| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] > | "P" symbol - WHO makes the decision about competence? Thread poster: MariusV
|
|---|
| | Andrea Riffo 
Chile
Local time: 05:32
English to Spanish
+ ...
Walter Landesman wrote:
Moderators have been lenient and flexible, though, letting four pages of discussion pass by and allowing members to provide and discuss their reasons for agreements and disagreements.
I think that "sensible" would be a better word, since it has become increasingly obvious and has been explicity stated by quite a few members that the lack of transparency (or what was perceived as such) is one of the core issues that has caused this mild uproar.
I, for one, am grateful and thank Henry for clarifying that conversations regarding the P program and the screening process itself are open for public discussion, given that all of the hush-hush revolving around it at first clearly wasn't doing anybody a favour.
Greetings
Andrea
[Edited at 2009-03-16 00:00 GMT]
| | | | Paul Cohen
Greenland
Local time: 08:32
German to English
+ ...
| The questionnaire was a slam dunk | Mar 16, 2009 |
Heike Behl, Ph.D. wrote:
Who decided in those cases that the translators deserved to be qualified as "P"???
What a (sad) joke!
If the decisions on skills and professionalism were largely based on the responses to the questionnaires that were sent out to applicants' references, I really wouldn't be surprised if dozens of poor translators slipped through.
The questionnaire is one of the main reasons that I became disenchanted with the "P" program. As it turns out, I had two occasions to see this questionnaire. Once a friend of mine on the site applied for the "P" and used me as a reference. On another occasion, an agency that I work for -- and had used as a reference -- actually sent me an email with a link to the questionnaire asking me if I could fill it out myself as "the results will be top notch anyway"!! I declined.
The questionnaire was far too superficial, in my opinion. The rating scale was too restricted. There were only four possible answers for each question, not the usual five that allows for a more nuanced response. At the end, respondents had an option to write more comments, but it wasn't obligatory. The questionnaire took all of 2 minutes to complete.
During the application process, when I provided my cherished contacts as references -- including email addresses and phone numbers and information about how these people could attest to my ability -- I assumed that Proz.com would actually contact at least a few of them by phone. After all, these people know better than anyone else what kind of work I do. As far as I know, however, no one was given a phone call. Instead, my clients were sent this questionnaire.
If you want to get a genuine response from references, you need to give them a much more comprehensive questionnaire and at least call up a couple of people and have a chat to check whether the claims on the applications match up with reality. To my knowledge, this has not been done on a systematic basis.
Incidentally, the colleague at Proz.com who used me as a reference is a prime example of how the questionnaire fails as a means of checking references. He and I have worked together on a number of projects. He's a friend of mine. Of course I gave him high marks on "his" questionnaire. But if someone from Proz.com had called me up and asked me some hard-hitting questions about his abilities and limitations as a translator, I would have provided far more nuanced and valuable information.
As it was, the questionnaire-reference process seemed like a slam dunk to me.
| | | |
Paul Cohen wrote:
During the application process, when I provided my cherished contacts as references -- including email addresses and phone numbers and information about how these people could attest to my ability -- I assumed that Proz.com would actually contact at least a few of them by phone. After all, these people know better than anyone else what kind of work I do. As far as I know, however, no one was given a phone call.
This was also my case, and I am still wondering about this...
| | |
|
|
|
| Another Breach | Mar 16, 2009 |
Paul Cohen wrote:
During the application process, when I provided my cherished contacts as references -- including email addresses and phone numbers and information about how these people could attest to my ability -- I assumed that Proz.com would actually contact at least a few of them by phone. After all, these people know better than anyone else what kind of work I do. As far as I know, however, no one was given a phone call.
So, we have provided our direct client contacts and information and site has shown all those info to the other translators in my pair?
| | | | Margreet Logmans (X)
Netherlands
Local time: 11:32
English to Dutch
+ ...
| Not complaining, no priority | Mar 16, 2009 |
Nikki Graham wrote:
And don't you think (addressed at those who have refrained from applying for the P badge for whatever reason) that you might be better able to do something about your complaints from the inside rather than out?
I did not apply. Not because I had concerns or complaints, but because it did not have priority.
What does concern me, however, is the impression that some people seem to have: that not having the red P next to your name implies that you are either not a professional or a disgruntled member. Neither is true for me.
Personally, I find it much more important what clients think of my work. Therefore, I cherish the WWA on my profile. The red P may be nice, but does not impress me much. Also, whenever I try to find a colleague to work with or pass a project to, one of the things I check is their WWA, not the red P.
| | | | | What breach? | Mar 16, 2009 |
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote: Paul Cohen wrote:
During the application process, when I provided my cherished contacts as references -- including email addresses and phone numbers and information about how these people could attest to my ability -- I assumed that Proz.com would actually contact at least a few of them by phone. After all, these people know better than anyone else what kind of work I do. As far as I know, however, no one was given a phone call. So, we have provided our direct client contacts and information and site has shown all those info to the other translators in my pair?
Of course the site does not show this info to other translators - how did you get that idea? It's site staff who do any checking up on credentials, not peers already accepted in the programme.
