| 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
|
|---|
Kirill Semenov 
Ukraine
Local time: 12:27
Member (2004)
English to Russian
+ ...
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
why was it ok to post comments on the Blue Board before and now it isn't? The Blue Board before WWA wasn't fair? Who is the site trying to help? Paying members or non paying outsourcers?
Excuse me, Giovanni, but you don't read, you only write. Take a pause and read more carefully. All the thread, desirably.
| | | |
Enrique wrote:
By selecting this option, you would be choosing to give up one of your rights as a site user (all site users can make Blue Board entries, not just members).
No, Henry has decided that we have to give up one of our rights. We don't want to choose, because we didn't ask for this feature. The site has put us in this position.
Giovanni
| | | |
Konstantin Kisin wrote:
I think the unfairness of refusing to have comments about you entered while at the same time demanding the right to make comments about others is sufficiently obvious for anyone to understand especially given Kirill's explanation.
So, the Blue Board has always been unfair? So, why was it set up in the first place? I'm not demanding any rights. Being able to comment on outsourcers was one of the reasons why I became a member and paid my membership and now I won't be able to do so. I'm afraid this is dictatorship and I will ask for a refund if this silly imposition is not removed.
Giovanni
| | | |
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
Being able to comment on outsourcers was one of the reasons why I became a member and paid my membership and now I won't be able to do so.
Although I hate to speculate about the reasons for your decision to buy Proz.com membership that is unlikely to be one of them given the fact that you NEVER had to pay for the ability to comment on outsourcers...
| | |
|
|
|
| Crime and Punishment | Jul 4, 2006 |
I really would not like to be in the shoes of those who use Proz as their main marketing tool but still do not like the new WWA feature for whatever perfectly understandable reasons.
Their competitive disadvantage is obvious with the feature as is now, because average outsourcers will most likely go for translators showing positive WWA and disregard those who have opted out to show and/or receive any feedback. And there are “derivative features” to come in future, as mentioned b... See more I really would not like to be in the shoes of those who use Proz as their main marketing tool but still do not like the new WWA feature for whatever perfectly understandable reasons.
Their competitive disadvantage is obvious with the feature as is now, because average outsourcers will most likely go for translators showing positive WWA and disregard those who have opted out to show and/or receive any feedback. And there are “derivative features” to come in future, as mentioned by Henry, which will make things even worse for them. One of these might be to include the WWA records as an additional search criterion in the Search Translator Directory function, which would be a logical step forward from the perspective of the supporters of this new WWA feature. But I am speculating.
Anyway, what exactly has been their crime? And what other punishment have they to expect?
Regards,
Cristóbal ▲ Collapse
| | | | Sormane Gomes
United States
Local time: 05:27
Portuguese to English
+ ...
| I can smell that already. | Jul 4, 2006 |
Cristóbal del Río Faura wrote:
And there are “derivative features” to come in future, as mentioned by Henry, which will make things even worse for them. One of these might be to include the WWA records as an additional search criterion in the Search Translator Directory function, which would be a logical step forward from the perspective of the supporters of this new WWA feature.
I can smell that already. Geez, I can't wait for my new options.
Sormane F. Gomes
| | | | Sormane Gomes
United States
Local time: 05:27
Portuguese to English
+ ...
Henry wrote:
So that there will be no misunderstanding, let me repeat: not only will you not be required to *use* the WWA system (of course, this was always the case), you will also be able to *prevent others* from making private entries that only you would have seen. It will be your choice. All site users will be informed of their options.
So it is the you-don’t-like-a-new-feature-I-take-one-of-your-privileges-away
approach. That’s what I call an OPTION.
Henry wrote:
* The choice not to allow others to make unsolicited entries (even those that only the recipient would see), will be regarded as a decision to opt out of the ProZ.com WWA network entirely. Under this condition, those who choose option 3 will not be permitted to make unsolicited WWA entries either for service providers (via profiles, etc.) or for outsourcers (via the Blue Board). In other words, those who choose this option will be permitted to make entries when honoring requests from others, but otherwise will not be permitted to make entries.
That is fine, Henry. In my case, here’s what’s going to happen:
1) I still get to check the Blue Board – which is great, thank you for the little crumb, here. I hope that is not revoked, let’s say, when I disagree with something else.
2) The outsourcers will not benefit from my reviews – Their loss, if you ask me, because after so many years in this business, I usually pick them right and have good things to say about them – Just look at the reviews I’ve written so far.
3) I will not be reviewed in any shape or form, which I believe was my point all along on this topic – Excellent!
I don't see the point of arguing any further. The feature is here to stay, and that was the intention all along. Pages and pages of discussion do not change the obvious: Those opposing are either being pressured to join the ones who want it or being penalized (by having a privilege previously granted to them revoked).
Why not have an OUT/OUT option for both translators and outsourcers? Both will decide when and how to get feedback. How about that for fairness for all parts involved?
Henry wrote:
* The decision not to make oneself available for feedback may mean that one will not benefit from future features--features not yet conceived--that may emerge as WWA goes into use in the community.
