| 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 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | Should “native language” claims be verified? Thread poster: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:15
Hebrew to English
LilianBoland wrote:
Even some Welsh, Scottish and Irish people may not pass your imaginary tests or screeings.
Liliana, they're not imaginary, look at the FAQS quoted. They're on the cards already...... straight from the horse's mouth! (The horse is Proz.com).
| | | | | If there isn't... | Aug 8, 2012 |
... then there isn't a problem, is there?
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I hope there is a way a native Chinese "writer" is able to verify someone else as a "native Chinese" writer. Can you, Ambrose, by looking at forum posts in Chinese?
For the purposes of this thread and the original issue, then if non-native Chinese writing is indistinguishable from native Chinese writing, non-one is going to be pointing the finger yelling "liar" or "misrepresentation" and so the situation we are trying to resolve would never arise for Chinese.
I find that hard to believe, in truth, that any language would be such that non-natives could write it indistiguishably from natives, but allowing for the hypothetical possibility, such languages are then outside our scope. QED.
| | | | | telling a native speaker from a non-native | Aug 8, 2012 |
Sheila Wilson wrote:
It seems that some people here doubt that there is a problem (why would anyone lie?) and the same and/or other people maintain that native speakers would not necessarily know another native speaker.
I don’t disagree that there is a problem.
And I have no problem with your specific example. However, for this test to be a general mechanism, it has to work across all languages, but as defined on this site, the single language “Chinese” is far too coarse for one native speaker to “necessarily know another native speaker” (and Chinese is one of those languages where how well you speak isn’t even really that relevant to the task of translation because there’s a small but significant number of speakers who don’t write in their native “dialect”). And let me just make the claim that even if it splitted the language into the usual categories (i.e., either simplified/traditional—which makes no sense by the way—or zh-CN/HK/TW—which gets rid of most of the problem but still won’t work 100% of the time). Within each regional variation there is indeed a high chance for any native speaker to spot the nativeness of another speaker (though spotting non-nativeness still wouldn’t always work), but across regional variations the mechanism does not sound workable.
I have given myself (i.e., a zh-HK speaker spotting the nativeness of a zh-CN speaker—remember that ProZ does not even distinguish between zh-HK and zh-CN) as an example of why the proposed test would not work. But this is also true across other regional variations. I have once seen a debate on Kudoz about the meaning of a term because someone from China could not understand a word written by someone from Taiwan (i.e., a zh-CN speaker spotting the nativeness of a zh-TW speaker, if you will—and it has nothing to do with simplified/traditional).
For English (and only English as I don’t know about other languages to be in a position to judge), I tend to agree with you, though I do have my reservations and I’ll say things are still not as foolproof as you think.
| | | | | spotting non-nativeness | Aug 8, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: I find that hard to believe, in truth, that any language would be such that non-natives could write it indistiguishably from natives, but allowing for the hypothetical possibility, such languages are then outside our scope. QED.
It’s not exactly that. It’s that the amount of regional variation and dialectism is so much that while we can be confident of the “nativeness” of a piece of text, and while we can of course spot the non-nativeness of obviously non-native texts, we can be much less confident about “non-nativeness” when it comes to borderline cases. I’d say we (or should I say I, but I can’t be an isolated case) tend to assume that a construction that sounds non-native might be native in the mainland, maybe in some faraway region in the north. (Remember that the so-called dialects in Chinese aren’t even mutually intelligible if we’re talking about spoken speech—and while we southerners are not usually allowed to write in our own dialect, the northerners can write anything they say down on a piece of paper even though it might as well be gibberish in the south.)