All that peers are asked to do is to give an opinion on any submitted test translation in their language pair and direction (anonymously - the peer does not know who submitted the translation and the submitting translator does not know who reviewed it) and give an opinion on any applicants in their language pair with whom they've had dealings (in which case the reviewer obviously has to know who the applicant is, but the applicant does not know who the reviewer/s are).
| | | | MariusV
Lithuania
Local time: 12:32
English to Lithuanian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | in brief - questions that flow out | Mar 16, 2009 |
1. Can "member-to-member personal opinion" (anonymous or not - does not matter)on some copy-pasted samples (who can know from where - again "anonymous") and on the basis of irrelevant criteria be a sound subject for a professional certification of a "professional level" of someone?
2. Will Proz look serious with such certifications in the eyes of its (paying) members?
3. Will such a certifation be "interesting" to our potential clients (existing do not matter as they already exist ... See more 1. Can "member-to-member personal opinion" (anonymous or not - does not matter)on some copy-pasted samples (who can know from where - again "anonymous") and on the basis of irrelevant criteria be a sound subject for a professional certification of a "professional level" of someone?
2. Will Proz look serious with such certifications in the eyes of its (paying) members?
3. Will such a certifation be "interesting" to our potential clients (existing do not matter as they already exist and they trust us) where one part of such clients is a) agencies (they might probably know what is that "P" if they are Proz members or outsource jobs via Proz) and another part of the clients are clients who never heard about Proz, nor even have the slightest idea what that "P" (star, baloon) or whatever else "medal" means?
4. What clients (existing, potential, Proz, non-Proz related) actually need - do they need a product from us (in our case - it is our translations) or do they need our "boast" on profiles with "P" or whatever else signs which were "awared" on the basis of our "member-to-member anonymous personal opinions" based on vague and irrelevant criteria of "commercial viability" and like (say, "commercial viability" for literature translations)?
5. Last thing - there are MANY formal organizations (like IoL, ATA, and like) which are competent to issue certificates as they have examination procedures and their certification procedures and "decisions" are acknowledged world-wide. So, what that "P" sign is for then? Let's use the services of these organizations and put relevant certifications on our profiles if we are in such a need of these (but there are so many of use who never cared even about IoL examinations anc certs because it is also a waste of time, energy, and money - we can live without them)...
OK, I am not agains efforts to improve Proz, to introduce novelties, or any other things. But better to measure the wood ten times, and then to cut it. Not vice versa. And the work of cutting of the wood shall be trusted to a carpenter, not a baker. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Marie-Hélène Hayles wrote: M. Ali Bayraktar wrote: Paul Cohen wrote:
During the application process, when I provided my cherished contacts as references -- including email addresses and phone numbers and information about how these people could attest to my ability -- I assumed that Proz.com would actually contact at least a few of them by phone. After all, these people know better than anyone else what kind of work I do. As far as I know, however, no one was given a phone call. So, we have provided our direct client contacts and information and site has shown all those info to the other translators in my pair? Of course the site does not show this info to other translators - how did you get that idea? It's site staff who do any checking up on credentials, not peers already accepted in the programme. All that peers are asked to do is to give an opinion on any submitted test translation in their language pair and direction (anonymously - the peer does not know who submitted the translation and the submitting translator does not know who reviewed it) and give an opinion on any applicants in their language pair with whom they've had dealings (in which case the reviewer obviously has to know who the applicant is, but the applicant does not know who the reviewer/s are).
I can't understand your big trust in the system here;
We have a lot of bugs and lobbies here
(Both Henry and Some members stated that there were secret discussions before the announcement of P Program)
Now How can you assure me about privacy?
Where there is a lobby, there you cant assure anything (neither privacy nor justice)
You telling me about the process Written here;
But as you own know there are other processes we dont know
So please don't be sure of anything and don't provide guarantee in the name of the site.
| | | |
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote:
So, we have provided our direct client contacts and information and site has shown all those info to the other translators in my pair?
No, of course not.
You really don't like to read documentation, do you, M. Ali? That one, too, is covered in the FAQ.
| | | | MariusV
Lithuania
Local time: 12:32
English to Lithuanian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | who can assure? | Mar 16, 2009 |
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote: Marie-Hélène Hayles wrote: M. Ali Bayraktar wrote: Paul Cohen wrote:
During the application process, when I provided my cherished contacts as references -- including email addresses and phone numbers and information about how these people could attest to my ability -- I assumed that Proz.com would actually contact at least a few of them by phone. After all, these people know better than anyone else what kind of work I do. As far as I know, however, no one was given a phone call. So, we have provided our direct client contacts and information and site has shown all those info to the other translators in my pair? Of course the site does not show this info to other translators - how did you get that idea? It's site staff who do any checking up on credentials, not peers already accepted in the programme. All that peers are asked to do is to give an opinion on any submitted test translation in their language pair and direction (anonymously - the peer does not know who submitted the translation and the submitting translator does not know who reviewed it) and give an opinion on any applicants in their language pair with whom they've had dealings (in which case the reviewer obviously has to know who the applicant is, but the applicant does not know who the reviewer/s are). I can't understand your big trust in the system here; We have a lot of bugs and lobbies here (Both Henry and Some members stated that there were secret discussions before the announcement of P Program) Now How can you assure me about privacy? Where there is a lobby, there you cant assure anything (neither privacy nor justice) You telling me about the process Written here; But as you own know there are other processes we dont know So please don't be sure of anything and don't provide guarantee in the name of the site.
