| 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)
|
|---|
| You must have misunderstood - I never said one grey + one yellow | Aug 9, 2012 |
Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
1. We would still be allowing false/erroneous declarations.
There is no practical way to prevent it. There are false declarations about specialty fields, too. There are false declarations about experience, too. And many other things. By having a "verified" status available, we are also emphasizing the "non-verifiedness" (sorry for the weird word) of the other camp.
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.
Where did you get that?
I never said anything like that.
The possible combinations in my mind are the following:
- no native language declared (this exists currently)
- 1 native language declared but not verified - one grey "N" icon (this exist currently for non-members, or not verified identities, I am not entirely sure)
- 1 native language declared and verified - one yellow "N" icon (this exists currently but given automatically without any verification)
- 2 native languages declared but not verified - two grey "N" icons (this exists currently, when someone declares a second language as native, both languages will turn to be "unverified")
- 2 native languages declared and both verified - two yellow "N" icons (this does not exist currently).
The only way one verified (yellow) and one non-verified (grey) icon would appear if:
Case 1: Someone first had one language declared and verified, and then declared another one, without verification. This can be easily prevented, by simply not allowing the addition of a second language without going through the verification process.
Case 2: Someone declared two native languages, but applied for verification in only one. This can be prevented, too, because those who currently have two unverified languages would have to get both verified at the same time, or would need to remove one and get the remaining verified, and then for the second language they would fall under case 1.
But come to think of it, even if someone would really get one declared native language verified, and the other one not, why would it be worse than the current situation?
Again, it is the outsourcer who sets the search parameters, and if they accept non-verified "natives", then be it. We have no place to tell them how to do their business. When someone lies about their native language, what difference does it make if that language is the only one they declared or it is the second one? They could be filtered out exactly the same way.
Katalin
[Edited at 2012-08-09 02:16 GMT]
| | | | Marina Steinbach
United States
Local time: 06:28
Member (2011)
English to German
| And then there are colleagues who are neither fish nor fowl ... | Aug 9, 2012 |
Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
The possible combinations in my mind are the following:
- no native language declared (this exists currently)
- 1 native language declared but not verified - one grey "N" icon (this exist currently for non-members, or not verified identities, I am not entirely sure)
- 1 native language declared and verified - one yellow "N" icon (this exists currently but given automatically without any verification)
- 2 native languages declared but not verified - two grey "N" icons (this exists currently, when someone declares a second language as native, both languages will turn to be "unverified")
- 2 native languages declared and both verified - two yellow "N" icons (this does not exist currently).
I have just seen a featured corporate member, Veronica Ovadia (sorry for using you as an example, Veronica), who is native in Portuguese.
There is neither a yellow "N", nor is there a grey "N".
What is this all about?
| | | | | Understanding it better, yet still not quite convinced | Aug 9, 2012 |
Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
But come to think of it, even if someone would really get one declared native language verified, and the other one not, why would it be worse than the current situation?
Again, it is the outsourcer who sets the search parameters, and if they accept non-verified "natives", then be it. We have no place to tell them how to do their business. When someone lies about their native language, what difference does it make if that language is the only one they declared or it is the second one? They could be filtered out exactly the same way.
Katalin
[Edited at 2012-08-09 02:16 GMT]
Now they have to make a trade-off: not getting verified in their true native language, so they can list their second (arguably non native) language as native. That would no longer be the case if they could certify one language and then add another without asking for certification. That you had in mind not allowing that "trick" was not clear to me.
If we can avoid the one grey-one yellow situation, introducing filtering will certainly simplify the verification process: only those very sure that they will be verified will ask to be reviewed; the others likely will not want to risk losing a "non-verified nativeness status" in what they consider their most profitable language.
Re misrepresentation: That bothers me a lot. While I pointed out in a previous post that native language is not the only place where false statements are made, I also pointed out that it is the most evident place, and the one to start with any corrections. True, clients must be allowed to select whatever they wish. Yet, here, we would be offering them what we know is false, something that is implicitly accepted by those who refuse to be examined.
