Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12] >
ProZ Find™ (new freelancer directory) released in alpha stage. Feedback sought.
Thread poster: ..... (X)
..... (X)
..... (X)
Local time: 13:03
TOPIC STARTER
WWA May 3, 2018

re: WWA

Yes, client feedback is taken into account in determining the positioning in ProZ Find.

Michele Fauble wrote:

Kevin Dias wrote:

One of the major changes of this new search is that the ranking benefit of KudoZ points are capped (at an attainable level). That is, after a certain number of points, one receives no extra boost in directory positioning.


Will there be a way to find out when earning more KudoZ points no longer provides that boost in directory positioning?


At this time no, as this may be subject to change as we make adjustments during the alpha stage.


Mirko Mainardi wrote:

This also appear to extend to language pairs. If you select only one, it seems you get a "golden star",
saying you "specialize" in that pair, while, if you happen to work in two or more (including adding your native language for monolingual work...), then you're suddenly rubbish in all of them...
Likewise, if you only choose one specialism, then you get the "golden star", if you select up to three you get a "wooden star", if you select more, nothing (I guess).

In my opinion, compared to this, it would be much more sensible and fair (and logic) to allow prioritization for pairs and fields, letting users evaluate what their stronger/weaker fields/pairs are and class them accordingly, rather than flatly penalizing them if they don't concentrate on just one of them...


ProZ Find does not "flatly penalize someone if they don't concentrate on just one field or language pair". You can prioritize your language pairs and fields in the profile updater. This self-ranking is one metric used in determining one's positioning in ProZ Find. For example, if an outsourcer searches "English to Spanish" - a translator who has "English to Spanish" as the 2nd of 3 language pairs will score higher than a translator who has "English to Spanish" as the 7th of 8 language pairs (all other things being equal).

There are two thing at play:
1) Your position in the search will improve if you are more specialized (i.e. listing 5 language pairs instead of 8)
2) Your position in the search will improve if your self-ranking of the searched language pair or field is higher (i.e. ranking 'accounting' as your 1st speciality is better than ranking 'accounting' as your 10th if 'accounting' is the search you are optimizing for)


 
Tom in London
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 04:03
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Same here May 3, 2018

Michele Fauble wrote:

.....Directory positioning is not the only reason I answer KudoZ questions, but doing so has put me on the first page in my language pairs.


Same here - and I'm not happy.


 
Mirko Mainardi
Mirko Mainardi  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 05:03
Member
English to Italian
"Stars" May 3, 2018

Kevin Dias wrote:

Mirko Mainardi wrote:

This also appear to extend to language pairs. If you select only one, it seems you get a "golden star",
saying you "specialize" in that pair, while, if you happen to work in two or more (including adding your native language for monolingual work...), then you're suddenly rubbish in all of them...
Likewise, if you only choose one specialism, then you get the "golden star", if you select up to three you get a "wooden star", if you select more, nothing (I guess).

In my opinion, compared to this, it would be much more sensible and fair (and logic) to allow prioritization for pairs and fields, letting users evaluate what their stronger/weaker fields/pairs are and class them accordingly, rather than flatly penalizing them if they don't concentrate on just one of them...


ProZ Find does not "flatly penalize someone if they don't concentrate on just one field or language pair". You can prioritize your language pairs and fields in the profile updater. This self-ranking is one metric used in determining one's positioning in ProZ Find. For example, if an outsourcer searches "English to Spanish" - a translator who has "English to Spanish" as the 2nd of 3 language pairs will score higher than a translator who has "English to Spanish" as the 7th of 8 language pairs (all other things being equal).

There are two thing at play:
1) Your position in the search will improve if you are more specialized (i.e. listing 5 language pairs instead of 8)
2) Your position in the search will improve if your self-ranking of the searched language pair or field is higher (i.e. ranking 'accounting' as your 1st speciality is better than ranking 'accounting' as your 10th if 'accounting' is the search you are optimizing for)


Thanks for your reply.

Then what's the rationale behind the "stars" gimmicks shown in searches, as I mentioned above? Are they not supposed to be an indication of quality/reliability/specialization in the eyes of clients looking for service providers? I currently have 2 language pairs (as I removed "Italian" as a test) and it appears I am not a "specialist" in EN>IT, while someone who only works in EN>IT shows up as being a "golden star specialist" in that pair... A similar argument can be made for fields. Am I not "flatly penalized" by the fact that ProZ (arbitrarily) doesn't consider me, and doesn't present me to clients as a "specialist" in a pair or field?

