| Pages in topic: [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | Clients can now give translator feedback (WWA) without registering Thread poster: Jason Grimes
|
|---|
To make it as easy as possible for clients to give translator feedback, it's now possible to give feedback without having a ProZ.com account. The client simply needs to click a link in a feedback request email sent by a translator, and he or she can give feedback without logging in.
When feedback is given by someone who is not logged in, by default the feedback entry won't include a link to a profile or Blue Board reco... See more To make it as easy as possible for clients to give translator feedback, it's now possible to give feedback without having a ProZ.com account. The client simply needs to click a link in a feedback request email sent by a translator, and he or she can give feedback without logging in.
When feedback is given by someone who is not logged in, by default the feedback entry won't include a link to a profile or Blue Board record. In these cases, viewers will be given the option to help "identify" the person who gave feedback, by notifying ProZ.com staff of a matching Blue Board record or profile. ProZ.com staff will also attempt to find matching Blue Board records when vetting feedback.
See How can I help identify the maker of a feedback entry? for details.
Any comments on these changes is welcome.
Thanks,
Jason
Note: Earlier versions of this feature used the term "unqualified" and "uncorroborated" instead of "unidentified". The approach has been changed, and this post edited, in response to the comments in this discussion. (Thanks!) ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Please reinstate the old approach | Sep 27, 2013 |
The new system penalises feedback from direct clients, who have no reason to register with ProZ.
It diminishes translators, as (for example) it looks as though I now have only 9 pieces of positive feedback instead of 11, as the other 2 no longer look like real feedback (they are excluded from the overall total).
Membership of ProZ is no guarantee whatsoever that the person who provided the feedback is trustworthy. You give the impression that you are just trying to get ... See more The new system penalises feedback from direct clients, who have no reason to register with ProZ.
It diminishes translators, as (for example) it looks as though I now have only 9 pieces of positive feedback instead of 11, as the other 2 no longer look like real feedback (they are excluded from the overall total).
Membership of ProZ is no guarantee whatsoever that the person who provided the feedback is trustworthy. You give the impression that you are just trying to get more people to register with ProZ, which appears cynical.
It looks like a retrograde step. If you want to give outsourcers confidence that translators' WWAs are genuine, there must be a better way to do it. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Agree with Oliver | Sep 27, 2013 |
I agree with Oliver's assessment. This penalises translators who work directly with end customers or with agencies that just don't use Proz.com to outsource their jobs.
Like Oliver says, having a paid membership isn't a guarantee of anything much really, other than the fast the company exists (just like confirming a translator's ID via payment details). Nor does having a token BB set up for that company do so much.
Plus, 'X positive entries + Y unqualified' isn't really... See more I agree with Oliver's assessment. This penalises translators who work directly with end customers or with agencies that just don't use Proz.com to outsource their jobs.
Like Oliver says, having a paid membership isn't a guarantee of anything much really, other than the fast the company exists (just like confirming a translator's ID via payment details). Nor does having a token BB set up for that company do so much.
Plus, 'X positive entries + Y unqualified' isn't really accurate. The translator has X+Y positive entries, out of which X are qualified and Y are not. Unqualified entries don't stop being positive.
Also, if you have, say, halved a translator's number of WWA's, you may have invalidated many months or perhaps years of targeted effort which the translator undertook in reliance on being allowed to keep the feedback. Well, the feedback is still there, but it's been subtracted from the grand total and put in a parenthesis somewhere below in small font and ugly grey warning sign of a background on the actual WWA board.
Finally, disqualifying feedback like that defeats the purpose of allowing clients to comment without registering, as they would need to jump through some hoops to get qualified. Alternatively, accepting a one-item BlueBoard set-up by the same translator who has received the feedback would be quite ridiculous, as in a lot of hassle for no added reliability. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
I am still afraid to leave negative WWAs, since there is no way to prevent retaliation. They were both jobs assigned through Proz.com, but so far there is no way to make my feedback anonymous. This is such a pity when you dealt with unprofessional people - you can't expect them to behave professionally when they get a negative feedback, either.
If anonymous WWA was available, I'd have found some warnings before assigning jobs to those "linguists". Instead it happened to talk about t... See more I am still afraid to leave negative WWAs, since there is no way to prevent retaliation. They were both jobs assigned through Proz.com, but so far there is no way to make my feedback anonymous. This is such a pity when you dealt with unprofessional people - you can't expect them to behave professionally when they get a negative feedback, either.