Now I understand better what you propose, yet I remained unconvinced. To me, it does not quite pass the "smell test". But we'll see.
Best,
Luis
| | | | | Perhaps a bug, please submit a support request | Aug 9, 2012 |
Marina Steinbach wrote:
I have just seen a featured corporate member, Veronica Ovadia (sorry for using you as an example, Veronica), who is native in Portuguese.
There is neither a yellow "N", nor is there a grey "N".
What is this all about?
My best guess is that it is a bug.
A few weeks ago another bug was found where some companies' data was incorrect, due to the fact that the profile used to be a "freelancer+company" type profile, and then they switched to "company" profile, and the system somehow was still reading part of their old data. Maybe something similar is the cause here. I am not sure, I just think it is possible. Please contact site staff and let us know what happened.
Katalin
| | |
|
|
|
| I am glad it is clear now - thanks | Aug 9, 2012 |
Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
Now they have to make a trade-off: not getting verified in their true native language, so they can list their second (arguably non native) language as native. That would no longer be the case if they could certify one language and then add another without asking for certification. That you had in mind not allowing that "trick" was not clear to me.
I am glad it is clear now. Yep, no tricks allowed.
Re misrepresentation: That bothers me a lot.
Me too. There is a general rule against it, but it does not seem to have any teeth.
While I pointed out in a previous post that native language is not the only place where false statements are made, I also pointed out that it is the most evident place, and the one to start with any corrections.
Yes, we have to start somewhere, and at the same time be realistic.
True, clients must be allowed to select whatever they wish.
I am glad you agree.
Yet, here, we would be offering them what we know is false, something that is implicitly accepted by those who refuse to be examined.
I would be careful with sweeping statements like that, simply because it does not help the cause here. We do not know what is false, at least not in general terms. A statement like that may anger those who refuse to be examined, because they may have reasons other than lying. Think about the CPN (red P badge) - should you make a statement that those who do not want to apply to be part of it do so because they know they would fail the criteria, you would generate an explosive reaction, quite rightfully. Some people decided not to apply to the CPN because they don't believe the selection criteria is good, or in general, they don't think ProZ should give out any sort of "certification", because it is not a linguistic authority. Whether we agree with them or not, they are all entitled to their opinion and their choice, and we should not be judging them. Same goes for those who would decide not to take advantage of the optional native language verification process. There is a big difference between saying: "Those who have the verified native credential are native speakers" vs. "Those who do not have the verified native credential are not native speakers".
You cannot turn the logic around this way in an opt-in system. In an opt-in system, the opposite of "Those who have the verified native credential are native speakers" is " "Those who do not have the verified native credential may or may not be native speakers."
Outsourcers should understand the difference between the verified and non-verified status, and make their selections accordingly.
Now I understand better what you propose, yet I remained unconvinced. To me, it does not quite pass the "smell test". But we'll see.
As I said, I don't think there is a surefire way, unless you introduce a mandatory verification, including doing it retroactively, and then soon you will hear people yell "witch hunt", "police state", etc. And they may actually be right.
That's why I have serious doubts that ProZ.com would introduce anything like it in the foreseeable future. Or even in the distant future. Sticking to that request has the risk of the entire proposal being thrown out quite quickly.
That's why I am talking about finding a solution that is reasonable and feasible, even if it feels like a compromise to some.
I don't think I can add anymore to the topic, so I am signing off.
Katalin
[Edited at 2012-08-09 04:19 GMT]
| | | | | Could we twist that in our favour? | Aug 9, 2012 |
Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
but I think it has to do with one of the cornerstones of ProZ.com.
Which goes "the person with the need sets the parameters".
I have a need not to have my reputation sullied by being associated with a bunch of liars and charlatans*.
The transaction is that I'm allowed to submit a support request for misrepresentation to be dealt with in accordance with rule 6 "misrepresentation and fraud are forbidden".