In other words, calling the whole thing “Chinese” actually introduces uncertainty into the system. If we reduced this uncertainty (i.e., by splitting the language into meaningful variants) then we could probably compare it to English though I’d still not be too confident that a random zh-CN speaker would be able to tell a non-native (but good) zh-CN speaker from native zh-CN speakers.
| | |
|
|
|
| Borderline is also perhaps no biggie? | Aug 8, 2012 |
Ambrose Li wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote: I find that hard to believe, in truth, that any language would be such that non-natives could write it indistiguishably from natives, but allowing for the hypothetical possibility, such languages are then outside our scope. QED. It’s not exactly that. It’s that the amount of regional variation and dialectism is so much that while we can be confident of the “nativeness” of a piece of text, and while we can of course spot the non-nativeness of obviously non-native texts, we can be much less confident about “non-nativeness” when it comes to borderline cases. I’d say we (or should I say I, but I can’t be an isolated case) tend to assume that a construction that sounds non-native might be native in the mainland, maybe in some faraway region in the north. ... (etc.)
In which case, again for the purposes of this thread, and proz, & perhaps the profession, is there any need to make a definite ruling on way or the other? If a text is good enough to sound like it was written by some kind of native speaker, and that is the general impression that would be created for a Chinese-reading client, that's good enough for me, really. It's the rubbish we're trying to filter. If you (or a client) wouldn't point the finger and say "imposter" (as opposed to "must live in some obscure conrner of China where they talk funny") and "charlatan", I say live and let live.
Basically, if non-natives or non-nativeness are/is hard to spot, because of their individual skill or because of some factors inherent to the language in question, I say cut 'em slack and concentrate on the bad 'uns.
[Edited at 2012-08-08 16:40 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 22:15
Chinese to English
| Different issues | Aug 8, 2012 |
Ambrose Li wrote: Sheila Wilson wrote:
It seems that some people here doubt that there is a problem (why would anyone lie?) and the same and/or other people maintain that native speakers would not necessarily know another native speaker.
I don’t disagree that there is a problem. And I have no problem with your specific example. However, for this test to be a general mechanism, it has to work across all languages, but as defined on this site, the single language “Chinese” is far too coarse for one native speaker to “necessarily know another native speaker” (and Chinese is one of those languages where how well you speak isn’t even really that relevant to the task of translation because there’s a small but significant number of speakers who don’t write in their native “dialect”). And let me just make the claim that even if it splitted the language into the usual categories (i.e., either simplified/traditional—which makes no sense by the way—or zh-CN/HK/TW—which gets rid of most of the problem but still won’t work 100% of the time). Within each regional variation there is indeed a high chance for any native speaker to spot the nativeness of another speaker (though spotting non-nativeness still wouldn’t always work), but across regional variations the mechanism does not sound workable. I have given myself (i.e., a zh-HK speaker spotting the nativeness of a zh-CN speaker—remember that ProZ does not even distinguish between zh-HK and zh-CN) as an example of why the proposed test would not work. But this is also true across other regional variations. I have once seen a debate on Kudoz about the meaning of a term because someone from China could not understand a word written by someone from Taiwan (i.e., a zh-CN speaker spotting the nativeness of a zh-TW speaker, if you will—and it has nothing to do with simplified/traditional). For English (and only English as I don’t know about other languages to be in a position to judge), I tend to agree with you, though I do have my reservations and I’ll say things are still not as foolproof as you think.
Ambrose - I think you're worrying a bit unnecessarily. There is a lot of variation between CN/HK/TW, to be sure, but when a non-native writes, it's pretty obvious. I'm too embarrassed to go and drag up any of my old chestnuts, so this is a quote from an email sent to me by a guy who does very good Chinese to English translation: "你好。谢谢你的电信。我把钱已经收到好了。谢谢！" (sorry, that guy).
Real L2 Chinese learners are spottable because of our failure to write economically and our failure to be idiomatic - not because we're being too idiomatic or "local". Despite mainlanders having only limited access to Taiwanese/Hong Kong Chinese, there's still little chance that they'd judge a Taiwanese person to be non-Chinese.
But you're right that Chinese should be divided up into three regions.
| | | | | No witch hunt - "opt-in" seems to have a realistic chance | Aug 8, 2012 |
Lilian wrote:
No one would give any one any rights to conduct any witch-hunting type of thing.
You are right, witch hunting is no good.
