| Páginas sobre el tema: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | Clients can now give translator feedback (WWA) without registering Autor de la hebra: Jason Grimes
|
|---|
Ash Furuta 
Japón
Local time: 12:06
Miembro 2013
japonés al inglés
+ ...
| Please make it as optional | Sep 28, 2013 |
I agree with the others. This just diminishes translators' efforts to get feedback from non-registered clients or colleagues with whom translators worked with.
EVEN OUTSOURCERS WHO USED PROZ TO CONTACT ME AND LEFT FEEDBACK HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS UNCORROBORATED. 3 out of 7 WWAs were given by such outsourcers and now they are classified as 'uncollaborated'..
What on earth is this????????????
Please kindly reconsider the new unpopular change...
| | | | Ash Furuta
Japón
Local time: 12:06
Miembro 2013
japonés al inglés
+ ...
| Now I am a liar.... | Sep 28, 2013 |
The impact I have received due to the change is the number of my WWA to be reduced from seven (7) to four (4). The excluded three (3) feedback is given by legitimate outsourcers, nonetheless..
A problem is, and the most problematic in my credit and reputation as translator is that I have told willing clients over the past few weeks that I have 6-7 WWAs (one was added recently) on my ProZ page.
Now, when the willing clients come back to my website to check if the number ... See more The impact I have received due to the change is the number of my WWA to be reduced from seven (7) to four (4). The excluded three (3) feedback is given by legitimate outsourcers, nonetheless..
A problem is, and the most problematic in my credit and reputation as translator is that I have told willing clients over the past few weeks that I have 6-7 WWAs (one was added recently) on my ProZ page.
Now, when the willing clients come back to my website to check if the number is right, THEY WILL FIND I WAS LYING. This is serious in my business when willing clients find me a liar and decide not to outsource work to me. As professional, this cannot be tolerated for whatever reason. Being thought to be a 'liar' is the end of my career and disgrace as a person. I was so shocked when I saw this change. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Yes, please show both numbers | Sep 29, 2013 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote: Jessica Noyes wrote:
Have it look like this, for example:
WWA again entries verified by ProZ.com: 12
Other WWA entries: 7 I second that.
Thirded.
| | | | | Blue Board vs. other ways to corroborate | Sep 29, 2013 |
Hubert Brychczyński wrote:
Just a day or two ago, when I logged in to my account, I saw a list of qualified and unqualified feedback. After a few links I got to a form where I could submit a request to verify unqualified feedback. I could do so, instructions said, by providing a scan of a document, for example: an in-voice, a contract, a letter of recommendation, or, say, a book or a brochure where I am credited as translator. Now this option is either off, or hidden so that I can't find it.
What I'm getting at is that I think this would be a much better way to verify whether feedback is valid or not. I wouldn't have to create a Blue Board entry for an outsourcer without his or her knowledge and/or approval. Instead, I would share with ProZ exclusively documents that - in many cases - I am already sharing with everyone on my homepage: like letters of recommendations and such. As for contracts and in-voices, I can conceal sensitive information in any of the widely available image manipulation programs (such as Gimp, IrfanView, etc.).
What do you think?
I like this very much and I hope that the ProZ.com team takes your suggestion under consideration.
| | |
|
|
|
| Adding my voice... | Sep 29, 2013 |
Although I am not a Proz.com member, I agree with those who are displeased with the new language. To be frank, it really stinks. I looked at some of the affected profiles (such as Jesper's) and think they look really bad. As someone else suggested, I think it is sufficient to simply place a note indicating whether each person who left feedback was a Proz.com member.
| | | | Nicole Schnell
Estados Unidos
Local time: 20:06
inglés al alemán
+ ...
In Memoriam
As far as I know, I had 5 WWAs. I don't care much, and I don't pester my clients to provide any. So I don't really recall which ones of my clients have ever posted a WWA. Based on the current discussion, I checked. All of the sudden, one of them is a person I don't even know.
| | | | Tom in London
Reino Unido
Local time: 04:06
Miembro 2008
italiano al inglés
| The whole thing | Sep 29, 2013 |
Nicole Schnell wrote:
As far as I know, I had 5 WWAs. I don't care much, and I don't pester my clients to provide any. So I don't really recall which ones of my clients have ever posted a WWA. Based on the current discussion, I checked. All of the sudden, one of them is a person I don't even know.
I only keep my WWA visible because to get optimal bang for your buck out of Proz, your profile has to be 100% complete. But it's been a long time since I asked a client to give me WWA. 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.
| | | | Nicole Schnell
Estados Unidos
Local time: 20:06
inglés al alemán
+ ...
In Memoriam
Tom in London wrote:
I find it very embarrassing to ask for WWA and I'm sure it's deeply annoying for a client.
Absolutely.
| | |
|
|
|
Suzan Hamer
Países Bajos
Local time: 05:06
inglés
+ ...
Nicole Schnell wrote: Tom in London wrote:
I find it very embarrassing to ask for WWA and I'm sure it's deeply annoying for a client. Absolutely.
| | | | | New policy is disgutsting | Sep 29, 2013 |
I fully agree with the others against the new policy. Why should a WWA from a direct client carry less weight? Old system should be re-instated immediately to gain translator's confidence.
| | | | Jessica Noyes
Estados Unidos
Local time: 23:06
Miembro
español al inglés
+ ...
| Not all are requested | Sep 30, 2013 |
Tom in London wrote:
But it's been a long time since I asked a client to give me WWA. 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.
