| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | Clients can now give translator feedback (WWA) without registering Thread poster: Jason Grimes
|
|---|
Don Hartig 
Local time: 12:28
Chinese to English
+ ...
| PLEASE just categorise outsourcers according to status, everything else is very negative & damaging | Sep 30, 2013 |
Hi Jason,
Thanks for getting back to us on this important issue.
I would say that anything distinguishing the sense of "validity" of feedback entries is bound to make any potential outsourcer think twice when reading them or considering the authenticity of the translator in general.
Rather, I would simply suggest indicating the actual status of the outsourcers (or private clients). This is factual and can be considered by any potential client on merit of w... See more Hi Jason,
Thanks for getting back to us on this important issue.
I would say that anything distinguishing the sense of "validity" of feedback entries is bound to make any potential outsourcer think twice when reading them or considering the authenticity of the translator in general.
Rather, I would simply suggest indicating the actual status of the outsourcers (or private clients). This is factual and can be considered by any potential client on merit of what it's worth, without giving any bad impressions or making any negative implications.
I would really say that simpler is better in this case and there is no need to try to separate all the feedback entries into catagories of validity. I DO support the idea of specifying WHAT KIND OF outsourcers have made these entreis, but ALL feedback entries are "valid" as such and for Proz to try to asses the authenticity of every single feedback entry and outsourcer, ultimately affecting only the paying translators negatively, is simply unrealistic.
There is no way of objectively assessing whether each and every outsourcer is authentic or not. Many (including many of the largest) agencies do not even require invoicing other than automated invoiding on their own company portals. With regard to private clients, it is very very rare that they would require invoices, so realistic to require translators to have to "verify" these outsourcers either.
I really hope we can get our old Proz system back and once again, YES, by all means indicate the statuses of the outsourcers, e.g. "paying member", "non-paying member", which already indicates quite clearly whether they are part of the Proz community or not. But all other categorisations will only lead to outsourcers believing that some are "real" and others are "not real", which, in simple terms, means that the "not real" ones have been unscrupulously solicited by translators, implying that they are dishonest and thus damaging their reputations as well as rendering many of their past feedbacks meaningless, and even negatively impacting them by being labeled as "unqualified", "uncorroberate" or "un-whatever"....It all comes down to the same thing: Unless the feedback entries are real, they must be fake, which means the translators must be fake too. So let's PLEASE refrain from such categorisation.
I really hope to see my "uncorroberated" feedback, which has been up there like a sore thumb for 4 days now, change back to just feedback (with the membership status of the client indicated by all means if this is considered absolutely necessary).
Looking forward to a positive resolution as soon as possible.
Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Don Hartig
Certified Translator: Chinese (简体, 繁体), German, French, Spanish, Japanese, Afrikaans into English ▲ Collapse
| | | | Don Hartig
Local time: 12:28
Chinese to English
+ ...
| No Jason, please do not use such terms as "authenticated" or "not authenticated" | Sep 30, 2013 |
Jason Grimes wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Jason, "corroboration" and "authentication" sound too formal to depict the actual process. It sounds as if Proz were getting affidavits for each such entry.
One suggestion here, "verified by Proz" sounds more adequate. This term is used elsewhere for similar purposes, where your system verifies an e-mail, IP, etc.
Hi José, I use "authenticated" here in a precise and limited technical sense, to mean that the user has been identified (either by username and password or an email-based authentication method linked to the Blue Board). I feel like "verified" implies too much certainty--I wouldn't want someone to think that ProZ.com is vouching for the truth of the feedback, which is not the case. All that has really been confirmed is that the user has been identified (authenticated) using one of two available methods. I will make sure to define the term explicitly in the documentation that accompanies it. Thanks, Jason
| | | | | We are mincing words, however it seems to be important | Sep 30, 2013 |
Jason Grimes wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Jason, "corroboration" and "authentication" sound too formal to depict the actual process. It sounds as if Proz were getting affidavits for each such entry.
One suggestion here, "verified by Proz" sounds more adequate. This term is used elsewhere for similar purposes, where your system verifies an e-mail, IP, etc.