Looking at the response Jared gave in this thread a gazillion pages ago, and also how other verifications are conducted on the site, the only thing I can imagine happening is an OPT-IN type of verification. This is how the identity verification works, and this is how the Pro network works. One must agree with the criteria and the process and must apply to have the verified status, i.e. voluntarily submit himself/herself for the verification process. In that case there is no question of legality at all. What Jared was saying is that they will be emphasizing the difference between verified and non-verified status.
The FAQ (quoted several times already, so I am not going to do that) gives a vague description of the process, both in terms of method and timeline. This thread is trying to push the machine into action, to initiate the actual implementation.
Implementing the FAQ as it is would only mean the verification is performed where two native languages are declared. That would not be a full solution, but I think it would already be an improvement over the current situation. With an Opt-in system, those who declared two languages would have the OPTION of getting those verified. If they do not opt for the verification (for whatever reason), the languages will stayed marked as "unverified", the same way as identity and credentials can be declared but not verified. In the directory search, when somebody specifies a credential, they have the option of searching for credentials that were verified by ProZ. You can also specify "Pro" network membership as a search criteria, and that "badge" is not self-declared, that also involves an opt-in verification process. Currently there is no differentiation for the "native" language declaration in terms of whether the declaration is verified or not. You can specify a native language requirement, but you will get both yellow and grey "N- marked" profiles. Having a voluntary verification process and having differentiation between verified and non-verified status across the site (including the directory search) may be a (or perhaps the only) realistic and practically feasible approach. After following the debate for weeks, I think if anything, this is the approach that has a realistic chance to be implemented.
Now, common sense logic and the discussion in this thread suggests that perhaps ALL native language claims should be treated the same way, i.e. they would not be automatically verified whether the declared native language is the only one or there is a second one declared as well, and in order to turn the grey "N" mark to yellow, the verification process should be performed. This would be taking the issue a bit further (but not much further, in my opinion). It would involve turning off all yellow "N"s, make them grey and including them in the optional verification process. I have no doubt that it would require more resources for the verification, but maybe it can be planned as the next milestone after the first milestone (i.e. verification for two native languages) is reached.
I think it is great to have this discussion, it is obviously an important issue loaded with passion and emotions (look at the number of views and postings - it may be a record), but on the other hand, I think in order to be successful, it is a good strategy to shoot for realistic goals.
Katalin
| | | | | getting rid of "unverified" status | Aug 8, 2012 |
Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
Having a voluntary verification process and having differentiation between verified and non-verified status across the site (including the directory search) may be a (or perhaps the only) realistic and practically feasible approach. After following the debate for weeks, I think if anything, this is the approach that has a realistic chance to be implemented.
Hi Katalin,
I wouldn't be happy with a solution that keeps "unverified native languages" forever if it is decided that "verification" is optional, for two or more languages.
Verified or not verified, as long as the languages are listed as "native languages", anybody can presume that the speaker is indeed a native speaker and nobody is forced to verify two or more languages. Therefore even those who falsely claim it will continue to bid on jobs, be listed as "natives" (albeit unverified) in the directory and in their profiles.
I propose(d) to simply get rid of the "unverified native language" definition, throughout the site. Everyone should be allowed to declare one language after he/she has passed a questionnaire-like evaluation (see Janet's proposal for a checklist) and declares in an electronically signed, sworn document (possibly displayed on his/her profile page) that they are indeed a native speaker of that language. In addition, their identity must be verified. Then they get the "verified language" stamp/icon.
That would be acceptable to me.
Only if they want to (retaining the optional character of future verification of two or more languages) declare additional native languages, they must come before native speakers of that language and prove it. If they pass, they will again sign a sworn native language declaration and receive a second "verified" icon. Before they are admitted to verification, they must fill out an application that lays out strict criteria for qualifying for verification.
Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
Now, common sense logic and the discussion in this thread suggests that perhaps ALL native language claims should be treated the same way, i.e. they would not be automatically verified whether the declared native language is the only one or there is a second one declared as well, and in order to turn the grey "N" mark to yellow, the verification process should be performed. This would be taking the issue a bit further (but not much further, in my opinion). It would involve turning off all yellow "N"s, make them grey and including them in the optional verification process. I have no doubt that it would require more resources for the verification, but maybe it can be planned as the next milestone after the first milestone (i.e. verification for two native languages) is reached.
