| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51] > | New at ProZ.com: Outsourcer "willingness to work again" feedback for translators Thread poster: Enrique Cavalitto
|
|---|
| There has to be a working relationship | Jun 23, 2006 |
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
What if I never worked with a translator, but I post a negative feedback, just out of spite? The translator can reply that he or she never worked with such outsourcer, but the negative comment will be there and we will never know who's telling the truth...
A requirement for posting a WWA entry (as an outsourcer) is that you have outsourced paid work to the person. If this is disputed, and can not be proven, the entry will not be allowed. (Again, same as with the Blue Board.)
| | | | | Still wondering reposted again | Jun 23, 2006 |
Hi Henry,
You said we should place comments and suggestions asap, between Thursday and Friday at the most.
Well, I posted the same suggestion twice, but nobody has replied to my question. (see http://www.proz.com/post/367844#367844 )
Was it so bad? off-topic? far-fecthed? Or just overlooked twice?
I`d appreciate your feedback, please.
Walte... See more Hi Henry,
You said we should place comments and suggestions asap, between Thursday and Friday at the most.
Well, I posted the same suggestion twice, but nobody has replied to my question. (see http://www.proz.com/post/367844#367844 )
Was it so bad? off-topic? far-fecthed? Or just overlooked twice?
I`d appreciate your feedback, please.
Walter ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Thanks, Walter | Jun 23, 2006 |
Walter Landesman wrote:
Was it so bad? off-topic? far-fecthed? Or just overlooked twice?
Sorry. None of the above; I took note but got distracted with other posts.
You make a good point about the relationship between PH feedback and profile feedback. In fact, in development of the project history feature we anticipated the need for feedback on the per-profile basis (not only per-project), and asked outsourcers an extra question when they answered PH calls. We will develop a way to take advantage of this.
Thanks for the technical suggestion!
| | | |
Henry wrote: Walter Landesman wrote:
Was it so bad? off-topic? far-fecthed? Or just overlooked twice? Sorry. None of the above; I took note but got distracted with other posts. You make a good point about the relationship between PH feedback and profile feedback. In fact, in development of the project history feature we anticipated the need for feedback on the per-profile basis (not only per-project), and asked outsourcers an extra question when they answered PH calls. We will develop a way to take advantage of this. Thanks for the technical suggestion!
Thank you Henry for your quick and satisfying response.
| | |
|
|
|
Ralf Lemster 
Germany
Local time: 03:39
English to German
+ ...
| How about explaining before rolling out? | Jun 23, 2006 |
Henry,
Henry wrote: Ralf Lemster wrote:
... 'Long launch' recommended I am reminded of a comedy in which one character says, referring to a death, "it was so sudden." And the other says, "Sudden? He was suffering for years." Caught in a lie, the first says, "Yes, but the very end, I mean, when he actually died, it was so sudden."
With all due respect, I fail to see the relevance of this comment to the discussion, and to my earlier comments, particularly given the reference about being "caught in a lie".
You always advocate a long launch cycle, Ralf, and we always have them.
I disagree, but this may be due to a difference in perception. My idea of proper communication is to tell your customers what will happen, before it happens (pretty much along the lines of SDL Trados announcing a new release, for example). In this way, you can secure broad-based awareness and - given the right communication, with sound arguments and proper procedures - broad support.
The way you launch new functionality is to roll out new functions, and to post announcements at the same time. I believe it would have been better, particularly for the function being discussed here, to explain the details first, and to roll out one or two weeks later.
But you often complain when we say "here it is -- the first pass". The announcement, you have to understand, Ralf, will always be "sudden" (as in the joke above). In the end, the actual "launch" happens in an instant!
Imagine pushing this instant forward by, say, two weeks, giving your customers the opportunity to discuss the concept, and giving ProZ.com the chance to iron out conceptual flaws before going into production. I believe this would help to build trust and support for new functionality.
In this case, we have discussed the formulation of the feedback system in public sessions at our events in Oxford, Krakow and Berlin. (You know because you were there.)
I remember the discussion in Oxford - which was very vague, yet service providers clearly indicated the need for extensive discussion and proper checks and balances. From what I recall from Kraków, this was similar. For the record, I could not attend your presentation in Berlin.
After private evaluation, six months of experience and experimentation with project history feedback, and other preparations, we now are ready for input on the matter from the greater community. There is no way to get this without releasing to the general community.
What we have released today, as the announcement states, is a first pass, for further evaluation. The feature will evolve and be improved based on what we hear back. And it will be years before the system reaches full impact.
