International Translation Day 2017

Join ProZ.com/TV for a FREE event on September 26-27th celebrating International Translation Day! 50+ hours of content, Chat, Live Q&A & more. Join 1,000's of linguists from around the globe as ProZ.com/TV celebrates International Translation Day.

Click for Full Participation

Pages in topic:   [1 2 3 4 5 6] >
Clients can now give translator feedback (WWA) without registering
Thread poster: Jason Grimes

Jason Grimes
Local time: 09:47
SITE STAFF
Sep 26, 2013

To make it as easy as possible for clients to give translator feedback, it's now possible to give feedback without having a ProZ.com account. The client simply needs to click a link in a feedback request email sent by a translator, and he or she can give feedback without logging in.

When feedback is given by someone who is not logged in, by default the feedback entry won't include a link to a profile or Blue Board record. In these cases, viewers will be given the option to help "identify" the person who gave feedback, by notifying ProZ.com staff of a matching Blue Board record or profile. ProZ.com staff will also attempt to find matching Blue Board records when vetting feedback.

See How can I help identify the maker of a feedback entry? for details.

Any comments on these changes is welcome.

Thanks,

Jason

Note: Earlier versions of this feature used the term "unqualified" and "uncorroborated" instead of "unidentified". The approach has been changed, and this post edited, in response to the comments in this discussion. (Thanks!)


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Oliver Lawrence  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 15:47
Partial member (2008)
Italian to English
+ ...
Please reinstate the old approach Sep 27, 2013

The new system penalises feedback from direct clients, who have no reason to register with ProZ.

It diminishes translators, as (for example) it looks as though I now have only 9 pieces of positive feedback instead of 11, as the other 2 no longer look like real feedback (they are excluded from the overall total).

Membership of ProZ is no guarantee whatsoever that the person who provided the feedback is trustworthy. You give the impression that you are just trying to get more people to register with ProZ, which appears cynical.

It looks like a retrograde step. If you want to give outsourcers confidence that translators' WWAs are genuine, there must be a better way to do it.


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz  Identity Verified
Poland
Local time: 15:47
English to Polish
+ ...
Agree with Oliver Sep 27, 2013

I agree with Oliver's assessment. This penalises translators who work directly with end customers or with agencies that just don't use Proz.com to outsource their jobs.

Like Oliver says, having a paid membership isn't a guarantee of anything much really, other than the fast the company exists (just like confirming a translator's ID via payment details). Nor does having a token BB set up for that company do so much.

Plus, 'X positive entries + Y unqualified' isn't really accurate. The translator has X+Y positive entries, out of which X are qualified and Y are not. Unqualified entries don't stop being positive.

Also, if you have, say, halved a translator's number of WWA's, you may have invalidated many months or perhaps years of targeted effort which the translator undertook in reliance on being allowed to keep the feedback. Well, the feedback is still there, but it's been subtracted from the grand total and put in a parenthesis somewhere below in small font and ugly grey warning sign of a background on the actual WWA board.

Finally, disqualifying feedback like that defeats the purpose of allowing clients to comment without registering, as they would need to jump through some hoops to get qualified. Alternatively, accepting a one-item BlueBoard set-up by the same translator who has received the feedback would be quite ridiculous, as in a lot of hassle for no added reliability.


Direct link Reply with quote
 

SEA-words  Identity Verified
English to Italian
+ ...
The bad Sep 27, 2013

I am still afraid to leave negative WWAs, since there is no way to prevent retaliation. They were both jobs assigned through Proz.com, but so far there is no way to make my feedback anonymous. This is such a pity when you dealt with unprofessional people - you can't expect them to behave professionally when they get a negative feedback, either.

If anonymous WWA was available, I'd have found some warnings before assigning jobs to those "linguists". Instead it happened to talk about them with fellow translator who shared their bad experiences with the same. Of course, this was *after* the job was done and paid.

What's the use of the WWA if it is only for positive feedbacks?!


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Emma Goldsmith  Identity Verified
Spain
Local time: 15:47
Member (2010)
Spanish to English
Disappointed with this change Sep 27, 2013

I agree with the others, the qualified/unqualified classification is a step back. I can't see the advantage for outsourcers or translators.

I've got 8 WWA, and one has just become "unqualified". I think the outsourcer who went to the trouble of giving me this feedback would be disconcerted to see that she has been labelled as being "unqualified". It doesn't look good next to her name, and reduces the value of the excellent feedback she has given me.

So is this just a ruse to get more outsourcers to register with ProZ?


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Karina S Maril  Identity Verified
Argentina
Local time: 10:47
Member (2013)
English to Spanish
+ ...
Do not agree with new policies Sep 27, 2013

I completely agrre with Oliver.

Oliver Lawrence wrote:

The new system penalises feedback from direct clients, who have no reason to register with ProZ.

It diminishes translators, as (for example) it looks as though I now have only 9 pieces of positive feedback instead of 11, as the other 2 no longer look like real feedback (they are excluded from the overall total).

Membership of ProZ is no guarantee whatsoever that the person who provided the feedback is trustworthy. You give the impression that you are just trying to get more people to register with ProZ, which appears cynical.

It looks like a retrograde step. If you want to give outsourcers confidence that translators' WWAs are genuine, there must be a better way to do it.


I always work with direct clients and outsourcers who are not registered at proz.com, and this is mainly because I have seen that many of them are offering low rates.

I do not think it is fair for me or other translators who work with direct clients.


Direct link Reply with quote
 

ML Spanish  Identity Verified
Argentina
Local time: 10:47
English to Spanish
+ ...
do not agree with new policies. Sep 27, 2013

I think we can all agree that the word 'unqualified' has very bad connotations in many contexts, including this one. This is a great environment to find/meet new clients, but when they read 'unqualified' reviews, it doesn't really help.