I would simply ask single-native-language speakers who already have the "verified" icon to fill out the questionnaire and sign the sworn document. That should really be enough. If there is any doubt, the questionnaire should bring out these doubts and possibly subject them to either changing their native language or losing any right to display native languages.
I believe all these things are doable and make the whole process easier.
B
[Edited at 2012-08-08 20:54 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Yes, I’m probably worrying too much | Aug 8, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Ambrose - I think you're worrying a bit unnecessarily. There is a lot of variation between CN/HK/TW, to be sure, but when a non-native writes, it's pretty obvious. I'm too embarrassed to go and drag up any of my old chestnuts, so this is a quote from an email sent to me by a guy who does very good Chinese to English translation: "你好。谢谢你的电信。我把钱已经收到好了。谢谢！" (sorry, that guy).
Real L2 Chinese learners are spottable because of our failure to write economically and our failure to be idiomatic - not because we're being too idiomatic or "local". Despite mainlanders having only limited access to Taiwanese/Hong Kong Chinese, there's still little chance that they'd judge a Taiwanese person to be non-Chinese.
But you're right that Chinese should be divided up into three regions.
Yes, I’m most probably worrying too much. But the specific kind of Chinese in your example can actually come from an L1 Chinese speaker (let’s acknowledge that L1 and perceived nativeness are not the same thing); I’m in Canada and I have seen this often enough (heck, that might even apply to me—my written Chinese doesn’t look like that but even so it has been described as sounding “non-native”…).
As for the lack of conciseness and idiomaticness, I just recently reviewed a piece of text that was translated from English to Chinese, and it was not what you would normally call concise: The translation was longer than the source text, presumably because the person could not totally grasp some of the idiomatic meanings in the original English (as opposed to not being native in the target language). The paradoxes of life, I suppose.
[Edited at 2012-08-08 19:40 GMT]
| | | | | Alternatively | Aug 8, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
Having a voluntary verification process and having differentiation between verified and non-verified status across the site (including the directory search) may be a (or perhaps the only) realistic and practically feasible approach. After following the debate for weeks, I think if anything, this is the approach that has a realistic chance to be implemented.
I wouldn't be happy with a solution that keeps "unverified native languages" forever if it is decided that "verification" is optional, for two or more languages. Verified or not verified, as long as the languages are listed as "native languages", anybody can presume that the speaker is indeed a native speaker and nobody is forced to verify two or more languages. Therefore even those who falsely claim it will continue to bid on jobs, be listed as "natives" (albeit unverified) in the directory and in their profiles.....
.... what if they didn't? What if unverified meant excluded from searches and bidding ability withdrawn? It could show on the profile, naturally, perhaps with a fairly large "unverified" label.
If you have an opt-in procedure, there needs (in my view) to either be a decent reward for opting in or a definite drawback to opting out. Katain's "differentiation" needs to mean something, and mean something dissuasive to the target here (the liars), so that they either stop lying or are lying to themselves down a metaphorical black hole.
Otherwise, in the long run, I could see the idea working in theory (not sure about the manpower required, but many proposals have that drawback).
| | | | | Yes, I agree if some people want to go through some questionaries and get verified that is fine | Aug 8, 2012 |
Forcing people to do something would turn this very nice site into a nightmare. People in a democratic society should have the right to declare whatever they believe to be true, even if it meant being unverified. No one has the right to force anyone to go through any tests, if they don't want to or tell them what their native language is. It is enough that some people were unjustly, most them I believe, called frudsters -- with the meaning of someone close to a felon. If you don't want to get ve... See more Forcing people to do something would turn this very nice site into a nightmare. People in a democratic society should have the right to declare whatever they believe to be true, even if it meant being unverified. No one has the right to force anyone to go through any tests, if they don't want to or tell them what their native language is. It is enough that some people were unjustly, most them I believe, called frudsters -- with the meaning of someone close to a felon. If you don't want to get verified, you give the information you believe to be true. This is the perk of being unverified, where less credibility might be the price you pay for your freedom. Would you also divide the nativeness into - just as an example, Austrian German nativeness, High German nativeness, Swiss German nativeness, Ex-Eastern German nativeness. These languages vary a lot. German from East Germany used to have a lot of strange, very long words. Would that matter when deciding about nativeness.
