| 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
|
|---|
| Another last-minute final comment | Jul 3, 2006 |
Hola Henry,
I just made a quick search in the Internet of "translation marketing tools" and most of the results are for "accounting", "project management", "wordcount", "email" or "anti-virus" software programs.
So if you now kindly clarified to me that your intention is to offer this "outsourcer willingness" option as a "marketing tool", should it not be something (like the mentioned tools I found in the Internet) that immediately everyone perceives as such?
... See more Hola Henry,
I just made a quick search in the Internet of "translation marketing tools" and most of the results are for "accounting", "project management", "wordcount", "email" or "anti-virus" software programs.
So if you now kindly clarified to me that your intention is to offer this "outsourcer willingness" option as a "marketing tool", should it not be something (like the mentioned tools I found in the Internet) that immediately everyone perceives as such?
I think in this endless thread we have read enough arguments (and some of apparently veteran/serious professionals) that should give you a hint about this idea not being in general perceived as a truly useful marketing tool (in fact, it might have the opposite effect).
Obviously, as professionals (and obviously also as persons), we all have pros and cons, some more pros and some more cons or viceversa, and still we can be perfectly reliable professionals in general who, nonetheless, have had negative work experiences (this applies particularly to freelance professionals who have been in the market longer and who have probably run into all kinds of outsourcers).
So obviously your tool might open the door to biased professional ratings and, as I already suggested, all stories have two sides. Unlike the Blue Board, where it is in theory less complicated to verify an agency's lack of seriousness in payment, in the case of your suggested tool there might not be the possibility of really clarifying the reasons why an agency chooses to give you a specific rating.
For example, I tend to be a thorough, detailed-oriented translator and I have found, at this stage of my career (more than 12 years), that some agencies/companies perceive thoroughness as a flaw and some as an asset, so in some cases this has been the reason for ending a professional relationship.
That's why I suggested turning this "tool" into mere "professional references" that can be Proz.com verified. No rating, only real/updated references.
Anyways, best of luck with whatever you decide. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Susana Galilea 
United States
Local time: 10:58
English to Spanish
+ ...
Cristóbal del Río Faura wrote:
So, I am still a fierce out-outer, but also I wait and see.
+1
Best,
Susana
| | | | DGK T-I
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:58
Georgian to English
+ ...
Cristóbal del Río Faura wrote:
Hi Henry,
I understand the situation and your need to find a compromise between the four groups.
I am very sceptical as regards the usefulness and reliability of any translator feedback feature, but with you one never knows... you created a great site and you may well create a great feedback feature. So, I am still a fierce out-outer, but also I wait and see.
Kind regards,
Cristobal
Cristóbal sums it up for me too
[Edited at 2006-07-03 19:31]
| | | | | Sorry for the delay... plus, an important correction | Jul 3, 2006 |
I planned to post earlier today but have been distracted with other issues here in the office.
I still intend to complete my posts today.
Before doing so, I have to make a correction. I wrote that 740 people had opted in to show WWA entries. In fact, the figure is much lower: only 230 have opted in. I had been relying on a new statistics page, and it turns out there were release issues there, too.
I apologize for the error. I know others have already quoted... See more I planned to post earlier today but have been distracted with other issues here in the office.
I still intend to complete my posts today.
Before doing so, I have to make a correction. I wrote that 740 people had opted in to show WWA entries. In fact, the figure is much lower: only 230 have opted in. I had been relying on a new statistics page, and it turns out there were release issues there, too.
I apologize for the error. I know others have already quoted this figure in other fora, and I would appreciate that being corrected if possible. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ana Cuesta
Spain
Local time: 17:58
Member
English to Spanish
| Just to put figures in perspective | Jul 3, 2006 |
Henry wrote:
I have to make a correction. I wrote that 740 people had opted in to show WWA entries. In fact, the figure is much lower: only 230 have opted in. I had been relying on a new statistics page, and it turns out there were release issues there, too.
