| 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)
|
|---|
Michele Fauble 
United States
Local time: 08:07
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
"More likely..." and "some can..." (while others don't) throws reasonable doubt on whether being 'native' necessarily has anything to do with the translation quality actually delivered. Therefore it's just a probability enhancer, yet by no means a reliable indicator.
We constantly have to deal with probabilities when making decisions.
Why bother?
Good question. Why bother when there is widespread fraud?
Another good question: What is the probability that a translator claiming a native language is truly a native speaker of that language? My estimation of the probability is much lower now than it was when this thread started.
| | | |
Michele Fauble wrote:
It doesn't matter who they are as long as they are genuine native speakers. Like it or not, native speakers judge whether other speakers are native or non-native based on the speech/writing of those speakers.
Although I don't recognize all my mistakes, specially when returning quick messages in a forum, I am capable of distinguishing the difference between "perfect British" and "non-perfect British" or "foreign language mildewed English" and I believe most above average translators can identify "lousy English" (or should I call it "lousy English written by a native").
Then, after all, maybe I’m a genuine native speaker, although I was not born in, nor have I lived for a long time in, an English speaking country.
I hope, that if Proz.com, engages in such a procedure, those in charge of it really take decisions with a very wide open mind, because otherwise, there will be damage for people that don’t really deserve it. I insist, in some fields this is not justified, and even still, it is not desirable.
| | | | | native language will always have value in our profession IMO | Sep 7, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
The root cause for this abusively extended thread is that there is no proven correlation between a) a person being a native speaker of any language; and b) their ability to competently translate anything into that specific language or any other.
José, paper is very patient. And so am I.
But a) the fact is that a non-native speaker who is obviously not capable of speaking or writing a language correctly, being nowhere near the level of a native speaker, has certainly no business being a translator, let alone just claim he/she is a native speaker of that/my language.
And b) he/she has no business depreciating the value of the/my native language credential.
Let's get real here.
And c) guess what, I don't appreciate any "so-called" excellent translators who translate into a non-native language of theirs which happens to be my native language claiming we're in the same native language group. That's simply a lie, unethical and really not possible.
You don't become a native speaker through tertiary education or after you hit a certain age. There is no magical pill you can swallow either. Early life and a whole lot more make you a native speaker and that won't change in a zillion years.
If these wannabe natives (the ones from that group who are unverified natives in two languages in particular) were excellent translators, they would at least have a concept of what their native language is and they would never ever try to claim a language as their native language if it isn't. There wouldn't be a need for that. Non-nativeness can be a cool thing, especially if you have great command of that non-native language. It's great to be able to claim great command of a second language.
But nativeness (especially in English) seems to be an even cooler thing here. Is that why so many on this site have turned native in a click of a mouse?
There are native speakers and there are non-native speakers.
If you don't know what your native language is, I can't help you.
But I won't stop posting about the importance of verifying native languages just because some here feel the thread is extraordinarily long.
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Some people here embarked on a vanity trip for their birthplace, and completely disregarded some very important tenets we - professional translators - hold dear, such as, though not limited to, translation skills and subject specialization.
If anybody embarked on a vanity trip for their (imaginary) birthplace (and "language nativeness") and completely disregarded some very important points such as childhood and teenage years, schooling and social environment, then these folks are certainly those who we find lying about their native language in their profiles.
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Others pointed their fingers at colleagues who were not born and/or raised in the locus of their target languages, rubber-stamping them as 'liars', 'pretenders', 'dishonest', and other things.
What would you prefer to call them? Wishful thinkers?
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
The important issue is whether one specific translator is capable of delivering a translation into X-ese, good enough for any educated natural citizen and resident of X-land to firmly believe that it was originally written by another educated natural citizen and resident of X-land. Nothing else should matter.
That is not the issue of this thread. But since you raised an interesting point: if a person who grew up and was schooled and still lives in X-Land firmly believes that the translation he/she reads was carried out by another person who grew up, was schooled and might even still live in that country (that's what you mean with "educated natural citizen - right? you're not talking about "naturalized" citizens or short- or long-time residents, right?/), what does that make that translator? Most likely a native speaker. (Unless the readers are totally uneducated or not really natives).
But NO, that's not what you mean. You mean there are plenty of non-natives out there who can do that, right? If they really do, let them be verified as native speakers. They might as well claim it, I mean if they are indistinguishable.
But let me say this: a translation deemed excellent by somebody does not necessarily validate the translator as a native speaker. Translations have different contents, purposes.
But I'll welcome anyone in my club of German native speakers who is indistinguishable from me and other native peers. But let them talk to me or write to me, casually. In casual conversations, it's easy to tell.