Hi José, I use "authenticated" here in a precise and limited technical sense, to mean that the user has been identified (either by username and password or an email-based authentication method linked to the Blue Board). I feel like "verified" implies too much certainty--I wouldn't want someone to think that ProZ.com is vouching for the truth of the feedback, which is not the case. All that has really been confirmed is that the user has been identified (authenticated) using one of two available methods. I will make sure to define the term explicitly in the documentation that accompanies it. Thanks, Jason
Your wording is OK in IT, where "electronic authentication" is matching login + password to the contents of a secure database. However in IT-laypeople terms, it sounds (that's why I think you made a right choice in asking how does it "sound") "notarial", i.e. implies that Proz got some sort of affidavit on whatever was stated there.
"Verified" means that Proz had the means, on its system, to verify that whoever posted that entry actually exists, and that such entity was not fabricated merely to do it.
Perhaps the documentation should make it clear that Proz has verified the identity of the entry poster, not the entry's contents (which might be implied in authenticating).
My 2¢.
| | | | | Proz member/not a Proz member | Sep 30, 2013 |
I can't find the post again now to quote from it (it must have got lost in all the other posts) but the suggestion made by whoever it was to just be clear and state in plain English what the system of classification is, was the most sensible suggestion in my opinion.
"Corroborated" makes it sound as though Proz were vouching for the truth of the feedback as much as "authenticated" and "verified" does.
I can't see how anyone can derive a nuance of meaning that somehow ... See more I can't find the post again now to quote from it (it must have got lost in all the other posts) but the suggestion made by whoever it was to just be clear and state in plain English what the system of classification is, was the most sensible suggestion in my opinion.
"Corroborated" makes it sound as though Proz were vouching for the truth of the feedback as much as "authenticated" and "verified" does.
I can't see how anyone can derive a nuance of meaning that somehow differentiates corroborating something from verifying something.
To me, if I corroborate someone's story, I'm vouching for its truth, or at least concurring/stating that I am of the same opinion.
Why on earth would anything other be used than the simple "Proz member" "not Proz member"? ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Don Hartig
Local time: 12:28
Chinese to English
+ ...
| The point of feedbacks is leaving a good impression | Sep 30, 2013 |
The point of feedbacks is leaving a good impression. If any wording which implies that some feedbacks are "authentic" or "real" and others can thus only be "unauthentic" or "not real", then the latter two types of feedbacks are, in other words, implying that the translator has solicited them from "possibly unreliable sources", which is as good as saying that they don't count and that the translator may as be lying altogether.
What is the point of having to "verify" every outsourcer ... See more The point of feedbacks is leaving a good impression. If any wording which implies that some feedbacks are "authentic" or "real" and others can thus only be "unauthentic" or "not real", then the latter two types of feedbacks are, in other words, implying that the translator has solicited them from "possibly unreliable sources", which is as good as saying that they don't count and that the translator may as be lying altogether.
What is the point of having to "verify" every outsourcer anyway. If outsourcers are indicated based on their membership status, then any potential client or new outsourcers will clearly see this. All these new criteria for judging which outsourcers are are real and which are not is simply not necessary. The ones who suffer are the translators, and neither Proz nor the translators' clients benefit. It is very easy for new clients to assess the reliability of outsourcers having posted comments by simply contacting them. For Proz to play detective is simply unneccesary and unobjective. There are too many different scenarios and different client policies to be able to assess which ones are "real" and which ones are "dubiously suspicous" since no amount of wording will change the absolute polarities of the only two possible impressions left by thus categorising them.
Please just indicate respective outsourcer statuses. This is factual, objective and useful and leaves the client to decide for him/herself what he wants to believe. All other forms of categorisation and judgement are subjective at best and mean a lot of work for translators, simply to obtain feedback that may or may not meet the new regulations, which in themselves by no means account for even half of the different client / translator cooperation methods.
Often less is truly more.
Please consider this, Jason. It means a lot to many translators as you can see by all the angry comments.