And I would also like to have a reply about keywords search, as we're talking about things that directly affect our positioning in searches and our exposure to clients... (i.e. the ProZ's core business and raison d'être).


 
..... (X)
..... (X)
Local time: 13:03
TOPIC STARTER
Specializes in May 3, 2018

Mirko Mainardi wrote:

Then what's the rationale behind the "stars" gimmicks shown in searches, as I mentioned above? Are they not supposed to be an indication of quality/reliability/specialization in the eyes of clients looking for service providers? I currently have 2 language pairs (as I removed "Italian" as a test) and it appears I am not a "specialist" in EN>IT, while someone who only works in EN>IT shows up as being a "golden star specialist" in that pair... A similar argument can be made for fields. Am I not "flatly penalized" by the fact that ProZ (arbitrarily) doesn't consider me, and doesn't present me to clients as a "specialist" in a pair or field?


I don't think you are being penalized. On the contrary, I think a service provider who elects to display only one field or one language pair is being (naturally) penalized. That service provider is greatly reducing the surface area of potential searches they may appear in. That a service provider would intentionally reduce their potential surface area of client contact is notable, and in my opinion, worth noting to potential outsourcers/clients. It is telling the client/outsourcer, this service provider could have just added the maximum number of fields allowable to show up in as many searches as possible...but they intentionally chose only one, the one that you are searching for. I think that is worth noting.

Mirko Mainardi wrote:
And I would also like to have a reply about keywords search, as we're talking about things that directly affect our positioning in searches and our exposure to clients... (i.e. the ProZ's core business and raison d'être).


With regard to keyword search, if you submit a support request with a search link that you have an issue with I will be happy to take a look and give you more details.


 
Lincoln Hui
Lincoln Hui  Identity Verified
Hong Kong
Local time: 12:03
Member
Chinese to English
+ ...
Specialization May 4, 2018

I don't think you are being penalized. On the contrary, I think a service provider who elects to display only one field or one language pair is being (naturally) penalized. That service provider is greatly reducing the surface area of potential searches they may appear in. That a service provider would intentionally reduce their potential surface area of client contact is notable, and in my opinion, worth noting to potential outsourcers/clients. It is telling the client/outsourcer, this service provider could have just added the maximum number of fields allowable to show up in as many searches as possible...but they intentionally chose only one, the one that you are searching for. I think that is worth noting.

While I think you have a point, the way that this is implemented may send a different message to the user than what you intended.

Also, I don't know if this was already noted, but does this/how does this distinguish between specialized fields and working fields?


 
Kay Denney
Kay Denney  Identity Verified
France
Local time: 05:03
French to English
With Mirko May 4, 2018

Mirko Mainardi wrote:

Kevin Dias wrote:

Mirko Mainardi wrote:

This also appear to extend to language pairs. If you select only one, it seems you get a "golden star",
saying you "specialize" in that pair, while, if you happen to work in two or more (including adding your native language for monolingual work...), then you're suddenly rubbish in all of them...
Likewise, if you only choose one specialism, then you get the "golden star", if you select up to three you get a "wooden star", if you select more, nothing (I guess).

In my opinion, compared to this, it would be much more sensible and fair (and logic) to allow prioritization for pairs and fields, letting users evaluate what their stronger/weaker fields/pairs are and class them accordingly, rather than flatly penalizing them if they don't concentrate on just one of them...


ProZ Find does not "flatly penalize someone if they don't concentrate on just one field or language pair". You can prioritize your language pairs and fields in the profile updater. This self-ranking is one metric used in determining one's positioning in ProZ Find. For example, if an outsourcer searches "English to Spanish" - a translator who has "English to Spanish" as the 2nd of 3 language pairs will score higher than a translator who has "English to Spanish" as the 7th of 8 language pairs (all other things being equal).

There are two thing at play:
1) Your position in the search will improve if you are more specialized (i.e. listing 5 language pairs instead of 8)
2) Your position in the search will improve if your self-ranking of the searched language pair or field is higher (i.e. ranking 'accounting' as your 1st speciality is better than ranking 'accounting' as your 10th if 'accounting' is the search you are optimizing for)


Thanks for your reply.

