clients in the future.
I haven't even got to the marketing aspect yet but already I feel I have saved myself a lot of time and my regular clients a lot of requests for references in the future - just think about it, they only have to give me 1 reference and that's it!
Now, what I still find difficult to understand, is why those who advocate this feature want to impose it on everybody else. Those who believe that this feature is good can still use it although their pool of translators will me smaller (i.e. if their criteria will be this fantastic new feature).
Larissa, I did initially argue for a site-wide system but the strength of the objections here made me rethink my position. My only question is this: when Proz.com introduces feedback to the directory in such a way that people with feedback are given an advantage are you going to argue against that too?
I shall also attempt to answer your question about a possible connection between this feature and cheap rates. Say, I am an agency looking for a cheap translator. I look through the directory of translators based in the former USSR. And I look for good feedback. Now, what do think: how many translators who charge "Russian" rates with excellent feedback I shall find? I believe, quite a few. Thank you, Proz!
I don't understand the problem here, Larissa First of all, as someone who has seen the quality of your work first-hand I don't think this should bother you in the slightest. Secondly, if an agency is looking for cheap translators who charge "Russian" rates you and I are not going to get work from them. Period. Thirdly, as you said yourself there are other ways of evaluating the quality of translators - cheap agencies can already find good but cheap translators in the FSU. The only solution would be for Proz to make it more difficult to tell good translators from bad ones - I don't think you are likely to be interested in that at all!
[Edited at 2006-06-27 23:49]
| | | |
I think this forum is going way too far on opinions on a new feature and turning into questiong Henry (acts and intentions) .
I do not think this is the right thing to do, for everybody`s sake, we should have a final word here and move forward.
For Henry, for Proz and for all of us, humble Proz members, mere human translators.
Stop it, please.
| | |
|
|
|
| Sorry, Terry | Jun 27, 2006 |
Terry Thatcher Waltz, Ph.D. wrote:
Hmmm...I don't remember reading anything vaguely complimentary in the "moderators private forum" for which you forgot to turn off my e-mail notifications after you decided I was no longer fit to moderate here. Very interesting indeed seeing what people really think of us behind our backs, don't you agree?
But really, does that have to do with anything? If you want to surround yourself with "yes people" that's your prerogative. I guess I misunderstood: I thought you were asking for people's opinions on and desires regarding your new feature.
I am and my intention was not to make this personal. I stand by my reasons for removing you, but I apologize for bringing up what evidently remains a sore point between us.
Thank you for acknowledging that your first complaint has been addressed. With only agreement from others on this point, I conclude that as far as personal choice when it comes to *display* of feedback, no substantial complaints remain: all site users are free to use, or not use it as they like, and nothing is imposed.
Now on to the issue of opting out of *receiving* feedback... let's pick that up tomorrow.
| | | | MichaelRS (X)
Local time: 06:23
Walter Landesman wrote:
I think this forum is going way too far on opinions on a new feature and turning into questiong Henry (acts and intentions) .
I do not think this is the right thing to do, for everybody`s sake, we should have a final word here and move forward.
For Henry, for Proz and for all of us, humble Proz members, mere human translators.
Stop it, please.
I'm stopping it. I already submitted a support ticket to cancel my membership. I've seen a different side here. Let's see how long it takes!
[Edited at 2006-06-27 23:59]
| | | | | On BB and Translators' BB | Jun 28, 2006 |
Henry wrote:
Thanks for joining the discussion and contributing your knowledge.
If I may, I wonder: How do you critique the Blue Board? Have you noticed that it is provided solely for the purpose of expressing one's personal "likelihood of working again with a given outsourcer"? (This is not a gimmick; that is what we provide the Blue Board for, and what we take pains to enforce.)
We can take this discussion offline, or leave it here, as you prefer...
Hi Henry,
I think I am on the record saying that I am not sure that the Blue Board is kosher. I said that much on some previous discussions regarding a potential Translators' Blue Board.
If you ask me, I think we have not had problems so far because proving or disproving that a job was paid is a simple issue. I am not sure what would be a court's ruling if the agency proves that they indeed paid. Do remember, truth is the perfect defense, but it must be proven by the agency, in court.