Sincerely,
Don Hartig
Certified Translator: Chinese (简体, 繁体), German, French, Spanish, Japanese, Afrikaans into English ▲ Collapse
| | | | Don Hartig
Local time: 12:28
Chinese to English
+ ...
| EXACTLY! I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THIS! MEMBERSHIP STATUS IS ENOUGH! | Sep 30, 2013 |
Marie-Helene Dubois wrote:
I can't find the post again now to quote from it (it must have got lost in all the other posts) but the suggestion made by whoever it was to just be clear and state in plain English what the system of classification is, was the most sensible suggestion in my opinion.
"Corroborated" makes it sound as though Proz were vouching for the truth of the feedback as much as "authenticated" and "verified" does.
I can't see how anyone can derive a nuance of meaning that somehow differentiates corroborating something from verifying something.
To me, if I corroborate someone's story, I'm vouching for its truth, or at least concurring/stating that I am of the same opinion.
Why on earth would anything other be used than the simple "Proz member" "not Proz member"?
| | | | Anthony Mazzorana (X)
United States
Local time: 00:28
Spanish to English
+ ...
| It basically looks like one of my positive entries was deleted. | Sep 30, 2013 |
It's no longer a selling point for me if outsourcers look at my profile and only see the corroborated entries. What stands out is the number, not whether it's corroborated or not. And no one is going to take the time to find out for themselves what corroborated vs. uncorroborated even means.
This is a really bad idea. I'm sorry to say.
-Anthony Mazzorana
[Edited at 2013-09-30 15:04 GMT]
[Edited at 2013-09-30 15:04 GMT]
| | | | | Important that the wording cannot be interpreted as negative | Sep 30, 2013 |
I see what you are trying to do but it is very important that the wording cannot be interpreted as negative by any potential employer or cast a negative shadow on the translator.
| | |
|
|
|
Tom in London wrote:
I find it very embarrassing to ask for WWA and I'm sure it's deeply annoying for a client. So I've stopped doing it.
I asked for wwa only once many years ago. I have now stopped as well.
| | | | | I agree with Mrs Dubois | Sep 30, 2013 |
Sorry, I see olnly now Mrs. Dubois post, so I am editing mine.
This is the best suggestion and I agree. "Non ProZ.com member" and "ProZ.com Member" is enough.
Best regards
[Edited at 2013-09-30 15:50 GMT]
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 21:28
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | Maybe this is slightly off topic | Sep 30, 2013 |
Don Hartig wrote:
Often less is truly more.
A recent experience made me wonder if all this abundance of verifications, certifications, corroborations, ribbons, Ps and whatnot might send the wrong message to outsourcers regarding ProZ.com's role.
Last week I started working with a new direct client who found me via my profile page. Where he should send the PO and the payment, he asked, "because I have never worked with ProZ.com before."
| | | | Maria Labaca
Argentina
Local time: 01:28
English to Spanish
+ ...
| Proz member or not, that's it | Sep 30, 2013 |
Marie-Helene Dubois wrote:
I can't find the post again now to quote from it (it must have got lost in all the other posts) but the suggestion made by whoever it was to just be clear and state in plain English what the system of classification is, was the most sensible suggestion in my opinion.
"Corroborated" makes it sound as though Proz were vouching for the truth of the feedback as much as "authenticated" and "verified" does.
I can't see how anyone can derive a nuance of meaning that somehow differentiates corroborating something from verifying something.
To me, if I corroborate someone's story, I'm vouching for its truth, or at least concurring/stating that I am of the same opinion.
Why on earth would anything other be used than the simple "Proz member" "not Proz member"?
It seems like we all agree that stating 'Proz member' and 'Not a Proz member,' or something along those lines seems to be a way that can benefit all:
That way, Proz is saying that, by not becoming a member, those clients don't necessarily follow Proz rules and therefore, Proz is not responsible IF those are indeed 'unqualified' reviews.
Moreover, translators can benefit from it by simply having a profile that attracts clients with their reviews instead of scaring them out with words like 'unqualified' or 'uncorroborated'... from the colleagues I know, we are not 'making up' reviewers and reviews, therefore we shouldn't be punish with new policies.