Then what's the rationale behind the "stars" gimmicks shown in searches, as I mentioned above? Are they not supposed to be an indication of quality/reliability/specialization in the eyes of clients looking for service providers? I currently have 2 language pairs (as I removed "Italian" as a test) and it appears I am not a "specialist" in EN>IT, while someone who only works in EN>IT shows up as being a "golden star specialist" in that pair... A similar argument can be made for fields. Am I not "flatly penalized" by the fact that ProZ (arbitrarily) doesn't consider me, and doesn't present me to clients as a "specialist" in a pair or field?

And I would also like to have a reply about keywords search, as we're talking about things that directly affect our positioning in searches and our exposure to clients... (i.e. the ProZ's core business and raison d'être).


Yes, there's a difference between someone listing two source languages plus their target language as a language they also do purely editing work in, and someone simply listing about ten source languages.

As a PM, I liked to select translators with a couple of source languages. For example, FR-EN because we had loads of work in that pair, plus IT-EN. We didn't have much in IT-EN, being based in France, but when we did it was nice to be able to rely on a translator we already knew very well. I would never take a translator seriously if they listed more than three source languages. I remember my best legal translator listed FR SP and PT, but she told me upfront that she hardly ever worked from Portuguese.
So my question is, would there be a way for clients to specify their preferences in this way?


 
Mirko Mainardi
Mirko Mainardi  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 05:03
Member
English to Italian
Arbitrary decision May 4, 2018

Kevin Dias wrote:

Mirko Mainardi wrote:

Then what's the rationale behind the "stars" gimmicks shown in searches, as I mentioned above? Are they not supposed to be an indication of quality/reliability/specialization in the eyes of clients looking for service providers? I currently have 2 language pairs (as I removed "Italian" as a test) and it appears I am not a "specialist" in EN>IT, while someone who only works in EN>IT shows up as being a "golden star specialist" in that pair... A similar argument can be made for fields. Am I not "flatly penalized" by the fact that ProZ (arbitrarily) doesn't consider me, and doesn't present me to clients as a "specialist" in a pair or field?


I don't think you are being penalized. On the contrary, I think a service provider who elects to display only one field or one language pair is being (naturally) penalized. That service provider is greatly reducing the surface area of potential searches they may appear in. That a service provider would intentionally reduce their potential surface area of client contact is notable, and in my opinion, worth noting to potential outsourcers/clients. It is telling the client/outsourcer, this service provider could have just added the maximum number of fields allowable to show up in as many searches as possible...but they intentionally chose only one, the one that you are searching for. I think that is worth noting.


In other words, you are arbitrarily telling potential clients that someone is a "specialist" (based on what?) in a field and someone else isn't just because that someone decided to select one instead of two language pairs, or one instead of two fields... Sorry, but that doesn't make sense, also considering that "a service provider who elects to display only one field or one language pair" chooses to do so by their own free will, while someone else who happens to work in two or more pairs or fields is being (arbitrarily) shown as NOT being a "specialist" IN ANY of those and AGAINST their will. So, they should limit themselves by removing language pairs/fields in order to be considered (and shown as) specialists in a specific pair/field, because... ProZ says so... How does that make any sense?

If specialisms and ranking are already accounted for by the order you give to pairs and fields, then further, and arbitrary, value-signaling is totally uncalled for (and potentially misleading, just like every other unverified self-assessment used here, by the way...).

Mirko Mainardi wrote:
And I would also like to have a reply about keywords search, as we're talking about things that directly affect our positioning in searches and our exposure to clients... (i.e. the ProZ's core business and raison d'être).


With regard to keyword search, if you submit a support request with a search link that you have an issue with I will be happy to take a look and give you more details.


Understood. I was actually going to, but I was unable to reproduce that behavior, also using the very same links stored in the browser history. So, if you did something: it worked; if not: very weird...

At any rate, I still believe the occurrence and "location" of keywords should not be disclosed, just like it isn't for keywords appearing in the project history, or in SEO in general.


On a more general note, I must agree with Tom, here: http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_translator_coop/324940-proz_find_public_alpha-page2.html#2724847


 
Jennifer Levey
Jennifer Levey  Identity Verified
Chile
Local time: 01:03
Spanish to English
+ ...
Data mining – Data misappropriation May 4, 2018

Having re-read this entire thread about “Proz Find”, I am reminded of a data mining company that hit the headlines of the world’s press in recent weeks for their unauthorised “re-purposing” of Facebook data to influence the US Presidential Election.

The data we provide – voluntarily – on our Proz profiles is tailored to our personal interpretation of the potential benefit to ourselves, and/or to the Proz community. As I mentioned in my previous post, my language pairs
... See more
Having re-read this entire thread about “Proz Find”, I am reminded of a data mining company that hit the headlines of the world’s press in recent weeks for their unauthorised “re-purposing” of Facebook data to influence the US Presidential Election.