The parameters - well, that's still up for discussion, but apparently, I get to set them.
Have I got that right, d'y think?
(*Naturally, I could leave, or just shut up so no-one knows I'm here, but that option does not appear to be included for other people's needs, e.g. the need to ask endless questions instead of looking in a dictionary, so I don't see why it should apply here.)
| | | | | why would an outsourcer want to look for an "unverified" native speaker? | Aug 10, 2012 |
Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
...
Again, it is the outsourcer who sets the search parameters, and if they accept non-verified "natives", then be it. We have no place to tell them how to do their business.
Hi Katalin.
Couple of thoughts.
It's Proz.com who sets any a priori parameters, meaning "how" the outsourcer can go about searching and filtering on the site. But the ones that are being searched are the translators and interpreters. I believe it only makes sense to make sure that the (in my mind) most important search filter, namely "native language", indeed means what it says: "native language", verified!!!
Why should there be the category "non-verified" native speaker" if that is a "permanent" status which will never change if the "unverified" person is never forced to/bothers to or cares about get/ting verified? That would be a continuation of the status quo.
And why would an outsourcer want to look for an "unverified" native speaker? They don't. They look for "native" speakers and when they pick an "unverified" native speaker, I argue that they do it for the adjective "native", not "unverified". I'm pretty sure.
Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
When someone lies about their native language, what difference does it make if that language is the only one they declared or it is the second one? They could be filtered out exactly the same way.
It makes no difference with respect to lying.
But two languages are more than one language.
If only "verified" icons are given out, there will be less claims for two native languages I would say.
Now you might tell me that these single native language claims could still be lies.
Yes, but I say not as many as with two.
I still hold (and am fairly convinced) it will stay this way, that when a language specialist declares a single native language, he/she will mostly claim his/her real native language. I have a theory that a big part of the problem is actually the fact that "unverified languages" just haven't been verified in 12 years. It makes it easy not to be concerned at all about telling the truth because you don't have to own up to it (not yet but we're working on it, and so is staff).
I suggested to get rid of the "unverified" status altogether. Just keep the "verified" icons.
Please see my previous posts.
Any takers?
B
[Edited at 2012-08-10 07:17 GMT]
| | | | | Talking about people who don't say everything or pretending something else | Aug 10, 2012 |
Why don't certain people admit that they don't have any kind of linguistic education whatsoever and are trying to form opinions about strictly linguistic things. Why certain other people don't state clearly what variety of their native language they speak -- there are several varieties of German, just as an example. Why some other people don't make it absolutely clear that all of their university education is in English -- although they claim to be 100% qualified translators into another L1. Lac... See more Why don't certain people admit that they don't have any kind of linguistic education whatsoever and are trying to form opinions about strictly linguistic things. Why certain other people don't state clearly what variety of their native language they speak -- there are several varieties of German, just as an example. Why some other people don't make it absolutely clear that all of their university education is in English -- although they claim to be 100% qualified translators into another L1. Lack of college education in the language you translate into is really something that may have significant effect on the translation. (I meant some people with otherwise high education, but nothing related to languages and the understanding of the socio-linguistics)
Some other people have yet other absolutely ridiculous ideas that only a person born in a country where X is spoken, knows punctuation in that language. This just proves how education is important. Every translator educated in a language pair relevant to their translations knows everything about punctuation -- sometimes maybe even better than some native speaker who are not involved in translation or writing.
I personally found this discussion pointless, a long time ago, and I really want to stop writing on this subject soon, but some posts have just inspired me to express a few more of my opinions. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X) 
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:28
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
But two languages are more than one language.
If only "verified" icons are given out, there will be less claims for two native languages I would say.
Now you might tell me that these single native language claims could still be lies.
Yes, but I say not as many as with two.
I still hold (and am fairly convinced) it will stay this way, that when a language specialist declares a single native language, he/she will mostly claim his/her real native language. I have a theory that a big part of the problem is actually the fact that "unverified languages" just haven't been verified in 12 years. It makes it easy not to be concerned at all about telling the truth because you don't have to own up to it (not yet but we're working on it, and so is staff).