I apologize for the error. I know others have already quoted this figure in other fora, and I would appreciate that being corrected if possible.
Is there a way to know how many of us opted out before the feature was defaulted to out for everybody?
| | | |
Ana Cuesta wrote: Henry wrote:
I have to make a correction. I wrote that 740 people had opted in to show WWA entries. In fact, the figure is much lower: only 230 have opted in. I had been relying on a new statistics page, and it turns out there were release issues there, too.
I apologize for the error. I know others have already quoted this figure in other fora, and I would appreciate that being corrected if possible. Is there a way to know how many of us opted out before the feature was defaulted to out for everybody?
I believe the figure was 122.
| | | | Ana Cuesta
Spain
Local time: 17:58
Member
English to Spanish
| That was quick | Jul 3, 2006 |
Henry wrote: Ana Cuesta wrote:
Is there a way to know how many of us opted out before the feature was defaulted to out for everybody? I believe the figure was 122.
That was quick, thanks!
| | | | | Development at ProZ.com, the community and you (part 7) | Jul 3, 2006 |
To recap, in part 5 of my series of posts, I identified four segments of the community that have interests related to the proposed WWA system. They were:
* In/in translators (and interpreters), ie. those who want to use the WWA system
* Out/in translators, ie. those willing to receive WWA entries privately but not show them (at least for now). They retain the option of showing entries in their profiles in the future.<... See more To recap, in part 5 of my series of posts, I identified four segments of the community that have interests related to the proposed WWA system. They were:
* In/in translators (and interpreters), ie. those who want to use the WWA system
* Out/in translators, ie. those willing to receive WWA entries privately but not show them (at least for now). They retain the option of showing entries in their profiles in the future.
* Out/out translators, ie. those who not only do not want to show entries, but also require that no one be allowed to make entries that concern them (even if those entries are visible only to them).
* Outsourcers
Note: I would appreciate if those of you reading this thread pause to specify the category to which you belong (if you don't belong to any, please report that, too.) Use this one-question survey to do so.
Note that the purpose of this survey is not to determine the makeup of the community, but rather to determine the makeup of those members still reading this thread. It is members-only, I hope non-members can accept that our focus must be on meeting the needs of our members, first and foremost. Thanks!
Then, in my post labeled part 6, I reviewed the interests of each segment. They are diverse, and our goal, as I explained in part 3, is to try to offer choice to each segment to the extent possible. Only when interests are at cross-purposes, do we resort to striking a balance that is as close to ideal as possible for each camp.
The challenge is to reconcile the needs of the out/out crowd with the needs of the rest of the community
By now, it should be clear that there is a need to strike a balance--a need for the various groups to compromise--in the WWA system. Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, the need for compromise is not so great between outsourcers and service providers. In fact, the interests of outsourcers and in/in translators are more or less similar: a "robust" system, with little loss, is in the interest of both groups. As for the out/in translators, given that they do not have to participate (defining participate in the sense of *showing* entries), they are perfectly happy with a tight system, too. So the greatest challenge we face in rolling out this new feature is in reconciling the needs of the out/out segment with the needs of the rest of the community.
This fact is reflected in the current thread.
To be specific, allowing an out/out option affects (1) in/in translators and (2) outsourcers adversely in the following two ways (and more that I won't list):
* The easier it is to opt out of *receiving* WWA entries, the less marketing impact the system will have. (Kirill's concern.)
* The higher the percentage of the community opting out, the less useful WWA will be for outsourcers. (Illustrated by Cindy's comment about KudoZ filtering.)
At the same time these drawbacks are apparent, it is also evident that having an out/out option is very important for some members of the community and their reasons are sound.
So we must offer the option.
The question, then, is how to do so without weakening the WWA system beyond the point of usefulness to those who wish to use it... ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Aurora Humarán (X)
Argentina
Local time: 12:58
English to Spanish
+ ...