Agreed, but given that timeframe, I really don't see the problem in taking a few weeks for public discussion before rolling out a very important feature. Once again, it's not the feature I have a problem with - to the contrary.
At this point, may I reiterate one of my questions put forward yesterday, which I feel hasn't been answered yet:
Can you please provide more details regarding the vetting process applied by ProZ.com staff, and the rules applied?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Ralf
| | | | | Launch for us is different than launch for SDL Trados | Jun 23, 2006 |
Ralf Lemster wrote:
With all due respect, I fail to see the relevance of this comment to the discussion, and to my earlier comments, particularly given the reference about being "caught in a lie".
I am not insinuating that you are lying. I am pointing out that we can't produce the "long knock" you seem to be asking for.
You always advocate a long launch cycle, Ralf, and we always have them. I disagree, but this may be due to a difference in perception. My idea of proper communication is to tell your customers what will happen, before it happens (pretty much along the lines of SDL Trados announcing a new release, for example).
SDL Trados makes a product for individual use. This is a community, a network. We have to go the extra yard, and customize things in such a way that they work for a group. For us, announcing a new feature is only a step in the process. We are not done until a new product meets with the satisfaction of our members, when used in practice.
The way you launch new functionality is to roll out new functions, and to post announcements at the same time. I believe it would have been better, particularly for the function being discussed here, to explain the details first, and to roll out one or two weeks later.
Sounds good in principle, but doesn't work so well for us. It turns out that discussions here are much more effective when there is something to look at. Apparently it helps for people to see what they are discussing.
In this case, we have discussed the formulation of the feedback system in public sessions at our events in Oxford, Krakow and Berlin. (You know because you were there.) I remember the discussion in Oxford - which was very vague...
Not in my recollection. I remember discussing this in an intensive and interactive manner, with perhaps eightly people in the room and actively engaged. (Giovanni, too!) Much of what went into the system, and project histories, the assumptions upon which they are based, came out of the opinions and feelings expressed that day.
| | | | | I will definitely opt out for now. | Jun 23, 2006 |
I agree with Gerard and the others that the business of my clients is strictly confidential. When I took my oath as a sworn translator in my country, in fact, that was one of the things I swore to uphold.
I shudder to think that unscrupulous scammers might use my client's information/remarks to bother them or try to slip them a virus.
If I need a reference, the majority of my clients are happy to provide them.
Thus, I do not believe that I will participate... See more I agree with Gerard and the others that the business of my clients is strictly confidential. When I took my oath as a sworn translator in my country, in fact, that was one of the things I swore to uphold.
I shudder to think that unscrupulous scammers might use my client's information/remarks to bother them or try to slip them a virus.
If I need a reference, the majority of my clients are happy to provide them.
Thus, I do not believe that I will participate for now.
Lucinda ▲ Collapse
| | | | | OK, Lucinda. | Jun 23, 2006 |
Lucinda Hollenberg wrote:
I shudder to think that unscrupulous scammers might use my client's information/remarks to bother them or try to slip them a virus.
I understand that you have reasons to opt out, but the specific fears above need not be among them. No contact information is divulged, and there is no channel for a virus to be passed. Those of you who have made entries in the Blue Board know that you have not received viruses or spam as a result.
| | |
|
|
|
| Vetting? Just what you are familiar with, Ralf. | Jun 23, 2006 |
Ralf Lemster wrote:
Can you please provide more details regarding the vetting process applied by ProZ.com staff, and the rules applied?
There is not much more to this than we have written. The vetting process is comparable to that you use in the Blue Board. We'll just be checking that the system is being used in the intended way.
| | | | | What is the issue? | Jun 23, 2006 |
Ralf Lemster wrote:
I believe it would have been better, particularly for the function being discussed here, to explain the details first, and to roll out one or two weeks later.
I'm not sure this would have avoided the problems discussed in this thread. A prior announcement, even with explanations, would have told me that there is a new option (to obtain and display feedback from outsourcers). But I would probably have missed the main detail that is causing the friction - that this new option is rather more intrusive than just an "option".
This is highlighted by the "opt in vs. opt out" discussion and the question of whether the word "feedback" should appear on our profiles.
Henry, you seem to assume that the "feedback" feature will be useful for ALL freelancers using the site, and that it is just a question of trying it out and seeing the benefits. And you seem to feel that there will be a misguided few who decline to use it (for reasons you fail to grasp).
