Muitíssimo obrigada, Romina!!
Thank you so much!!

Thank you Romina.

¡Muchísimas gracias, Romina!

Thank you very much, Romina!
रोमिना जी, आपका बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद!

Tack så mycket!

Thank you - grazie mille Romina!

Thank you very much, Romina! :)

Carlos, I think that you can unsubscribe yourself to the contest related notifications at the bottom of page. That should help... =)

Muchísimas gracias Romina. Fue realmente excitante!

Thanks to Proz.com staff and the Swedish colleagues, who voted for my text :-))

Hi Pavel. Congratulations. Please rest assured that we understand the situation that winners may be put in when there is room for the legitimacy of a victory to be questioned. This is why it is so important for the integrity of the contest to be beyond question (within reason). We are not there yet, but improvements are made each time and we will get there.

Hi Pavel,

I'm sorry not to have commented on your specific proposals. I agree that prohibiting insinuations of foul play, without evidence, is worth considering. As for showing voter names, we won't do it retroactively, but it has been suggested elsewhere and we will consider making something like that a policy going forward.

I support this idea - people who make insinuations of foul play, without evidence, should bear the consequences of their actions. I am talking about En-Ru pair.

Since this space has been provide to us "for feedback and suggestions about the contest as a whole", I would like to make my suggestions public:

1. After the contest has finished, ALL entries should be shown with the names of their authors. If entries are listed anonymously, then bitter losers start posting offending remarks on the winning text, pretending to be voicing their just indignation with the quality of the winning translation. They would not do that if they had their own names in plain view - next to an entry that has failed to win.
2. Winners should not be obliged to answer any questions. Knowing how heated the discussions can become in KudoZ - and those concern the translation of a single word - can you imagine a discussion concerning a whole page? We will never see the end of it.
3. No comments implying on foul play (manipulation of contest voting) - and not offering any proof! - should be allowed. If such comments are posted they must be deleted and their authors - penalized.
4. Detailed statistics should be posted on contest end: who voted and how many points he gave in this specific language pair. Then nobody will feel that the contest results have been manipulated.
5. There should be strict rules as to who can vote for what. Team members should not be allowed to vote for members of their own team or against members of competing teams. Those who have posted positive WWA for someone should not be allowed to vote for the same person in contests.
6. Winners should be chosen by experts and community vote, but the prevailing vote should be given to community vote. If you can assure that no manipulation of voting can occur then community vote should be quite enough. And one more point to consider: who would you put on that board of experts? Technical translations and art translations are in different divisions so make sure you do not pick translators of technical texts to be the judges of art translations or the result of the experts' evaluation and the community vote may differ drastically.
7. Deadlines must not be changed in those pairs that have enough entries to qualify (instead think of what an acceptable qualification number is). This is the first rule of Public Relations: when you say that something is going to happen at a specific time on a certain date, you should make every effort to keep your own word, or you risk loosing credibility.

I hope that my suggestions will help you improve the organization of future contests!

Best regards,
Pavel Tsvetkov