Clients can now give translator feedback (WWA) without registering

Shai Nave wrote:

First, why not use the most straightforward terms such as 'Proz member' and non-ProZ member (or outside entity, or similar)?
Secondly, clearly presenting feedbacks from entites who don't have a BB entry as inferior is a big problem, but first a little about online feedback, testimonials, endorsements, recommendations, and so forth. Generally, they are useless (not only on ProZ). If no strict identity authentication mechanism is in place they could be easily falsified, thus losing their value (think LinkedIn's endorsements or even recommendations in many cases); and let's not pretend that there isn't quite a bit of barter reputation trading on ProZ as it is. Conversely, if a strict identity authentication is in place, this becomes a commercial security problem, because one actually exposes the information of his or her business partners.

Recommendations, testimonials, and endorsement have limited value in today's online world, and they do not apply equality to everyone. They are probably more relevant to employees than for independent, sole-proprietor type of service providers.

In ProZ's own little world WWA and LWA might make some sense, especially for new members who like to present the WWAs as some kind of trophy. Although there is some business espionage going on there as well and I'm always amused by some agencies who try to compartmentalized the translators they work with - even when a direct line of communication would benefit everyone involved, while having tenths or hundreds of LWAs or other type of feedbacks that clearly expose the identity of the translators (and even some clients) they work with. Mind you, even ProZ itself doesn't take the WWA into account in its own directory ranking formula or otherwise, and that's saying a lot. However, having to create a BB entry for direct clients or agencies, the latter probably know about Proz but chose not to register for their own reasons, is something completely different. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind creating a BB entry for a client who didn't opt do to it themselves. I can almost guarantee that the minute one does, this client will be flooded with emails and/or phone calls by unscrupulous "colleagues" and agencies offering the same, as well as other and irrelevant, services. If that client digs a little and finds out that one is responsible for this flood of unsolicited communications, I can imagine that the business partnership won't last long in most cases.

Having the client corroborated and appear as confidential is not a good solution to me either, simply because, and no insult intended, I wouldn't trust a commercial third-party service (which is what ProZ is) with my confidential business information. This is an unnecessary risk. It is not uncommon for databases to be hacked or for commercial services to sell the information that they have gathered. I, and I believe that more than a few others, prefer not to have outside WWAs than having them displayed as inferior or being conditioned on creating a BB entry for someone that didn't ask for it. It is one thing to create a BB entry for an agency that didn't pay - this is considered to be a community service - and completely different to turn the BB into a database of translation buyers.

[Edited at 2013-09-28 01:22 GMT]

Jesper E wrote:

Now I got a big fat zero, and some grey hidden text under the zero....Include them all in the WWA number then perhaps divide them.

Jesper E wrote:

Now I got a big fat zero, and some grey hidden text under the zero....Include them all in the WWA number then perhaps divide them.

Laura Daly wrote:

I already "hassled" a direct client for a WWA, now I have to bother them again to ask them to register so that people won't think its fake?

Jason Grimes wrote:

Hi Emma, I was able to corroborate your remaining feedback entry by linking it to a Blue Board record.

Jason Grimes wrote:

Your clients don't need membership or even a ProZ.com account to be corroborated. There simply needs to be a Blue Board record in their name, which needs to have an entry from at least one translator who has worked for them besides you.

Does that make sense?

Jason Grimes wrote:

Thank you all for the comments. I need to take some more time this weekend to digest them all. But I want to raise a point that seems to have been overlooked in the discussion so far: the need to protect against fake entries by others (who may compete with you).

If feedback from those whose identity hasn't been corroborated to some minimum degree is given the exact same weight as corroborated feedback, it opens the potential for abuse.

For example, an unscrupulous translator could use multiple email accounts (possibly taking an extra moment to create fake ProZ.com profiles) to give himself dozens of glowing feedback entries, from anyone he claims to be. This is the reason that uncorroborated feedback should be identified as such.

An alternative way to protect against abuse would be to simply not allow uncorroborated feedback at all, but that seems unfair to translators whose clients would leave feedback but don't want to register at ProZ.com.

Please consider this while you're evaluating the new approach.

Thanks,

Jason

Jessica Noyes wrote:

Have it look like this, for example:
WWA again entries verified by ProZ.com: 12
Other WWA entries: 7