I suggested to get rid of the "unverified" status altogether. Just keep the "verified" icons.
Please see my previous posts.
Any takers?
There is currently a discrepancy in the rules in that a native speaker credential (PNS) is given automatically for one language, while a verification process (still being worked out) is required for two. Outsourcers are already being misled to assume that those with yellow icons have indeed been verified. Until there is a verification process in place, I think we need to do away with “verified” and “unverified” terminology. I vote that here and now everyone picks one language, if necessary using something along the lines of Janet’s questionnaire as a guideline. Jobs/directory searches are filtered on the basis of that one declared language. Once the long-promised verification process finally sees the light of day, we have an opt-in process to acquire the “native-speaker credential”, for one or more languages, and the directory searches then simply differentiate between “declared native speakers” (that name needs work, I grant you)and “native speakers with a verified native speaker credential”.
| | | | | problem with two categories of "native" speakers | Aug 10, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
But two languages are more than one language.
If only "verified" icons are given out, there will be less claims for two native languages I would say.
Now you might tell me that these single native language claims could still be lies.
Yes, but I say not as many as with two.
I still hold (and am fairly convinced) it will stay this way, that when a language specialist declares a single native language, he/she will mostly claim his/her real native language. I have a theory that a big part of the problem is actually the fact that "unverified languages" just haven't been verified in 12 years. It makes it easy not to be concerned at all about telling the truth because you don't have to own up to it (not yet but we're working on it, and so is staff).
I suggested to get rid of the "unverified" status altogether. Just keep the "verified" icons.
Please see my previous posts.
Any takers?
There is currently a discrepancy in the rules in that a native speaker credential (PNS) is given automatically for one language, while a verification process (still being worked out) is required for two. Outsourcers are already being misled to assume that those with yellow icons have indeed been verified. Until there is a verification process in place, I think we need to do away with “verified” and “unverified” terminology. I vote that here and now everyone picks one language, if necessary using something along the lines of Janet’s questionnaire as a guideline. Jobs/directory searches are filtered on the basis of that one declared language. Once the long-promised verification process finally sees the light of day, we have an opt-in process to acquire the “native-speaker credential”, for one or more languages, and the directory searches then simply differentiate between “declared native speakers” (that name needs work, I grant you)and “native speakers with a verified native speaker credential”.
Hi Lisa,
I agree that the native speaker credential (PNS) for a single native language should not be given out automatically.
But I am flexible on how to get it.
Take me for example. I grew up in Austria, lived there until my early twenties, then moved to the US. I went back and forth a few times (Austria< >US) since then, but have spent half of my life in Austria and half of my life here. I have been working as a translator since 1998. It stands to reason I am a native speaker of German. I would appear to be according to "Janet's" questionnaire. I don't have much trouble with accepting someone's single native language claim because in most cases, it just makes sense, because most everybody just simply has one native language for sure. You can't really NOT have a native language (even though it might be possible to lose proficiency in it). That's why I don't necessarily support an oral verification before peers or evaluation of a writing sample by peers for a single native language.
In most cases, it is far less likely that a person has two or more native languages.
I would accept your proposal regarding "filtering" if "verified" native speakers (=native speakers with a verified native speaker credential) are the only ones listed as "native speakers" in search results in the directory and in their profiles and permitted to bid on "native language jobs".
I would not accept it if there are two categories, as you suggested above. You can't really give a "declared native speaker" less rights than a "certified native speaker" because they can still actually be "native speakers".
And then again, some of the false "declared' natives will never verify their languages because they don't have to. And everything remains the same.
If you make "declared" natives go through the verification process (= mandatory verification after a grace period), then it's a bit better but you will always have "unverified" natives being able to do the same on this site as the "natives" do.