Tom, you probably know this, but others may not. Many outsourcers who use ProZ.com just toddle over to the page of their own free will and post the positive comments. I am 'way too timid to request a WWA, and each of the seven I have was a complete (and welcome) surprise to me.
| | | | Don Hartig
Local time: 11:06
chino al inglés
+ ...
| Completely pointless change to a working system | Sep 30, 2013 |
I understand that fake feedbacks are a problem, especially with translators on the ZH>EN dashboard who have over 200 feedbacks, most of whom are probably individual clients or just friends with different email addressses, but really:
If a translator were unscrupuluous enough to actually convince someone to write fake feedback entries, then it would also be very easy for them to simply arrange for more fake translators or even just some "buddies" to “corroberate" the account of the... See more I understand that fake feedbacks are a problem, especially with translators on the ZH>EN dashboard who have over 200 feedbacks, most of whom are probably individual clients or just friends with different email addressses, but really:
If a translator were unscrupuluous enough to actually convince someone to write fake feedback entries, then it would also be very easy for them to simply arrange for more fake translators or even just some "buddies" to “corroberate" the account of the translator by convincing them to submit feedback on the outsourcers, at least, this is what the support team is now saying, even though I have already spent several hours gathering all the information they required for the "create blueboard record" form which I was directed to.
I have now been sending "support requests" back and forth for 4 days and even after the outsourcer for which I have done several jobs and who DOES have an account which has now, upon submission of my "blueboard creation form", even been "APPROVED" by Proz, the support staff get back to me and say that they still cannot "recorroborate" the client (even though the outsourcer's feedback appeared normally for several weeks before this) because now it has become my job to find additional translators to submit feedback on the outsourcer too!!!
Gosh! What is the logic here? And am I the only one, or is this clearly conflicting criteria on the part of the so-called "new requirements" for "corroberated feedback": On the one hand it is now the translator's job to contact all the clients that have suddenly been deemed "uncorroberated" to get all their company details so that they can fill in a form to "create a record for the blueboard" and on the other hand, EVEN ONCE WE HAVE DONE THIS, we are told that other translators have to submit feedback on the outsourcer first. How many more rules do we need before we can just get our old "feedback" system back again?
If the clients are private, then fine, just indicate this on the feedback page under the client's name. But does Proz really think that it is REALISTIC to try to "confirm the validity of each and every outsourcer" by creating so many new rules which are honestly unrealistic.
Regarding the change of the unforgiving "unqualified" to "uncorroberated"....... Both these terms basically mean the same thing in the context of the feedback, namely: "THIS FEEDBACK IS FAKE", which, to be honest, is more of a DETERRENT to potential new outsourcers than anything else as it would be better not having the feedback at all than having feedback indicating the the translator has solicited it unscrupulously.
Please, Jason. Just give us our old feedback system back and indicate outsourcer statistics, should you deem them absolutely necessary, under the names of the outsourcers.
I have just registered for another 3 years of membership with Proz in addition to my 2 years so far, because on the whole I am very satisfied with Proz.
But my "uncorroberated feedback", despite the fact that the client required me to do several jobs for them before submitting it, has been up there for 4 days now. Please change it back to it's normal status!
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Don Hartig
Certified Translator: Chinese (简体, 繁体), German, French, Spanish, Japanese, Afrikaans into English ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Jason Grimes
Local time: 23:06
PERSONAL DEL SITIO PERSONA QUE INICIÓ LA HEBRA | How do these changes sound? | Sep 30, 2013 |
Hi everyone,
I've read over the responses to this thread several times, along with messages sent through other channels, and tried to digest everyone's points.
First let me say that I'm sorry to have upset some of you by rolling out these changes without thinking through the implications in enough detail. But I'm grateful for all the comments and suggestions about how to improve the feature. That really helps, thank you.
These are the changes I plan to mak... See more Hi everyone,
I've read over the responses to this thread several times, along with messages sent through other channels, and tried to digest everyone's points.
First let me say that I'm sorry to have upset some of you by rolling out these changes without thinking through the implications in enough detail. But I'm grateful for all the comments and suggestions about how to improve the feature. That really helps, thank you.
These are the changes I plan to make, which have been suggested by several of you in various ways.
1. Remove the corroborated/uncorroborated terms. Continue to allow feedback from clients who are not registered at ProZ.com, but distinguish only whether the feedback giver was "authenticated"--that is, if they were logged in *or* if their email address matches a Blue Board record with at least one independent entry. If the feedback giver was logged in, the condition is met. It will no longer depend on membership, VID status, Blue Board affiliation, KudoZ points, etc.
2. Display the total number of feedback entries received as the headline number, with the number of authenticated entries shown only secondarily. Ex. when there are 5 authenticated entries and 2 unauthenticated entries: "7 positive entries. (5 authenticated.)"
How does this sound?
Thanks,
Jason ▲ Collapse
| | | | | "Sound" is the right word | Sep 30, 2013 |
Jason Grimes wrote:
1. Remove the corroborated/uncorroborated terms. Continue to allow feedback from clients who are not registered at ProZ.com, but distinguish only whether the feedback giver was "authenticated"--that is, if they were logged in *or* if their email address matches a Blue Board record with at least one independent entry. If the feedback giver was logged in, the condition is met. It will no longer depend on membership, VID status, Blue Board affiliation, KudoZ points, etc.
2. Display the total number of feedback entries received as the headline number, with the number of authenticated entries shown only secondarily. Ex. when there are 5 authenticated entries and 2 unauthenticated entries: "7 positive entries. (5 authenticated.)"
How does this sound?
Thanks,
Jason
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.
[Edited at 2013-09-30 13:40 GMT]
| | | | Jason Grimes
Local time: 23:06
PERSONAL DEL SITIO PERSONA QUE INICIÓ LA HEBRA | Verified vs. authenticated | Sep 30, 2013 |
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,
"Authenticated" is used here in a precise, 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
| | | | | Páginas sobre el tema: < [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 | 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 » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