Let’s see what the future brings. I am not happy with this “choice.” I will think about it. After all, there is always the out/out option of ProZ altogether.
Good luck with the new feature!
Sormane F. Gomes
[Edited at 2006-07-04 18:11]
| | | | Kirill Semenov
Ukraine
Local time: 12:27
Member (2004)
English to Russian
+ ...
| The Golden Rule | Jul 4, 2006 |
`Don't do upon others what you wouldn't want to be done upon yourself'
`Out/out'-ers, it's not about your money, payments, legal rights or anything else. It's about your self-honesty. It's about the universal rule of justice, which is not `for ME only', it's `for OTHERS as for ME'.
Many people here stated they don't tolerate collecting or requiring any info about themselves which they don't want to share. So, anyone here, can you explain why at the same time you want to... See more `Don't do upon others what you wouldn't want to be done upon yourself'
`Out/out'-ers, it's not about your money, payments, legal rights or anything else. It's about your self-honesty. It's about the universal rule of justice, which is not `for ME only', it's `for OTHERS as for ME'.
Many people here stated they don't tolerate collecting or requiring any info about themselves which they don't want to share. So, anyone here, can you explain why at the same time you want to enter any feedback in the BB which the BB-listed agencies/outsourcers don't want to have and often aren't even aware of it? You don't want any info collected about yourselves - so please don't enter any such info about others. This is so logical, so ethical, so natural and evident. It's not about your payment, it's about your conscience.
And please Giovanni, don't tell us that, besides other things, you had paid for your membership to be able to enter your feedback about outsourcers. It sounds totally ridiculous. You might pay for many other benefits, but not for this.
[Edited at 2006-07-04 16:47] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Susana Galilea
United States
Local time: 04:27
English to Spanish
+ ...
| technically true | Jul 4, 2006 |
Konstantin Kisin wrote:
Any registered member of Proz.com is able to make BB entries. No aspect of paid membership has been removed with this feature.
This is technically true, Konstantin. My concern is that an important aspect of usage has been removed. Even if this usage was not determined by my paid membership, it was part of a package of features and services I decided had enough value for me to support with my dues. Now I am being offered an "option", provided I relinquish one of the features I had access to, and with unexpected/unannounced consequences down the line. As a result, the value of my membership has been eroded. What Henry referred to as "concessions", I can't help but perceive as "penalties".
If community is indeed the focus here, shouldn't those users affected by this decision be offered some added function to compensate for their restricted access? (I am in no way saying this is what I want, simply that this would be the logical conclusion in the tit-for-tat direction this site seems to be taking.) This situation is being handled as if we had asked for the feedback feature to be implemented, and arrangements had to be made to please everyone. We are the group who did not care for this new feature to begin with, now we are being affected by its implementation.
Best,
Susana
[Edited at 2006-07-04 17:42]
| | | | | I do agree with you Susana | Jul 4, 2006 |
Susana Galilea wrote: Konstantin Kisin wrote:
Any registered member of Proz.com is able to make BB entries. No aspect of paid membership has been removed with this feature.
This is technically true, Konstantin. My concern is that an important aspect of usage has been removed. Even if this usage was not determined by my paid membership, it was part of a package of features and services I decided had enough value for me to support with my dues. Now I am being offered an "option", provided I relinquish one of the features I had access to, and with unexpected/unannounced consequences down the line. As a result, the value of my membership has been eroded. What Henry referred to as "concessions", I can't help but perceive as "penalties". Best, Susana
Hi Susana,
I do agree with you and I am also concerned about the possible effect of these changes on the Blue Board. However, (as you may have gathered ) I do like the feedback feature and I suspect any potential negative effects on the Blue Board will (for me) be compensated by a new feature that is benefitial. I also think that even those opposed to the feedback feature will appreciate how unfair it would be for you to retain the option of leaving feedback for others while blocking them from leaving feedback for you. Mind you, I am not suggesting that you should like that...just saying, it wouldn't be fair.
Konstantin
[Edited at 2006-07-04 17:17]
| | | |
Sormane Fitzgerald Gomes wrote:
2) The outsourcers will not benefit from my reviews – Their loss, if you ask me, because after so many years in this business, I usually pick them right and have good things to say about them – Just look at the reviews I’ve written so far.
Sormane F. Gomes
[Edited at 2006-07-04 17:05]
That's hitting the nail on the head. IF I decide to join the OUT/OUT crowd, it will be a loss for the outsourcers and my colleagues, as I have only and exclusively written positive entries when I've seen fit, to offer good advice for my colleagues, because I know it can be a jungle out there as a translator. THAT is what I thought this site was about. I haven't decided exactly what I want to do with this new feature. I don't find it threatening at all personally. I've been reacting to the principles involved, and most definitely to the manner in which it is being implemented.
My queries about the motiviations that inspired this new feature have remained unanswered. I don't have any sinister ideas in my head, it would just be nice to discuss the validity and necessity of it on principle. The "powerful marketing tool" spin just isn't a good enough explanation. Who says? Where's the dialogue? Why is Proz (I almost wrote "we" here, but decided against it) taking this direction?