In any case, I would be open to suggestions centering on only one possible native language credential. I believe it won't change anything if you keep two credentials (unverified versus verified) without timely mandatory verification for two or more languages. And making it "mandatory" might be a big sticking point.
B
[Edited at 2012-08-10 16:25 GMT]
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:28
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | The process will allow them to be certified | Aug 11, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I would not accept it if there are two categories, as you suggested above. You can't really give a "declared native speaker" less rights than a "certified native speaker" because they can still actually be "native speakers".
B
[Edited at 2012-08-10 16:25 GMT]
With the system I'm proposing, we would all be "declared native speakers" (of one language only) until the verification process (the Native Speaker Credential the site itself suggested all those years ago) is set up. Undergoing verification would be optional and while I agree, of course, that we all (with the tiniest number of exceptions) have at least one native language, I'm afraid that if want to display the Native Speaker Credential we will all have to prove ourselves. It is the only way to flush out the NLs (for example) claiming English as their sole native language (which I am told is a major problem in certain language pairs). Unfortunately, those who have honestly declared their native language can't have their cake and eat it. It's back to the classroom. If one person won't own up the whole class gets "punished".
| | | | | I support that 2 or more native language claims must be verified before peers | Aug 11, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I would not accept it if there are two categories, as you suggested above. You can't really give a "declared native speaker" less rights than a "certified native speaker" because they can still actually be "native speakers".
B
[Edited at 2012-08-10 16:25 GMT] With the system I'm proposing, we would all be "declared native speakers" (of one language only) until the verification process (the Native Speaker Credential the site itself suggested all those years ago) is set up. Undergoing verification would be optional and while I agree, of course, that we all (with the tiniest number of exceptions) have at least one native language, I'm afraid that if want to display the Native Speaker Credential we will all have to prove ourselves. It is the only way to flush out the NLs (for example) claiming English as their sole native language (which I am told is a major problem in certain language pairs). Unfortunately, those who have honestly declared their native language can't have their cake and eat it. It's back to the classroom. If one person won't own up the whole class gets "punished".
Problem is, if you don't make verification mandatory after a certain grace period, those who are arguably cheating will never subject themselves to the verification process before peers because they can have the cake for free ("native" language listing) and eat it too (get jobs based on that).
On the other thread, I support improving the current single-native-language verification method by adding a questionnaire and sworn statement signed by e-signature, including a disclaimer that if one were to later add additional languages, ALL these native languages would need to be (re-)verified before native language peers.
I'd still do away with the "unverified native language" credential for two or (possibly) more languages completely OR set a time limit after which these languages must be verified or one loses their native language credentials for all languages.
I believe your solution must still be improved because it doesn't force anyone to get verified and everyone is still allowed to use all the rights that come with being an unverified "declared native speaker".
Because I think this is a bit too radical a change and because it leaves verification for any number of native languages optional, and adds "uncertainty" to all our profiles, I support
1) the improvement of the current "verified" SINGLE-native-language credential by adding a "serious" questionnaire (rejection and ways to appeal/alternative verification method should be built in - possibly verification in person before peers), and by adding a sworn and e-signed statement (displayed or accessible on the profile page). This can be done retroactively.
This improvement will arguably scare off some of those who want to lie (especially if they had two native languages in mind).
AND
2) making any additional native language claims subject to peer verification, meaning you must apply for verification or schedule a date and place (physical place or online, incl identity verification) for verification. "Unverified native language" declaration would not be possible on the site. Only after the person has been verified as a NS, they will then be able to display the VNS credential.
Advantages:
1) No "unverified native language" credential would be necessary.
2) You make it harder (esp, 2-NL-claimants) to lie which is better than the status quo.
3) This would be more in line with what indeed has been proposed for 12 years ("two or more native languages must be verified before (possibly by) native language peers").
4) You take away altogether the possibility to remain an "unverified native speaker" of two or (possibly) more languages with absolutely no time limits.
In any case, I support any solution that cuts out the permanent "unverified native language" credential/declaration for two or more languages altogether or puts serious and brief time limits on it.