The data we provide – voluntarily – on our Proz profiles is tailored to our personal interpretation of the potential benefit to ourselves, and/or to the Proz community. As I mentioned in my previous post, my language pairs and specializations are listed in such a manner as to optimise my contribution to the Kudoz community. Whilst I was happy to find myself on the first (non-members) page of the directory for most of my languages pairs/fields combinations, that was not my purpose when I set up those pairs/fields.

"Find" is re-purposing the data I provided, interpreting it in ways that have not been fully disclosed (either to us, as owners of the data, or to potential clients using "Find"), and displaying it in public in a manner that does not reflect my intentions when I provided it. I have not checked all my pair/field combinations, but in at least two of them my directory ranking has dropped considerably as a result of the “Find” algorithm.

I have never got a job via the Proz directory, so the drop in ranking will not affect me financially. But what if my livelihood depended on clients finding me via the directory? The new algorithm – which, as I suggested before, is constructed on unsound foundations – would be using my voluntarily-supplied data to have a negative impact on my own business.

The company I alluded to in my first paragraph went out of business on 1st May 2018. If Proz persists in its misappropriation of our data – and using it to the detriment of our own interests – then I suspect that Proz might end up doing likewise.
Collapse


 
..... (X)
..... (X)
Local time: 13:03
TOPIC STARTER
Specializes in May 4, 2018

Mirko Mainardi wrote:

In other words, you are arbitrarily telling potential clients that someone is a "specialist" (based on what?) in a field and someone else isn't just because that someone decided to select one instead of two language pairs, or one instead of two fields... Sorry, but that doesn't make sense, also considering that "a service provider who elects to display only one field or one language pair" chooses to do so by their own free will, while someone else who happens to work in two or more pairs or fields is being (arbitrarily) shown as NOT being a "specialist" IN ANY of those and AGAINST their will. So, they should limit themselves by removing language pairs/fields in order to be considered (and shown as) specialists in a specific pair/field, because... ProZ says so... How does that make any sense?

If specialisms and ranking are already accounted for by the order you give to pairs and fields, then further, and arbitrary, value-signaling is totally uncalled for (and potentially misleading, just like every other unverified self-assessment used here, by the way...).


It doesn't say "specialist". It says "Specializes in" (confine oneself to providing a particular product or service).

The tooltip states: "This service provider specializes in { source language } to { target language }. { source language } to { target language } is their only language pair offered."

"This service provider specializes in { field }. { field } is their only field of expertise offered."

"This service provider has ranked { field } as their top field of expertise offered (1 of { up to 3})."

Again, by adding additional fields or language pairs you get the benefit of increasing the surface area of potential searches you might appear in.

As a benefit to those who specialize in a particular language pair or field (and do not get the benefit of an increased surface area of potential searches they may appear in), the above wording is noted in their search result.


 
..... (X)
..... (X)
Local time: 13:03
TOPIC STARTER
Multiple source languages May 4, 2018

Kay Denney wrote:
As a PM, I liked to select translators with a couple of source languages. For example, FR-EN because we had loads of work in that pair, plus IT-EN. We didn't have much in IT-EN, being based in France, but when we did it was nice to be able to rely on a translator we already knew very well. I would never take a translator seriously if they listed more than three source languages. I remember my best legal translator listed FR SP and PT, but she told me upfront that she hardly ever worked from Portuguese.
So my question is, would there be a way for clients to specify their preferences in this way?


Currently no, but it is on the road map for a future update to allow the person searching to select multiple source languages.


 
Mónica Algazi
Mónica Algazi  Identity Verified
Uruguay
Local time: 01:03
Member (2005)
English to Spanish
I could not agree more May 4, 2018

Tom in London wrote:

Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:

this is going to be highly penalising for me...


Yes Giovanni: it looks as if this new prominence given to WWA will have the result that all the best, most experienced translators on Proz - those who don't need to be working for lots of new clients all the time - will be heavily penalised.

It seems that Proz is going to be relying more and more on algorhythms that are based on misconceptions of who its own members are and how we work.

I don't even have time, usually, to follow these discussions. And yet it's only by doing so that we even get to hear about these "innovations".

I hope outsourcers will pitch in here. They will be looking for the best translators and will want assurance that these algorhythms are not identifying the wrong ones.