For those who are able to claim to be natives here at Proz.com but so obviously are not - I'm not sure they would even show up to talk to me or write to real native speakers in order to get verified.
What you and others argue is that non-natives can be translators into that language and do as good a job or a better job than native speakers.
That may be but if you argue they do as good a job or a better job than native speaker "translators", you got my attention.
What we have here on Proz.com are translators, not any native speakers of various professions. It's all about the word, the language.
And as long as I am here, don't call yourself a translator AND native speaker when you're not.
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote: Bottom line is that a 'being native' claim is pointless for translation. Some translations into the perp's  original language stink... they may be lousy writers, unskilled as translators, or simply ignorant in the subject matter. Meanwhile competent outlanders can do a great job. It's purely an ethics issue... not selling more than one can actually deliver.
I disagree. You can't equate "native speaker" and "good translator" (at least not directly). Agreed. But you cannot discard the native language competency, that just doesn't make sense.
It's pointless here when it doesn't mean a thing. The reason it doesn't mean a thing is that any non-native can claim to be a native speaker here.
It's not at all pointless to me. We're talking about "translators" here who indeed do good jobs but advertise next to those who falsely claim the same native language.
Within the community of translators, there are natives and non-natives and then there are those who claim to be natives but are not.
It is far more likely that a real native speaker of X with experience in Y will do a better job than a non-native WHO CLAIMS TO BE A NATIVE in X with (most likely) CLAIMED experience in Y.
Why? Because the liar's pages are on fire every day, for everyone to read.
Ethical issue? You bet ya. Pointless for translation? Why? Because anybody can claim whatever they want and we are all assured they will do a great translation job anyway?
Are you claiming to be a native speaker of English?
I didn't think so.
Do you have a right to translate into English?
Sure. Nobody is holding you back.
Point is a "native language" credential, yes, CREDENTIAL, must have value. It can't just be grabbed by anyone. I do believe I am a better translator into German than many others who are NOT native in German, in my fields of expertise. And that's what my credential implies, NOT ALONE, but together with my other credentials.
But for many clients, it is the foremost and most important credential. Even prerequisite. And with good reason. Fact.
So, please, don't try to point out that "native language X" does not (necessarily) equate "good translation into X". That point is mute.
But do try to understand that native language X paired with education, experience, and expertise outweighs non-native language X paired with education, experience, and expertise most any day, with regard to translations into X. And I don't mean that with a smirk on my face. Don't even ask me about unverified CLAIMED native X paired with education, experience, and expertise.
It just makes sense to me.
Many will agree with me. You probably won't.
Some here have tried to discredit or discard the value of native language and its verification for a CREDENTIAL altogether. I am sorry but it's not right in my book. Never will.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-08 02:35 GMT]
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 08:07
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Distinguishing between native and non-native | Sep 7, 2012 |
traductorchile wrote:
Although I don't recognize all my mistakes, specially when returning quick messages in a forum, I am capable of distinguishing the difference between "perfect British" and "non-perfect British" or "foreign language mildewed English" and I believe most above average translators can identify "lousy English" (or should I call it "lousy English written by a native").
Exactly. Even non-native speakers can often tell when someone is a non-native speaker. So isn't it a bit silly for non-native speakers to claim that they are native speakers when it is obvious to native speakers, and even many non-native speakers, that they are not?
| | |
|
|
|
Oliver Walter
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:07
German to English
+ ...
| No - it's profitable! | Sep 7, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
Even non-native speakers can often tell when someone is a non-native speaker. So isn't it a bit silly for non-native speakers to claim that they are native speakers when it is obvious to native speakers, and even many non-native speakers, that they are not?
I would think it's not silly - it's more likely to be profitable because telling lies like that presumably enables them to get work that would otherwise be denied them.
Oliver
| | | | | O-level results | Sep 7, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
d) it can be tested (as my own splendid O-level in English Language testifies, and no doubt countless other exams the world over do likewise, and as has been indicated by more knowledgeable folk than me earlier in the thread)
I don’t know, but if we are talking about the O-level then the only thing we can be sure about is probably that it cannot be used to test for nativeness.
ETA: I know we’re not actually talking about the O-level. Sorry for the noise.
[Edited at 2012-09-07 22:55 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 23:07
Chinese to English
| Seeing as I'm in it... | Sep 8, 2012 |
traductorchile wrote:
So, then you agree that you want the term “native” as a tool for filtering out those translators that you believe are not “native enough”. The only problem is that you also leave out translators that are “good enough”.
This is true. There is no doubt that nativeness is not the only criterion to be used, nor can it be used for every translation job. In my pair, more than 90% of the work is done by Chinese-native translators. There just aren't enough English-native translators to do it. Agencies cannot in all cases demand target-native translators.