However, I, for one, do not believe that I will use the "feedback" feature. This is related to where/how I find my clients and what sort of relationship I have with my clients. Therefore, I find it annoying if this is added as a new DEFAULT feature and I then have to work out a way to disable it. And despite the storm of protest in this thread (with about 70% of posts opposing the default nature of the feature), the word "feedback" as a feature is still prominent on my profile, and your thanks for responses have been carefully allocated only to those who supported the new default.
So I can see the value of the feedback feature AS AN OPTION WHICH WILL BE USED BY SOME USERS. But I suggest you rethink the default "opt-out" approach and the "Something is missing here" box at the top right of the new profile.
| | | | | The point is... | Jun 23, 2006 |
Lucinda Hollenberg wrote:
I agree with Gerard and the others that the business of my clients is strictly confidential.
... that if your feedback box will look awfully empty (like mine) having opted out this feature, you will have to "explain" somehow why it looks so empty. No feedback shown can as well mean that you are a dire translator and get only bad comments you better hide.... And that's what people will think!
| | | | Ralf Lemster
Germany
Local time: 03:39
English to German
+ ...
| Rules are required | Jun 23, 2006 |
Thanks again, Henry.
Henry wrote: Ralf Lemster wrote:
Can you please provide more details regarding the vetting process applied by ProZ.com staff, and the rules applied? There is not much more to this than we have written. The vetting process is comparable to that you use in the Blue Board.
Which is based on a set of rules; I believe ProZ.com should establish a similar set for WWA feedback, to facilitate dealing with conflicts.
We'll just be checking that the system is being used in the intended way.
Not an easy task - which is why I was curious about the details.
Best regards,
Ralf
| | |
|
|
|
Ralf Lemster
Germany
Local time: 03:39
English to German
+ ...
| Several issues, actually | Jun 23, 2006 |
Hi Victor,
Victor Dewsbery wrote: Ralf Lemster wrote:
I believe it would have been better, particularly for the function being discussed here, to explain the details first, and to roll out one or two weeks later. I'm not sure this would have avoided the problems discussed in this thread.
Not all of them, I agree. But I believe we would have had a situation where some of the responses (including, in particular, the view on whether this should be 'opt-in' or 'opt-out') could have helped to fine-tune the system before rolling it out.
Best,
Ralf
| | | | Sormane Gomes
United States
Local time: 21:39
Portuguese to English
+ ...
| Feedback sign still hanging there. | Jun 23, 2006 |
Henry wrote:
SDL Trados makes a product for individual use. This is a community, a network. We have to go the extra yard, and customize things in such a way that they work for a group. For us, announcing a new feature is only a step in the process. We are not done until a new product meets with the satisfaction of our members, when used in practice.
If this is indeed a community and ProZ wants to customize things so that they work for the group, as you say, I think it only fair that ProZ hears us out first before deciding to roll out a change or new feature.
I happen to read this thread and only then I noticed that there was a “feedback” sign hanging in my profile. What about the members who never read threads? They are completely unaware that there is a feature in their profile they haven’t opted in.
Henry wrote:
Sounds good in principle, but doesn't work so well for us. It turns out that discussions here are much more effective when there is something to look at. Apparently it helps for people to see what they are discussing.
I disagree. The discussion here is mostly about the annoyance of not being told before hand and the fact that you can’t eliminate the new feature entirely from your profile.
And that hasn’t been addressed yet by any staff member.
We have several features that we can opt out of, such as Rates, Kudoz Activity, Project History; they will not show at all in the profile. Why not the same for the “Feedback” feature? Why do I still have to have that hanging in my profile, as a sign that for some reason I don't have any feedback or have chosen not to display it?
Sormane F. Gomes
| | | | | One simple question | Jun 23, 2006 |
I have a simple straightforward question- if I want to opt out for now, how do I do that? I want the entire feedback symbol removed from my profile, please. A large part of my work is done with clients and agencies for whom I have signed confidentiality clauses, so I won't be using this option for now. And I would prefer not to have that symbol in my profile... or can someone tell me how to switch back to the old profile format?
Thanks-
Jennifer
[Edited at 2006-06-23 16... See more I have a simple straightforward question- if I want to opt out for now, how do I do that? I want the entire feedback symbol removed from my profile, please. A large part of my work is done with clients and agencies for whom I have signed confidentiality clauses, so I won't be using this option for now. And I would prefer not to have that symbol in my profile... or can someone tell me how to switch back to the old profile format?
Thanks-
Jennifer
[Edited at 2006-06-23 16:55]
[Edited at 2006-06-23 16:56]
[Edited at 2006-06-23 17:19] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » New at ProZ.com: Outsourcer "willingness to work again" feedback for translators | 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 » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