You can't get rid of the unverified status, Bernhard. be realistic please. This would become a form of oppression.
[Edited at 2012-08-08 19:42 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-08-08 19:43 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-08-08 19:44 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:15
Hebrew to English
| @Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov | Aug 8, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
Forcing people to do something would turn this very nice site into a nightmare. People in a democratic society
This isn't a democratic society. It's a commerical website. If I was going to ascribe a form of government to Proz.com, it wouldn't be democracy.
should have the right to declare whatever they believe to be true
Not so. Hello Trade Descriptions Act and other such legislation.
No one has the right to force anyone to go through any tests, if they don't want to or tell them what their native language is.
Nobody is forcing anyone. Although those who refuse should naturally lose the ability to claim "x" as a native language, according to site rules.
You can't get rid of the unverified status, Bernhard. be realistic please. This would become a form of oppression.
You do love your grandiose phrasing, don't you? Oppression? No, because nobody is forcing you to be a part of this site.
Back to the grindstone.....
| | |
|
|
|
| workable and satisfactory solution | Aug 8, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
.... what if they didn't? What if unverified meant excluded from searches and bidding ability withdrawn? It could show on the profile, naturally, perhaps with a fairly large "unverified" label.
If you have an opt-in procedure, there needs (in my view) to either be a decent reward for opting in or a definite drawback to opting out. Katain's "differentiation" needs to mean something, and mean something dissuasive to the target here (the liars), so that they either stop lying or are lying to themselves down a metaphorical black hole.
Otherwise, in the long run, I could see the idea working in theory (not sure about the manpower required, but many proposals have that drawback).
Hi, Charlie.
In principle, yes. But the reason "unverified" native speakers are using the site is to bid on native jobs and be listed as native speakers in the directory and in their profiles.
I don't see how you could not allow them these options because they could indeed be native speakers. I would only agree to that if, after a certain initial period, they are required to get their two or more languages verified.
But then you are making it "mandatory" to get verified (through evaluation before native speakers) for two or more native languages.
Whereas, if you allow only one native language to be declared and verified, based on an assessment via questionnaire, identity verification, and a sworn real document, you don't need the "unverified" category.
Verification of additional languages remains optional.
That's why I think this would be a workable and satisfactory solution.
B
[Edited at 2012-08-08 20:12 GMT]
| | | | | ProZ cornerstones | Aug 9, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
Having a voluntary verification process and having differentiation between verified and non-verified status across the site (including the directory search) may be a (or perhaps the only) realistic and practically feasible approach. After following the debate for weeks, I think if anything, this is the approach that has a realistic chance to be implemented.
Hi Katalin, I wouldn't be happy with a solution that keeps "unverified native languages" forever if it is decided that "verification" is optional, for two or more languages. Verified or not verified, as long as the languages are listed as "native languages", anybody can presume that the speaker is indeed a native speaker and nobody is forced to verify two or more languages. Therefore even those who falsely claim it will continue to bid on jobs, be listed as "natives" (albeit unverified) in the directory and in their profiles.
You see, that's why I said there need to be an option for specifying "verified" status of the native declaration for directory searches and job postings. If you have not done it yet, please take a look at the "Advanced Directory", and see how it is done for "Credentials". You can specify a credential as a search filter, and you can narrow it down to "verified" credentials, by using the checkbox. You can also specify "ProZ.com Certified Pro" as a filter. I was talking about having the exact same thing for the "native" declaration. (Interestingly, in the FAQ this whole issue is called the Native Speaker Credential, so I see a logical connection there, too.)
None of these verifications are required, they are optional, and the reason is not only the practical side of it (may be impossible to verify ALL credentials), but I think it has to do with one of the cornerstones of ProZ.com.