But when they do (when they have a really quality-critical text; or when it's marketing-related, for example), they should not have to fight through piles of applications from non-natives.
Also... the world doesn't owe you jobs. Sometimes, for reasons that are not directly related to your competence, you will not be able to get a job. Sometimes, to save time, a client restricts a job to English-natives even though you could have done it just as well. That does happen. It is not unfair, it's just life. And it is not a good reason to lie to clients about yourself.
Phil Hand wrote:
A Chinese (nationality, ethnicity) translator who was born, educated, lives and works in China is not a native speaker of English, not by any possible definition... That is pure prejudice, because you don’t know anything about the individual background of that translator, without even considering if he belongs to Hong Kong.
Have a little sense. I'm a Chinese translator. I live in China. I know the difference between China and HK. I don't tell you about how things are in Chile, do I? For your future reference, no-one refers to Hong Kong as "China". We all know it's a part of the PRC, but outside of highly politicised/UN rhetoric, when someone says "China", they mean mainland China.
Subject expertise - you recognise the importance of that, right?
I could ask Balasubramaniam to verify my speech and vice-versa, together with a few other friends
I would be fine with that.
Well, not "friends" - your speech should be verified by disinterested colleagues. But Balasubramaniam is a native speaker, and I would trust him to be professional about the way he works. His politics don't affect that. I doubt he'd want to get involved, given what he's said on this thread, but if he did, that would be fine. There are some dialect issues - he speaks Indian English, you've learned British English (?) so it might not end up being him, but in general any native can judge any other native - black, white, right, left, even postcolonialist.
Jose - who are you arguing with?
Jose wrote:
Now, if my government determines that I must translate into my non-native EN, and if the governments of EN-speaking countries like the USA, UK, Australia, and others (where there is no national law on this matter) readily accept my sworn translations into EN for their official purposes, what good does any truly native EN speaker do in negating my ability to translate into English?
1) If you're an incompetent translator into English, then any native or non-native speaker of any language would be doing you a favour by telling you so.
2) If you're a competent translator into English, no-one on this thread would tell you that you're not.
Who are you arguing with?
The reason why this thread became so intense has been concealed so far. It's not about native language claims, as stated, instead it deals with the ethics behind those claims.
The reason the thread has been so intense is that what we are suggesting would hurt some people's bottom line, and some (not necessarily the same) people have persistently misread what we're hoping to achieve.
I see some people, who studied EN to a lesser extent than I studied IT/FR, bravely translating into EN. This is when the true natives get their feathers ruffled, because they would have done it much better. They blame it on the translator being a non-native speaker, while the root cause is the translator having been merely unethical, by overrating their competence.
Yes! Yes! Yes! Molly Bloom and Sally/Meg Ryan yes!
This is absolutely right. Failing to correctly report your native language is an example of unethical behaviour by people who overrate their competence. It is one of a broader class of problems. You rightly identify subject competence as another area of concern: a non-medical specialist who tries to take on a difficult medical text and makes a hash of it is guilty of a similar thing.
That's why we have mechanisms to solve these problems. There are certifications for medical translators (certainly for medical interpreters); legal translators have their own degree programs.
The mechanism for solving the native thing isn't a degree or a certification. It's accurate self-reporting of language competence, specifically which language(s) is your native language.
This thread was started because there is quite a lot of inaccurate self-reporting.
Bottom line is that a 'being native' claim is pointless for translation.
Oh, for goodness sake, Jose. You're an intelligent man, please don't come up with this silly binary tripe.
Being a native speaker of English is not sufficient to make you a competent translator into English. Nor is it irrelevant to being a translator into English. Neither one of these extreme positions is correct or even interesting.
The reality is in the middle: being a native speaker is relevant to translation. Not the only relevant factor, not a unique sufficient condition, but one relevant factor.
It's purely an ethics issue... not selling more than one can actually deliver.
You can put it that way, but you've got to think of the clients. Before they work with a (new) translator, they face a quality risk. They cannot know the quality before the work is done, so they assess their risk using a number of relevant factors.
Does having a translation degree mean you're going to deliver great quality? No, but it's a relevant consideration.
Does having an industry background mean you're going to deliver great quality? No, but it's a relevant consideration.
Does being a native speaker of the target mean you're going to deliver great quality? No, but it's a relevant consideration.
It's not just about our abilities. It's about our ability to demonstrate our abilities as well.
For translation purposes, the valuable question would be:
"Is your delivery in language X equivalent to a native's?"
I happen to know some people born in X-land, native speakers of X-ese, whose command of it would not be acceptable for translation purposes.