[Edited at 2018-05-03 11:51 GMT]


 
Mónica Algazi
Mónica Algazi  Identity Verified
Uruguay
Local time: 01:03
Member (2005)
English to Spanish
Absolutely disappointing May 4, 2018

Only now do I realize that WWA reviews in no matter what field of expertise have replaced the points earned through the effort, specialized knowledge and willingness to help through so many years. All of a sudden, I am no longer that good just because I have not taken the time, or simply have not thought it polite to keep asking my clients to give their opinion on my work.
What's more, many of my best, longtime clients have asked me to sign NDAs and simply would not want to reveal I have b
... See more
Only now do I realize that WWA reviews in no matter what field of expertise have replaced the points earned through the effort, specialized knowledge and willingness to help through so many years. All of a sudden, I am no longer that good just because I have not taken the time, or simply have not thought it polite to keep asking my clients to give their opinion on my work.
What's more, many of my best, longtime clients have asked me to sign NDAs and simply would not want to reveal I have been their translator all these years.
Too bad...
Collapse


 
Katalin Szilárd
Katalin Szilárd  Identity Verified
Hungary
Local time: 05:03
English to Hungarian
+ ...
I couldn't agree more May 5, 2018

Mónica Algazi wrote:

Only now do I realize that WWA reviews in no matter what field of expertise have replaced the points earned through the effort, specialized knowledge and willingness to help through so many years. All of a sudden, I am no longer that good just because I have not taken the time, or simply have not thought it polite to keep asking my clients to give their opinion on my work.
What's more, many of my best, longtime clients have asked me to sign NDAs and simply would not want to reveal I have been their translator all these years.
Too bad...


Hi Mónika,

I couldn't agree more.... See my post about WWAs I wrote in the previous page:

Katalin Szilárd wrote:

1) Do you know that ranking based on WWAs can be pretty controversial? For example in medical translations most clients do not want to reveal whom they are working with (due to business secrecy). This means that those who are in the medical directory usually do not get their reviews in medical translations but in other fields. But probably this is the same when it comes to law or investment/securities, chemistry, nuclear sci etc.

2) A WWA may have nothing to do with the selected field/specialization.
That's why it should not influence the ranking.

Why anybody think that WWAs have to do with a selected specialization?
Nobody can check for what kind of fields, for what volumes a translator received his/her reviews.
Maybe his/her thousands of reviews are coming from certificate or poem or simple very general texts and these reviews put this person to the top of the ranking in a totally different field or even in the same field but maybe he/she is just an intermediate-skilled translator who is doing very general translations in that field.
This will cause a lot of problems. Although clients will learn from these faults sooner or later.

3) Receiving Kudoz vs. getting WWAs. Answering Kudoz depends on you, getting WWAs depend on your clients. Who are your clients? What kind of fields are you working in? What is the policy of your clients? Do their policies allow to give WWAs?

So my question is:

Who would you hire?

A) A person who has thousands of WWAs (you don't know for what volumes and in what fields she/he received them or even if you know the field you don't know the difficulty of her/his translations (general vs. or highly technical text within the field)

or

B) a person who has many Kudoz points in the given field and you can even open those Kudoz questions to check the person' answer and contributions to the specific terms?

Bests,
Katalin


 
Tom in London
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 04:03
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Maybe May 5, 2018

Robin Levey wrote:

..... I suspect that Proz might end up doing likewise.


I share that suspicion. Proz has a near-monopoly at the moment; but it will not last forever.

For now, I only have one question, which is only partly rhetorical:

Are these unannounced "innovations" by Proz making it easier for an outsourcer to identify a translator with the skills, experience, and specialism that I offer in my language pair, or are they misdirecting outsourcers to other translators who have fewer skills, less experience, and a lower level of expertise?


[Edited at 2018-05-05 10:27 GMT]


 
Lincoln Hui
Lincoln Hui  Identity Verified
Hong Kong
Local time: 12:03
Member
Chinese to English
+ ...
Questions that need to be answered May 5, 2018

1. Is the current directory search algorithm effective?
2. If not, what are the specific problems and issues in the current directory search algorithm, and how does the new system specifically attempt to address them?
3. How specifically does the new system differ from the current algorithm?
4. As this new system was developed, what were the potential issues that you considered, and how do you believe that they can be mitigated?

[Edited at 2018-05-05 11:07 GMT]


 
Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12] >


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


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

ProZ Find™ (new freelancer directory) released in alpha stage. Feedback sought.






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! »
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 »