Please, take into account what people are saying here and categorize reviews by saying whether those clients are Proz members or not.
Thanks!
| | |
|
|
|
Maria Labaca wrote:
It seems like we all agree that stating 'Proz member' and 'Not a Proz member,' or something along those lines seems to be a way that can benefit all:
That way, Proz is saying that, by not becoming a member, those clients don't necessarily follow Proz rules and therefore, Proz is not responsible IF those are indeed 'unqualified' reviews.
Moreover, translators can benefit from it by simply having a profile that attracts clients with their reviews instead of scaring them out with words like 'unqualified' or 'uncorroborated'... from the colleagues I know, we are not 'making up' reviewers and reviews, therefore we shouldn't be punish with new policies.
Please, take into account what people are saying here and categorize reviews by saying whether those clients are Proz members or not.
Thanks!
I totally agree. Please, nothing pejorative, ambiguous or too complicated for non-English native potential clients - because don't forget that ProZ is an international portal, this is the price of the success -
| | | |
Maria Labaca wrote:
It seems like we all agree that stating 'Proz member' and 'Not a Proz member,' or something along those lines seems to be a way that can benefit all:
That way, Proz is saying that, by not becoming a member, those clients don't necessarily follow Proz rules and therefore, Proz is not responsible IF those are indeed 'unqualified' reviews.
Moreover, translators can benefit from it by simply having a profile that attracts clients with their reviews instead of scaring them out with words like 'unqualified' or 'uncorroborated'... from the colleagues I know, we are not 'making up' reviewers and reviews, therefore we shouldn't be punish with new policies.
Please, take into account what people are saying here and categorize reviews by saying whether those clients are Proz members or not.
Thanks!
This would work for me. My only intent here is to show what can happen.
As soon as the new system kicked in, only one of my WWAs became "uncorroborated". As I checked it, it was a Proz corporate member I had worked for, however the PM (actually that company's big boss) entered the WWA from his personal profile as an individual member of Proz.
As soon as I submitted a support ticket providing the Proz URLs linking them, on the next morning that WWA became "corroborated".
My point is - while you are implementing the system, and regardless of how you name it - to devise some simple way of submitting such "manual" connections to the Proz staff, in order to avoid overloading them with a barrage of wordy requests.
Unless I'm mistaken, all that is needed is to provide two URLs. For instance PM John Doe entered, from his personal profile, a WWA on translator Jane Smith's profile, who worked for John's firm, ACTE Translations.
Jane, after having logged in on Proz, would have to click on the link for this contrivance, find John's profile and ACTE's BB record, and provide both links. This would be an eyes-only no-brainer single-click task for the Proz staff to "corroborate".
[Edited at 2013-09-30 17:32 GMT]
| | | | | Changes have been made | Sep 30, 2013 |
Hi everyone,
More changes have been made. How does your feedback look to you now?
The total number of positive entries is now shown as the headline number.
When available, the profile and Blue Board details of the person who gave feedback are shown and stand on their own.
When there is no linked profile or Blue Board record, instead of the term "unauthenticated" or "uncorroborated", viewers are shown an option to help "identify" the feedback g... See more Hi everyone,
More changes have been made. How does your feedback look to you now?
The total number of positive entries is now shown as the headline number.
When available, the profile and Blue Board details of the person who gave feedback are shown and stand on their own.
When there is no linked profile or Blue Board record, instead of the term "unauthenticated" or "uncorroborated", viewers are shown an option to help "identify" the feedback giver. The informational text associated with that option reads as follows:
When possible, a translator feedback entry includes a link to a ProZ.com profile or Blue Board record that represents the person who gave the feedback. This information can be helpful to others when determining how much to rely on a particular feedback entry.
If the person was not logged in when giving feedback, you can help to identify them by finding a Blue Board record or ProZ.com profile with which they are associated, and submitting that information in a support request. (Staff will attempt to corroborate it based on email address and other information.)
Thanks,
Jason ▲ Collapse
| | | | | 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 | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