Henry wrote: Note: I would appreciate if those of you reading this thread pause to specify the category to which you belong (if you don't belong to any, please report that, too.) Use this one-question survey to do so.
Hola, Henry.
I cannot open the link. Is anything wrong with it?
Au
| | | | | The link is: http://www.proz.com/survey/42 | Jul 3, 2006 |
Aurora Humarán wrote: Henry wrote: Note: I would appreciate if those of you reading this thread pause to specify the category to which you belong (if you don't belong to any, please report that, too.) Use this one-question survey to do so.
I cannot open the link. Is anything wrong with it?
Yes, sorry. Please try again.
| | | | | Should work now | Jul 3, 2006 |
Thanks to those who reported the blank page. It was not working for some people, but should be ok now.
| | | | | now it says that I've completed the survey | Jul 3, 2006 |
when in fact I haven't
| | |
|
|
|
Gerard de Noord
France
Local time: 17:58
Member (2003)
English to Dutch
+ ...
| Vote from the over and out crowd | Jul 3, 2006 |
Dear Henry,
I examined the pole. I like to see the results of poles but I never vote. I’m paranoid about filling databases with my opinions.
Henry said:
The challenge is to reconcile the needs of the out/out crowd with the needs of the rest of the community
By now, it should be clear that there is a need to strike a balance--a need for the various groups to compromise--in the WWA system.
Gerard says:
I don’t want to be a party-p... See more Dear Henry,
I examined the pole. I like to see the results of poles but I never vote. I’m paranoid about filling databases with my opinions.
Henry said:
The challenge is to reconcile the needs of the out/out crowd with the needs of the rest of the community
By now, it should be clear that there is a need to strike a balance--a need for the various groups to compromise--in the WWA system.
Gerard says:
I don’t want to be a party-pooper but I missed the option “Let’s call the whole thing off.” The way you’ve introduced the feature maybe leaves you no other choice then to go on but personally I don’t see a real need to compromise with the 230 colleagues who have opted in. They could use their recommendations in their profiles without ProZ continuing the WWA system. Nowadays all paying members even can create a profile tab just for that.
Kind regards,
Gerard ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Development at ProZ.com, the community and you (part 8) | Jul 3, 2006 |
There is one additional issue that must be mentioned with opting out of receiving feedback...
Gaming problem
There is another problem inherent in opting out of accepting entries, and this is the one we referenced earlier in the FAQ. If site users were able to opt into and out of receiving entries at will, it would be possible to game the system.
For example, a user could collect one or two "yes" entries (as in, "yes, would work again"), and then refu... See more There is one additional issue that must be mentioned with opting out of receiving feedback...
Gaming problem
There is another problem inherent in opting out of accepting entries, and this is the one we referenced earlier in the FAQ. If site users were able to opt into and out of receiving entries at will, it would be possible to game the system.
For example, a user could collect one or two "yes" entries (as in, "yes, would work again"), and then refuse to accept others. S/he might turn display on only at opportune moments, such as when approaching a new potential client, falsely presenting the impression of purely positive feedback.
It would also be possible, for example, to "lay low" whenever there is a risk of receiving "no" entries.
To this gaming problem, however, there is a straightforward enough solution. (Kirill picked up on this earlier in the thread.) We have to limit the ability to switch into and out of a state of receiving feedback.
For this reason, the decision to opt out/out should be considered a more or less permanent one.
Let me know if this needs to be clarified! ▲ Collapse
| | | | heikeb
Ireland
Local time: 16:58
Member (2003)
English to German
+ ...
| Timing of survey | Jul 3, 2006 |
Hi Henry,
The timing of the survey is a bit unfortunate due to the long holiday weekend. Maybe you could keep it alive until and post a reminder on Tuesday/Wednesday?
I'm sure this will also give a number of interested people the opportunity to catch up.
| | | | | 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 | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