I don't really support mandatory verification of a single-native-language claim before native language peers because it adds uncertainty to the site and the profiles of honest translators which is not in our interest. It's not in line with current Proz.com objectives and there are arguments against it (uncertainty etc.)
I would reject any "unverified native language" declaration with voluntary and optional verification before peers unless it means unverified users are NOT allowed to bid on native language jobs or be listed as native speakers in the directory and in their profiles.
On the other hand, making verification of two or (possibly) more native languages before peers mandatory is in line with Proz.com objectives and will improve the situation. This can be done with or without the "unverified native speaker" credential but if the UNS credential is first given, verification must follow within a short period of time.
Just thinking ...
B
[Edited at 2012-08-12 00:30 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Filtering for directory and job postings | Aug 11, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Problem is, if you don't make verification mandatory after a certain grace period, those who are arguably cheating will never subject themselves to the verification process before peers because they can have the cake for free ("native" language listing) and eat it too (get jobs based on that).
I would reject any "unverified native language" declaration with voluntary and optional verification before peers unless it means unverified users are NOT allowed to bid on native language jobs or be listed as native speakers in the directory and in their profiles.
Bernard, I am wondering if you actually read the previous postings, in particular, mine, where I wrote about having a differentiating filter both in the directory search and on the job posting form, so that outsourcers could request "verified" natives by using a checkbox.
It is exactly the same as the search criteria for credentials. Please, go to the Advanced Directory search page and look at the Credentials criteria on the left side. You can request a credential, and in addition, you can request it to be verified by site staff. So, outsourcers can filter out the "unverified" credentials, if they wish to do so.
In job postings, the same differentiation would be implemented, outsourcers could restrict quoting to "verified" natives, and they can make it "required", so the system would not allow "unverified" natives to quote.
So, there would be a differentiation, and there would be an incentive to get verified.
See more details at this earlier forum entry:
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/227485-should_“native_language”_claims_be_verified-page100.html#1995893
Here is more on why we should leave the choice for outsourcers, and if you read it, there is an answer to your question "why would they want to search for an unverified native speaker":
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/227485-should_“native_language”_claims_be_verified-page100.html#1996043
By the way, the outsourcer is not necessarily *actively looking* for nonverified natives, but looking for any (verified or nonverified) natives. Why? Because he may want to have a larger pool to choose from. There are languages or specialty areas, where the number of natives is low, so getting a larger pool is necessary. The nonverified natives can still be real natives, who have not gone through the verification process (for whatever reason). And please don't forget that there are cases where being native is lower priority than being a subject matter expert. Outsourcers may be very well prepared to have a native editor go over the output of the non-native subject expert and make it sound more native, and they chose to do so because using a native that is not expert in the subject may be much more risky.
If you are a true native, you can subject yourself to the verification process, and you will be verified. That's how you differentiate yourself, not by taking away the right of declaration from others. Let anybody declare anything (such as with the credentials), but have a voluntary verification process in place that rewards verified people with a different status with clear differentiation. (See my previous lengthy explanations about what the differentiation would be - directory search, quoting for jobs.)
Sometimes you see ads on TV that promote a certain product by putting down a competitor's. This style is even used in election campaign ads. Do you like those ads? I don't. Sometimes I catch myself talking to those people on the screen: "Tell me why I should vote for you, not why I shouldn't for the other guy! Tell me what you are good at, not what the other lacks!"
Katalin
| | | | | we should improve the status quo | Aug 12, 2012 |
Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
Bernard, I am wondering if you actually read the previous postings, in particular, mine, where I wrote about having a differentiating filter both in the directory search and on the job posting form, so that outsourcers could request "verified" natives by using a checkbox.
I read your entries, Katalin.
But I didn't respond to the directory situation in detail.
The reasons you list for keeping the differentiation between "verified" and "unverified" are, at first site, quite good.