Would ProZ would be liable for posting the then libelous comment regarding no payment? No, unless they exercise editorial control, Michael's conduit theory.
Is vetting editorial control? I do not know. But, as I am a paying member, thus not subject to vetting, whatever I say on the Blue Board is my sole responsibility. No one could sue ProZ for what I said there, at least under US laws.
In short, the Blue Board might have been handled in a way that no agency could successfully sue. That does not mean that is not potentially libelous and subject to being sued. It just means that no agency decided to sue ProZ as yet.
Finally, would I consider libel a statement simply saying that a given agency just does not want to work with me in t he future? Probably yes, given the implication that I have not provided to that agency a professionally accetable service. But, worse, the system allows for the agency to make comments on certain nonstandard issues: proper use of terminology, defective style, etc. This is even worse, when it comes from an end client who is, by and large, uncapable of making an evaluation coming from a bilingual assistant of some sort.
We can discuss this online or privately. As long as I dont make any specific statement on any particular set of facts, I can talk for anyone to see. But there are some issues that might be better to discuss privately. But then remember that I am just a patent attorney.
Best,
Luis
| | | | justin C
United States
Local time: 00:23
English
| Just for clarification, *all* Blue Board entries are subject to vetting | Jun 28, 2006 |
Hi Luis,
But, as I am a paying member, thus not subject to vetting, whatever I say on the Blue Board is my sole responsibility. No one could sue ProZ.com for what I said there, at least under US laws.
I don't want to get too involved in this debate, but just to clarify, *all* Blue Board entries are subject to vetting by ProZ.com staff and/or ProZ.com jobs moderators.
Also, just for clarification (someone mentioned this earlier), translators/interpreter feedback entries are vetted by ProZ.com staff, and un-vetted entries *are not visible* to ProZ.com moderators.
Blue Board entries officially are ProZ.com site users expressing his or her "likelihood of working again" with a said agency, entries *are not* a rating on an outsourcer's payment practicies.
Best regards,
Justin
| | |
|
|
|
MichaelRS (X)
Local time: 06:23
I don't want to get too involved in this debate, but just to clarify, *all* Blue Board entries are subject to vetting by ProZ.com staff and/or ProZ.com jobs moderators.
So you're saying that I couldn't find a single example - maybe from a friend - of a fake entry anywhere.
And you'd be willing to bet $1000 on it.
| | | | justin C
United States
Local time: 00:23
English
| To repeat, *all* entries are subject to vetting | Jun 28, 2006 |
Hi Michael,
So you're saying that I couldn't find a single example - maybe from a friend - of a fake entry anywhere.
I did not say you could not find a fake entry anywhere. All I stated is that all entries are subject to vetting (as of mid last year).
Best,
Justin
| | | | MichaelRS (X)
Local time: 06:23
Hi,
Can YOU handle my cancellation ticket? LOL
[Edited at 2006-06-28 00:44]
| | | | justin C
United States
Local time: 00:23
English
| To Michael, if you notice a nonsense entry, please notify staff... | Jun 28, 2006 |
Hi Michael,
MichaelRS
That's utter nonsense, because I can produce a *2* rating for a company that is OBVIOUSLY nonsense (registration and cancellation on the same day, never contested).
I'm telling ya', there is utter nonsense being talked here.
I do not undrestand why someone would abuse the Blue Board in such a way. But please, provide me the URL to the Blue Board record in which a "nonsense" entry was created, so that I may remove it ASAP.
PS: I am not trying to pick a fight here, I am just trying to clarify how the system works. Just beacuse a Blue Board entry was vetted, does not necesarily mean it is legit.
This is my last posting for this evening
Best Regards,
Justin
| | |
|
|
|
| On talking too much ... not yet, Walter | Jun 28, 2006 |
Walter Landesman wrote:
I think this forum is going way too far on opinions on a new feature and turning into questiong Henry (acts and intentions) .
I do not think this is the right thing to do, for everybody`s sake, we should have a final word here and move forward.
For Henry, for Proz and for all of us, humble Proz members, mere human translators.
Stop it, please.
Hi, fellow Golden Gopher,
I don’t believe that people are questioning Henry’s intentions. I certainly don’t do it. I know him personally and I know of his intentions. I might say that I am going full steam with this translation activity partly because of him (Don't worry, Henry, I ain't suing you for that.