I have two great, very respected clients who are shown as 'unqualified' in my profile. I don't think this helps us as translators. This causes my 'review box' to have ZERO REVIEWS and in small letters '2 unqualified reviews', which is not true, basically because I do have two reviews, not zero.

I suggest using other terms if this policy must continue, such as 'not registered user'.

I hope Proz can analyze whether this actually helps translators or not.


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Sindy Cremer

Member (2008)
English to Dutch
+ ...
VERY disappointed Sep 27, 2013

... to say the least.

I fully agree with the others. Why should a WWA from a direct client carry less weight?


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Shai Navé  Identity Verified
Israel
Local time: 16:47
Member
English to Hebrew
+ ...
Agree with the rest of the comments here Sep 27, 2013

I really don't understand the merit of this change, nor the rationale behind it.

If professionalism and integrity are of concern here then the root cause(s) should be addressed not just the way it can potentially manifest itself in.

If the purpose is to give some more context about the identity of the rankers then classifying them into Direct or Agency client (for them to choose when entering the feedback), and further sub-classification of being a ProZ member or non-ProZ member (based on them being logged-in or not and the status of their profile), with the grand total of feedbacks remain unchanged, might make some sense.
However, using the term unqualified is a mistake because it carries the wrong message (especially when used in an alleged linguistic-oriented website that should understand the power that words carry), and could be even considered offensive. It is also misleading because we all know that just about anyone can register and get "vetted" on ProZ, but that doesn't tell anything about the qualification of that person/organization. Removing those feedbacks from the grand total is just adding insult to injury.

If the rationale behind this change will be explained, I'm sure that the community can work with ProZ's staff to come up with a better and more balanced solution.


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Catherine GUILLIAUMET  Identity Verified
Local time: 15:47
English to French
+ ...
I do not agree either, as a medical translator Sep 27, 2013

Hi,
I do not agree with those new strange policies because:

What will happen for us, medical translators, while obviously our clients (big Pharma, specialized agencies, CROs [i.e.,Contract Research Organizations], clinical trial centers, etc.) will never appear in the Blue Board ?
It is a kind of segregation.

I think that those colleagues who are specializing in Law, nuclear, aeronautics, etc. will be also equally affected.

I certainly won't dare to tell any globally well-known drug manufacturer or professor of medicine "Please, can you give your feedback about my work on ProZ, but be aware that you will be considered as 'unqualified'. Errrr ... Sorry about that."

I won't, and you, will you do it? Maybe you will... if you want to be sure to lose the client for ever.

Catherine


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Enrico Zoffoli  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 15:47
Member (2013)
German to Italian
+ ...
VERY disappointing change Sep 27, 2013

This change has the obvious disadvantage of penalizing translators who work with direct clients (who have no reason to become BB members). Indeed, the consequences of this "new feature" can be pretty crazy. Should we really maintain that somebody who receives a WWA from a major law firm from NY is unqualified, or at least less qualified than somebody working for peanuts for a BB Indian agency?

Direct link Reply with quote
 

Saghir Ahmed
Pakistan
Local time: 18:47
Member (2012)
English to Urdu
+ ...
Extremely Disappointing Approach of PROZ Sep 27, 2013

This is weird that the entries are being disqualified in such a manner, Of course it is unprofessional approach towards the client and linguist relationship. If a linguist has provided an entry fo r a client or client provided, so what is wrong if the respondent acts accordingly just to make the relationship better and stronger. PROZ guys seems to root out many good things and making the site a pathetic place for linguists, who care to pay to be members and follow he rules.

Direct link Reply with quote
 

Saghir Ahmed
Pakistan
Local time: 18:47
Member (2012)
English to Urdu
+ ...
Please reinstate the old approach, It is unacceptable Sep 27, 2013

No body is agreeing with this new weird approach. which seems to diminish the efforts and work of linguists, who really work hard and got few WWAs. You made them stand in the last row again. How this is acceptable, let me know, what is the formula here.

Direct link Reply with quote
 

Jason Grimes
Local time: 09:47
SITE STAFF
TOPIC STARTER
Would "corroborated" be a more acceptable term than "qualified"? Sep 27, 2013

Hi everyone,

It looks like "unqualified" was a poor choice of terminology. My apologies. The negative connotation was not intended.

The intent is to distinguish feedback from people whose identity has been corroborated to some degree. Would it be more acceptable to use the term "uncorroborated" instead of "unqualified"?

Another reason for this approach is to allow clients to give feedback with as little effort as possible; their identity can be corroborated later by others (for example, by associating them with a Blue Board record and collecting LWA entries from other translators).

Thanks for sharing your reactions, and for your help figuring out a better way to do it.

Best regards,

Jason


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Assia SANLIS  Identity Verified
Local time: 15:47
English to French
very very disappointing!! Sep 27, 2013

I completely agree with the above comments, how can we get a chance to build a stronger profile if direct clients can't be considered qualified!!!

Direct link Reply with quote
 
Pages in topic:   [1 2 3 4 5 6] >


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Clients can now give translator feedback (WWA) without registering

Advanced search






BaccS – Business Accounting Software
Modern desktop project management for freelance translators

BaccS makes it easy for translators to manage their projects, schedule tasks, create invoices, and view highly customizable reports. User-friendly, ProZ.com integration, community-driven development – a few reasons BaccS is trusted by translators!

More info »
PerfectIt consistency checker
Faster Checking, Greater Accuracy

PerfectIt helps deliver error-free documents. It improves consistency, ensures quality and helps to enforce style guides. It’s a powerful tool for pro users, and comes with the assurance of a 30-day money back guarantee.

More info »



Forums
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search