But I still believe that the permanent unverified native language status should be abandoned. And, as far as I am concerned, the "unverified native language" credential should be abandoned altogether.
Nobody will intentionally search for someone who is an "unverified" native speaker of Y because they need a specialist in marketing or any other field of expertise in the language Y, unless they are convinced they need a NATIVE speaker of X (source language) or a native speaker of Y is not available.
But you can argue that all they want is a marketing/technical expert who "works" in that language direction and is not a native speaker of any of those languages or is simply "working" in the target language. Why is beyond me, but whatever floats their boat.
I have no problem with calling such translators "non-native speakers who work in language Y" but calling them unverified "native" implies they are native and if it's a lie, it's fraud.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that outsourcers should be given the option to, for example, find translators/interpreters who work in language pair X>Y, specialize in marketing/IT etc. and are neither a "verified" native speaker of X nor Y or who are "unverified" native speakers in X or in Y.
They would be selected based on their special field then and, obviously, that expertise would be clearly more important to the outsourcer than the native language credential. Then call it what it is, NON-NATIVE, don't call it "unverified" NATIVE language.
Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
It is exactly the same as the search criteria for credentials. Please, go to the Advanced Directory search page and look at the Credentials criteria on the left side. You can request a credential, and in addition, you can request it to be verified by site staff. So, outsourcers can filter out the "unverified" credentials, if they wish to do so.
In job postings, the same differentiation would be implemented, outsourcers could restrict quoting to "verified" natives, and they can make it "required", so the system would not allow "unverified" natives to quote.
So, there would be a differentiation, and there would be an incentive to get verified.
First, you are talking about the advanced [connect jobs] board, not the regular one:
Connect platform:
http://search.proz.com/connect/find/83036
Regular platform:
http://www.proz.com/translator-directory/?
As you can see, the regular platform is much simpler and does not include the more complex search system of the connect platform.
Now, regarding filtering out "unverified" natives:
That's great that you can filter out "unverified native speakers" on the connect platform. You can't do that on the regular platform.
Correction: It is not possible to distinguish between verified and unverified native speakers on either directory platform. One can only either specify "native speaker/native proficiency (which I take to include "verified as well as "unverified" native speakers) or uncheck that category altogether.
But I ask again, why would you filter out "unverified native speakers?" Well because you want a real native speaker. Then get rid of "unverified native languages", nobody is looking for that.
They're either looking for true native speakers with many other credentials or they're looking for credentials (fields of expertise, location, years of experience, education ....) AND for a language pair, as in language X > language Y.
If, in the search for certain credentials, "native language" is an important factor and the situation arises that you simply cannot find a "verified native speaker", you'll probably expand your search to "unverified native speakers" 'cause it stands to reason that they are indeed also native speakers or do you think Proz.com wants to imply that "unverified" means "non-native?" No, a NATIVE speaker will always be seen as a native speaker, call him/her "verified" or "unverified".
Our problem is the abuse that is possible because of the permanent unverified status. On the regular directory platform, that abuse is even easier and more likely because you can only search for "native speakers".
I proposed to have one and only one "native speaker" credential. You are either a native speaker or you are NOT. If you're not, you are a non-native speaker.
If you keep the "unverified" native language credential, it should be an initial, tentative credential only.
So, if we leave the options as you suggest, "unverified native speakers" should not be able to remain "unverified" native speakers indefinitely, they MUST get verified within a relatively short period of time.
However, I prefer the following two options:
"verified" native speaker (VNS) = true credential
"non-native speaker" (NNS) - now if you want to imply that the person is working in that language, call it "working language" but don't call it anything with the word "native" in it. Otherwise we''ll never change the status quo.
(I spend way too much time on this and the other thread! )
Bernhard
[Edited at 2012-08-12 20:47 GMT]
| | | | | Where is this thread going? | Aug 12, 2012 |
Any takers?
What point is being discussed?
This is so "all over the place". It has a certain entertainment value though.
| | | | | 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? | 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! » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