Who can assure privacy if the applications for "P" are NOT anonymous? If two persons know a secret, this is not a secret any more
And what is written, it is only what is written. People can write and say many things. But that STILL does not mean it is so (what they write or say)...It would be best to talk about REAL assurance...Not about what is written.
[Edited at 2009-03-16 13:44 GMT]
| | | | | I can't and wouldn't claim to provide guarantees in the name of the site | Mar 16, 2009 |
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote:
Now How can you assure me about privacy?
Where there is a lobby, there you cant assure anything (neither privacy nor justice)
You telling me about the process Written here;
But as you own know there are other processes we dont know
So please don't be sure of anything and don't provide guarantee in the name of the site.
However, I am writing from my own experience, both as an applicant and as a reviewer of other applicants after my own acceptance in the programme. I certainly haven't seen any confidential information of other site users and I don't know who was responsible for reviewing my own application. As I prefer to operate on the basis of good faith, it makes sense to suppose that what is true for me is also true for the system as a whole. (And if that makes me hopelessly naive, so be it.)
| | |
|
|
|
| Responses to MariusV | Mar 16, 2009 |
MariusV wrote:
1. Can "member-to-member personal opinion" (anonymous or not - does not matter)on some copy-pasted samples (who can know from where - again "anonymous") and on the basis of irrelevant criteria be a sound subject for a professional certification of a "professional level" of someone?
Peer reviews are considered, but only as a supplement to a great deal of other data that is considered. If you object in principle to the very consideration of peer opinion, then you should not apply. Disregard the P symbol.
2. Will Proz look serious with such certifications in the eyes of its (paying) members?
In my view, it depends only on whether or not the screening process works. I think it is working.
3. Will such a certifation be "interesting" to our potential clients...
On that one, the answer is known: to some clients yes, to many clients no.
4. What clients (existing, potential, Proz, non-Proz related) actually need - do they need a product from us (in our case - it is our translations) or do they need our "boast" on profiles...
Of course clients need good service, but they also need information to help them select the right translator(s) for given project. (According to the logic you seem to be using, there would be no Blue Board.)
5. Last thing - there are MANY formal organizations (like IoL, ATA, and like) which are competent to issue certificates as they have examination procedures and their certification procedures and "decisions" are acknowledged world-wide. So, what that "P" sign is for then?
The Certified PRO program does not seek to replace or compete with those, it starts where they leave off.
If you are really interested in understanding how the screening process works, I recommend that you walk through the application form, even if you have no intention to apply. (Note that you can proceed through the application without entering any data by either clicking the 3-step icons at the top, or by clicking "Save and continue" at the bottom.) You will see that the preferred means of establishing "translation ability" is by earning a tested credential from one of the associations. (When applications are denied because translation ability has not been established, the recommendation is frequently made that certification be sought from a relevant association. In other cases, this is not possible because no association gives tests in the pair.)
What the Certified PRO screening process looks at beyond certifications of translation ability is track record for business reliability, and "good citizenship" (which amounts, in most cases, to agreeing to be bound by the site's professional guidelines as a condition of entering and staying in the program.)
All of this is covered to some degree in the program materials.
| | | | PRen (X)
Canada
Local time: 06:32
French to English
+ ...
| And you review the translations of others based on....? | Mar 16, 2009 |
Marie-Hélène Hayles wrote:
However, I am writing from my own experience, both as an applicant and as a reviewer of other applicants after my own acceptance in the programme. I certainly haven't seen any confidential information of other site users and I don't know who was responsible for reviewing my own application. As I prefer to operate on the basis of good faith, it makes sense to suppose that what is true for me is also true for the system as a whole. (And if that makes me hopelessly naive, so be it.)
Yes, but this speaks to a question I raised in the original locked forum - what are your qualifications for reviewing translations for the purposes of "Proz certification" other than the big red P? Surely there must be some standard for reviewers, other than the fact that you are a "peer"? I've looked on your profile and can't see any memberships/certifications other than the P.
Proz is a marketplace for translation. It's a business, Henry's business. And in my opinion, it has no business "certifying" translators. As we've seen from the many posts in this and the other forum dealing with this issue, there are far too many outstanding questions, grey areas, and potential / actual abuses.
| | | | MariusV
Lithuania
Local time: 12:32
English to Lithuanian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | business is business | Mar 16, 2009 |
I think that a business shall do business and certifiers shall certify - people do the jobs they know best. This is how civilization started - with specialization.
P.S. What sense does it make for a business to get involved into certification? If it is business, then all should be done for business.
[Edited at 2009-03-16 15:12 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » "P" symbol - WHO makes the decision about competence? | 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 » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