If anonymous WWA was available, I'd have found some warnings before assigning jobs to those "linguists". Instead it happened to talk about them with fellow translator who shared their bad experiences with the same. Of course, this was *after* the job was done and paid.
What's the use of the WWA if it is only for positive feedbacks?! ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Emma Goldsmith 
Spain
Local time: 10:15
Member (2004)
Spanish to English
| Disappointed with this change | Sep 27, 2013 |
I agree with the others, the qualified/unqualified classification is a step back. I can't see the advantage for outsourcers or translators.
I've got 8 WWA, and one has just become "unqualified". I think the outsourcer who went to the trouble of giving me this feedback would be disconcerted to see that she has been labelled as being "unqualified". It doesn't look good next to her name, and reduces the value of the excellent feedback she has given me.
So is this just a r... See more I agree with the others, the qualified/unqualified classification is a step back. I can't see the advantage for outsourcers or translators.
I've got 8 WWA, and one has just become "unqualified". I think the outsourcer who went to the trouble of giving me this feedback would be disconcerted to see that she has been labelled as being "unqualified". It doesn't look good next to her name, and reduces the value of the excellent feedback she has given me.
So is this just a ruse to get more outsourcers to register with ProZ? ▲ Collapse
| | | | Karina S Maril
Argentina
Local time: 05:15
Member (2013)
English to Spanish
+ ...
| Do not agree with new policies | Sep 27, 2013 |
I completely agrre with Oliver.
Oliver Lawrence wrote:
The new system penalises feedback from direct clients, who have no reason to register with ProZ.
It diminishes translators, as (for example) it looks as though I now have only 9 pieces of positive feedback instead of 11, as the other 2 no longer look like real feedback (they are excluded from the overall total).
Membership of ProZ is no guarantee whatsoever that the person who provided the feedback is trustworthy. You give the impression that you are just trying to get more people to register with ProZ, which appears cynical.
It looks like a retrograde step. If you want to give outsourcers confidence that translators' WWAs are genuine, there must be a better way to do it.
I always work with direct clients and outsourcers who are not registered at proz.com, and this is mainly because I have seen that many of them are offering low rates.
I do not think it is fair for me or other translators who work with direct clients.
| | | | Maria Labaca
Argentina
Local time: 05:15
English to Spanish
+ ...
| do not agree with new policies. | Sep 27, 2013 |
I think we can all agree that the word 'unqualified' has very bad connotations in many contexts, including this one. This is a great environment to find/meet new clients, but when they read 'unqualified' reviews, it doesn't really help.
I have two great, very respected clients who are shown as 'unqualified' in my profile. I don't think this helps us as translators. This causes my 'review box' to have ZERO REVIEWS and in small letters '2 unqualified reviews', which is not true, basic... See more I think we can all agree that the word 'unqualified' has very bad connotations in many contexts, including this one. This is a great environment to find/meet new clients, but when they read 'unqualified' reviews, it doesn't really help.
I have two great, very respected clients who are shown as 'unqualified' in my profile. I don't think this helps us as translators. This causes my 'review box' to have ZERO REVIEWS and in small letters '2 unqualified reviews', which is not true, basically because I do have two reviews, not zero.
I suggest using other terms if this policy must continue, such as 'not registered user'.
I hope Proz can analyze whether this actually helps translators or not. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | VERY disappointed | Sep 27, 2013 |
... to say the least.
I fully agree with the others. Why should a WWA from a direct client carry less weight?
| | |
|
|
|
Shai Navé
Israel
Local time: 11:15
English to Hebrew
+ ...
| Agree with the rest of the comments here | Sep 27, 2013 |
I really don't understand the merit of this change, nor the rationale behind it.
If professionalism and integrity are of concern here then the root cause(s) should be addressed not just the way it can potentially manifest itself in.
If the purpose is to give some more context about the identity of the rankers then classifying them into Direct or Agency client (for them to choose when entering the feedback), and further sub-classification of being a ProZ member or non-Pr... See more I really don't understand the merit of this change, nor the rationale behind it.
If professionalism and integrity are of concern here then the root cause(s) should be addressed not just the way it can potentially manifest itself in.
If the purpose is to give some more context about the identity of the rankers then classifying them into Direct or Agency client (for them to choose when entering the feedback), and further sub-classification of being a ProZ member or non-ProZ member (based on them being logged-in or not and the status of their profile), with the grand total of feedbacks remain unchanged, might make some sense.