But there are two sides to this issue, in my opinion, mainly because we have two different sets of “established” translators on this board, with different needs: those who are established and closer to the source of jobs and those who are farther away. I am saying that because of the identity of those posting here. Personally, I don’t need ProZ feedbacks because in most of my work I receive the edited translation for me to do the final acceptance/rejection.
Thus, we, established, closer to the source and receiving feedback directly from the agency or direct client translators, do not need the system it is intended to be implemented. Since many of us will not benefit from the system, we want at least not to be harmed by it. Privacy is a main concern to many of us. Being badmouthed by a person with ill-intentions or because of that day-off that all of us may have is not welcome For those farther away, the system may be great. We need to find a middle ground, if we want to stay together.
I don’t think we have said all that has to be said on this issue. There are many issues that need to be discussed. Many of us are just starting to participate and have not said everything we think yet. Keeping the discussion going does not prevent Henry and his team to keep evaluating the process.
At the end of the day, I believe that a system that prevents receiving feedbacks for those that do not consent will benefit both camps. If you remember when you applied to U. of M., I barely do so, but we did it about the same time, we were asked whether we waived our rights about reviewing any recommendation letters that were sent on our behalf. Waiving strengthened our evaluation, but the system did not force anyone to waive their rights.
Best,
Luis
[Edited at 2006-06-28 01:29]
| | | |
justin wrote: Hi Luis, But, as I am a paying member, thus not subject to vetting, whatever I say on the Blue Board is my sole responsibility. No one could sue ProZ.com for what I said there, at least under US laws. I don't want to get too involved in this debate, but just to clarify, *all* Blue Board entries are subject to vetting by ProZ.com staff and/or ProZ.com jobs moderators. Also, just for clarification (someone mentioned this earlier), translators/interpreter feedback entries are vetted by ProZ.com staff, and un-vetted entries *are not visible* to ProZ.com moderators. Blue Board entries officially are ProZ.com site users expressing his or her "likelihood of working again" with a said agency, entries *are not* a rating on an outsourcer's payment practicies. Best regards, Justin
Hi Justin,
I do understand that it reads "likelihood to work again" but said likelihood is based ON THE COMMENTS. And the comments are pleasant/rude to work with and THEY DID/DID NOT PAY ON TIME. It is not the title, but the practice that controls how to interpret what is done, from a legal point of view.
I did not know all comments were vetted. I stand corrected. However, that makes the potential liability, if any, of ProZ even larger.
As I said, the fact that the legality of ProZ's BB has not been challenged in court does not make it legal. It simply says that no one has decided yet to waste his or her time doing it to contradict that he/she is not rude. Or perhaps, it just means that the agency did not the means to prove that the payment was made.
Best,
Luis
[Edited at 2006-06-28 01:15]
[Edited at 2006-06-28 01:31]
| | | | | I have an idea... | Jun 28, 2006 |
Thanks again for the feedback. It is not tomorrow yet, but as you may have noticed, this topic has me thinking....
In the initial post, we explained that we had designed the system in such a way that it would be possible to opt out of showing feedback, but not out of receiving it.
Our implementation of opting out of showing feedback was not satisfactory... but we improved it and everyone who has responded now seems satisfied with that issue in particular.
F... See more Thanks again for the feedback. It is not tomorrow yet, but as you may have noticed, this topic has me thinking....
In the initial post, we explained that we had designed the system in such a way that it would be possible to opt out of showing feedback, but not out of receiving it.
Our implementation of opting out of showing feedback was not satisfactory... but we improved it and everyone who has responded now seems satisfied with that issue in particular.
For some, this appears to have been enough. Others, however--and a significant number--want a way to opt out of receiving feedback as well.
In short, there are three camps (not two):
(1) those who would like to opt "in/in" (for displaying / receiving)
(2) those who are content with the option to be "out/in"
(3) those who would like to be "out/out" (but have not yet been given that possibility.)
Having understood this situation, I think there may be a way to meet all parties' wishes.
Now, I'll sleep on it. Thanks to all you crazy people still reading after 300 posts. Talk to you again in the morning! ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » New at ProZ.com: Outsourcer "willingness to work again" feedback for translators | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