In a quandry-
Jennifer
[Edited at 2006-07-04 18:45]
| | | |
JL Baker wrote:
My queries about the motiviations that inspired this new feature have remained unanswered. I don't have any sinister ideas in my head, it would just be nice to discuss the validity and necessity of it on principle. The "powerful marketing tool" spin just isn't a good enough explanation.
Hi Jennifer,
I guess this answer will be all you can get, unfortunately, because Henry has been insisting throughout his postings that that's why this feature is being implemented.
| | |
|
|
|
Susana Galilea
United States
Local time: 04:27
English to Spanish
+ ...
Konstantin Kisin wrote:
I also think that even those opposed to the feedback feature will appreciate how unfair it would be for you to retain the option of leaving feedback for others while blocking them from leaving feedback for you.
The option to reciprocate was always there, Konstantin, as outsourcers were free to respond with their comments to our feedback. Would you agree?
Like Jennifer, I never considered making entries in the Blue Board a special perk, but a way to contribute to the well-being of this community. Now my suitability to do just that is being questioned.
Best,
Susana
[Edited at 2006-07-04 17:59]
| | | | | I don't agree with you there Susana :) | Jul 4, 2006 |
Susana Galilea wrote:
The option to reciprocate was always there, Konstantin, as outsourcers were free to respond with their comments to our feedback. Would you agree?
Like Jennifer, I never considered making entries in the Blue Board a special perk, but a way to contribute to the well-being of this community. Now my suitability to do just that is being questioned.
Best,
Susana
[Edited at 2006-07-04 17:59]
I am afraid you're choosing to exaggerate the significance of an outsourcer's response on the Blue Board. If they got a rating of 1 it would affect their business far more than them replying to say the translator produced shoddy work.
I could turn the tables on you and say that since you consider a response such a powerful tool, why aren't you content with the ability to respond to feedback?
On the latter point, your suitability is being questioned on what I understand to be moral grounds, which are in my view reasonable. Personally, I would not be opposed to out/outers retaining the ability to leave Blue Board entries because in my view in this matter practical necessity > moral requirements but by the same token I cannot argue against the morality-based approach that Henry appears to have deployed.
Also, I wanted to express my appreciation of your reasoned and calm statements here...we really need more of that!
| | | | heikeb
Ireland
Local time: 10:27
Member (2003)
English to German
+ ...
| On fairness and gaming | Jul 4, 2006 |
The argument of "fairness", i.e. I should only be allowed to leave a comment in the BB if the outsourcer are able to also evaluate my work via WWA, is - IMO - not fully valid.
The outsourcers have always had the opportunity to respond to any comment made in the BB, and many of them do so by leaving positive feedback for positive comments or explanations/justifications for negative comments.
Why would it be considered unfair in any way if an outsourcer would not be able... See more The argument of "fairness", i.e. I should only be allowed to leave a comment in the BB if the outsourcer are able to also evaluate my work via WWA, is - IMO - not fully valid.
The outsourcers have always had the opportunity to respond to any comment made in the BB, and many of them do so by leaving positive feedback for positive comments or explanations/justifications for negative comments.
Why would it be considered unfair in any way if an outsourcer would not be able to leave any feedback for me in a separate system (i.e. reciprocate)?
This tit-for-tat approach IMHO furthers the idea of BB/WWA evaluations as a traded commodity (cf. also the topic raised yesteday: http://www.proz.com/topic/50602). I leave positive feedback for you, if you leave positive feedback for me.
This thought has already been expressed in this thread -- with a different purpose (i.e. supporting the WWA system), but the thought is there:
The Golden Rule
`Don't do upon others what you wouldn't want to be done upon yourself'
Who and what is to prevent an outsourcer or a translator from using this commodity by offering lower rates in exchange for a great evaluation? The greater the incentive or the higher the pressure to have a good average score (depending also on future implementation of additional "advantages" such as WWA filters, etc.), the higher the likelihood that the system will be abused and the lower the reliability of any infomation conveyed by that score.
This would probably not so much impact the really low scores as in the long run the efforts to balance out negative evaluations would be too high (although these scores would be hidden then), but rather the mid-range scores. Why not give a 5 instead of a 3 or a 4, when I hope to get positive feedback from that outsourcer? Even if I might not want to work for them again, what's the harm of giving them a better rating?
Previously, although translators might have been afraid of retaliation for leaving negative feedback, there wasn't really any incentive to leave unjustified positive feedback. With the introduction of the WWA system, there's a big incentive to leave the best possible feedback in the BB (as well as in the WWA).
Talking about gaming:
Switching between hiding and displaying feedback could also be considered gaming: I hide it until I get some more positive evaluations to even out my negative ones. This option should also be considered a "more or less permanent one".
Furthermore, the reciprocal approach of the dual BB/WWA system looks to me like a perfect example of the game theory where opponents (in this case outsourcers/translators who would rather not work together again) cooperate for mutual benefits!
[Edited at 2006-07-04 20:50] ▲ 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 | 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! » |
| | 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 