However, using the term unqualified is a mistake because it carries the wrong message (especially when used in an alleged linguistic-oriented website that should understand the power that words carry), and could be even considered offensive. It is also misleading because we all know that just about anyone can register and get "vetted" on ProZ, but that doesn't tell anything about the qualification of that person/organization. Removing those feedbacks from the grand total is just adding insult to injury.
If the rationale behind this change will be explained, I'm sure that the community can work with ProZ's staff to come up with a better and more balanced solution. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | I do not agree either, as a medical translator | Sep 27, 2013 |
Hi,
I do not agree with those new strange policies because:
What will happen for us, medical translators, while obviously our clients (big Pharma, specialized agencies, CROs [i.e.,Contract Research Organizations], clinical trial centers, etc.) will never appear in the Blue Board ?
It is a kind of segregation.
I think that those colleagues who are specializing in Law, nuclear, aeronautics, etc. will be also equally affected.
I certainly won'... See more Hi,
I do not agree with those new strange policies because:
What will happen for us, medical translators, while obviously our clients (big Pharma, specialized agencies, CROs [i.e.,Contract Research Organizations], clinical trial centers, etc.) will never appear in the Blue Board ?
It is a kind of segregation.
I think that those colleagues who are specializing in Law, nuclear, aeronautics, etc. will be also equally affected.
I certainly won't dare to tell any globally well-known drug manufacturer or professor of medicine "Please, can you give your feedback about my work on ProZ, but be aware that you will be considered as 'unqualified'. Errrr ... Sorry about that."
I won't, and you, will you do it? Maybe you will... if you want to be sure to lose the client for ever.
Catherine ▲ Collapse
| | | | Enrico Zoffoli
Italy
Local time: 10:15
Member (2013)
German to Italian
+ ...
| VERY disappointing change | Sep 27, 2013 |
This change has the obvious disadvantage of penalizing translators who work with direct clients (who have no reason to become BB members). Indeed, the consequences of this "new feature" can be pretty crazy. Should we really maintain that somebody who receives a WWA from a major law firm from NY is unqualified, or at least less qualified than somebody working for peanuts for a BB Indian agency?
| | | | Saghir Ahmed
Pakistan
Local time: 13:15
Member (2012)
English to Urdu
+ ...
| Extremely Disappointing Approach of PROZ | Sep 27, 2013 |
This is weird that the entries are being disqualified in such a manner, Of course it is unprofessional approach towards the client and linguist relationship. If a linguist has provided an entry fo r a client or client provided, so what is wrong if the respondent acts accordingly just to make the relationship better and stronger. PROZ guys seems to root out many good things and making the site a pathetic place for linguists, who care to pay to be members and follow he rules.
| | |
|
|
|
Saghir Ahmed
Pakistan
Local time: 13:15
Member (2012)
English to Urdu
+ ...
| Please reinstate the old approach, It is unacceptable | Sep 27, 2013 |
No body is agreeing with this new weird approach. which seems to diminish the efforts and work of linguists, who really work hard and got few WWAs. You made them stand in the last row again. How this is acceptable, let me know, what is the formula here.
| | | | | Would "corroborated" be a more acceptable term than "qualified"? | Sep 27, 2013 |
Hi everyone,
It looks like "unqualified" was a poor choice of terminology. My apologies. The negative connotation was not intended.
The intent is to distinguish feedback from people whose identity has been corroborated to some degree. Would it be more acceptable to use the term "uncorroborated" instead of "unqualified"?
Another reason for this approach is to allow clients to give feedback with as little effort as possible; their identity can be corroborated... See more Hi everyone,
It looks like "unqualified" was a poor choice of terminology. My apologies. The negative connotation was not intended.
The intent is to distinguish feedback from people whose identity has been corroborated to some degree. Would it be more acceptable to use the term "uncorroborated" instead of "unqualified"?
Another reason for this approach is to allow clients to give feedback with as little effort as possible; their identity can be corroborated later by others (for example, by associating them with a Blue Board record and collecting LWA entries from other translators).
Thanks for sharing your reactions, and for your help figuring out a better way to do it.
Best regards,
Jason ▲ Collapse
| | | | | very very disappointing!! | Sep 27, 2013 |
I completely agree with the above comments, how can we get a chance to build a stronger profile if direct clients can't be considered qualified!!!
| | | | | Pages in topic: [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 | 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! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