Which goes something like this (sorry for not having the time to find the exact quote): "the person with the need sets the parameters of the transaction". So, when we are talking about jobs, it is the outsourcer that has the right to specify the parameters of the job, including the requirements for being considered for the job, and it is his right and prerogative to chose whoever he wants.
If the outsourcer thinks it is important for the candidate to have a certain language declared as "native", he can specify it in the job posting, or in the directory search (whichever method he uses to find candidates for the job). This is already in place.
According to this cornerstone principle, ProZ.com (including its members, users, staff) should not tell the outsourcer how to make his selection, the only thing ProZ.com can do is provide as much information as possible to help the outsourcer make an informed decision. Making it very clear what the difference is between "declared" and "verified" credentials (including the native speaker credential) is crucial, and I believe Jared indicated in his posting that this is one of the main goals. I think we should agree with that, and make sure it is done.
I don't think it is practical to erase the "unverified" status, for a few reasons. One simple reason is that when somebody signs up and declares a native language, it is unlikely that ProZ.com would have the resources to immediately verify it, and if there is no "unverified" category, then it would place many people who are truly native speakers (and declare one language as such) at a disadvantage. If you remove the "unverified" status, it would also be impossible to implement the single native language verification retroactively (single languages have "verified" status now), as those who did not verify, would lose their credential altogether. Whereas, if there are two type of credentials (unverified and verified), ProZ could just switch all yellow Ns to grey and start accepting applications for verification. (The verification for single languages could be as simple as a questionnaire as discussed in the other thread - let's not talk about the exact method here.)
I suggested to provide the option for job postings and directory searches to use a filter for "verified" native language. If the outsourcer thinks he wants "verified" native people, he can chose to filter his search for that. If he is happy to look at people with "declared" (meaning "unverified") native status, too, it is his prerogative. In that case he would not check the "verified status" checkbox, and would get both grey and yellow marked people.
Why do I think it is important to have it as an option?
Because it is possible that the outsourcer does not want to limit his search for verified people, and we should not be telling him otherwise. (Cornerstone: he has the need, he sets the parameters). He may not care what the status on ProZ is, because he knows he would verify the claim anyway according to his own needs, criteria and methods. Or he may not agree with the verification method used at ProZ, and purposely does not want to limit his search to "verified" status. Or he could have some other reason - none of our business, I think. This is yet another reason why I think it is not practical to get rid of the "unverified" mark altogether, because it would not help the outsourcer. Outsourcers must find the site useful for their own purposes, otherwise they will go elsewhere, and we all lose out.
All in all, I think any proposal that goes against ProZ.com's fundamentals, the "cornerstones", is very unlikely to get implemented, so we all need to think about a proposal that is in line with those. The opt-in verification and the optional filters for job searches and job posts are in line with them, I think.
I hope my explanation was clear - I perhaps over-explained it already.
Katalin
[Edited twice for pesky typos and grammar mismatches - at least what I found: sorry if there are more - English is not my native language.  ]
[Edited at 2012-08-09 00:33 GMT]
I found the article with the "cornerstones":
http://www.proz.com/translation-articles/articles/964/
[Edited at 2012-08-09 00:37 GMT]
| | | | | Yet, Katalin... | Aug 9, 2012 |
1. We would still be allowing false/erroneous declarations.
2. The change would in fact improve the situation of those falsely declaring multiple native languages, going from a situation where they have two not verified native languages to a new situation where they have one verified and one not verified.
Everything must change so nothing changes. In my opinion, we have two options, either the non-verified status goes or we do nothing.
Best,
Luis
[E... See more 1. We would still be allowing false/erroneous declarations.
2. The change would in fact improve the situation of those falsely declaring multiple native languages, going from a situation where they have two not verified native languages to a new situation where they have one verified and one not verified.
Everything must change so nothing changes. In my opinion, we have two options, either the non-verified status goes or we do nothing.
Best,
Luis
[Edited at 2012-08-09 01:25 GMT] ▲ 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 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | 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 » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