So your criterion is whether you can translate better than an incompetent? Way to raise standards, bro.
You're also slightly missing the point about what being a native involves. With a non-native, they may well be able to write a good recipe; they may be able to write a technical specification; they may be able to write legalese. You've got to check off each of these genres one by one - you can't assume anything. If a person is a native speaker, you get the whole package. Unless they tell you that they are incompetent to write in a genre (e.g. I don't do medical), you assume competence. It means that working with a native saves a lot of checking.
[updated because I'd misread something]
[Edited at 2012-09-08 02:53 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 23:07
Chinese to English
At this point in the argument I'm not actually pro-verification, for simple logistical reasons (there are too many members to verify).
My ideal solution right now would be twofold:
1) Proz acting on private challenges
2) A background questionnaire that you fill in to determine your native language, rather than just a declaration
This is a "nudge" method, not verification. The aim is to increase voluntary compliance, not to enforce it.
... See more At this point in the argument I'm not actually pro-verification, for simple logistical reasons (there are too many members to verify).
My ideal solution right now would be twofold:
1) Proz acting on private challenges
2) A background questionnaire that you fill in to determine your native language, rather than just a declaration
This is a "nudge" method, not verification. The aim is to increase voluntary compliance, not to enforce it.
Suggestion for the questionnaire
In your early childhood, what language(s) did you speak at home?
Where did you live? [based on a world linguistic atlas, it pops up a list of languages spoken in that location]
Which of these language(s) was spoken in your community?
What school did you go to? [Unless the school name has the word "international" or the name of a language/another country in, t pops up a list of the official languages of the country/region]
Which of these language(s) was the language of education at school?
[If it's an international school, allow any language; if the name of a language is in the school ("The London German School") then add that language to the list]
Did you move to a place with other languages while you were a child?
[if yes, repeat questions above for new location]
[At the end of this process, the questionnaire presents you with a list of options - all the languages you've entered.]
Based on your answers, we think that one or more of these might be your native language. Please select any language that is your native language. If your native language is not on this list, please send us an email explaining your situation, and we'll set your native language for you.
You would only get one chance to fill in the questionnaire. Any subsequent alterations would have to be made via support request. People who don't fit the questionnaire's categories be ascribed native languages by support request.
Support would not be about verifying. If you write in and say, I speak X because I spent a lot of time in Y, they accept it. But they have to read the email, and they'll notice obvious idiocy. "I speak English good, I watch a lot American movie" would not get past.
For your consideration!
[Edited at 2012-09-08 02:16 GMT]
Bit more detail now I think of it:
After a suitable phase-in time, anyone who does not complete the questionnaire would be given no native languages. It would be perfectly possible to have a profile with no native language recorded. No need for different colours of N.
[Edited at 2012-09-08 05:00 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| name of school | Sep 8, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
What school did you go to? [Unless the school name has the word "international" or the name of a language/another country in, t pops up a list of the official languages of the country/region]
Which of these language(s) was the language of education at school?
[If it's an international school, allow any language; if the name of a language is in the school ("The London German School") then add that language to the list]
I’m a bit ambivalent about some of the questions (not opposed to them, just a bit ambivalent), but depending on how “region” is defined these two might not work in Canada. Many of our French immersion schools don’t have the word “French” in their names.
Or maybe French will be allowed anywhere in Canada, in which case the above concern would be spurious. But I wonder if similar situations will apply elsewhere.
[Edited at 2012-09-08 06:45 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 23:07
Chinese to English
| That's the kind of detail that would have to be worked out for this | Sep 8, 2012 |
Yeah, that kind of thing is an issue - setting up this questionnaire would take a bit of research and care.
I think this example would be covered, because French and English are both official languages of Canada, so French and English would both pop up on the list whatever the name of the school is. I wasn't imagining going below the national level into the differences between the various provinces.
A period of beta-testing might well be required to work out kinks of th... See more Yeah, that kind of thing is an issue - setting up this questionnaire would take a bit of research and care.
I think this example would be covered, because French and English are both official languages of Canada, so French and English would both pop up on the list whatever the name of the school is. I wasn't imagining going below the national level into the differences between the various provinces.
A period of beta-testing might well be required to work out kinks of this kind. ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:07
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Phil Hand wrote:
What school did you go to? [Unless the school name has the word "international" or the name of a language/another country in, t pops up a list of the official languages of the country/region]
I don't imagine there are many schools of the "International/expat" variety that don't have a website. Although my school in Rio was helpfully called "The British School", the one in São Paulo was just "St Paul's School". However, the briefest visit (i.e. a small amount of extra admin for these exceptions) to its website would give you all the answers you'd need: http://www.stpauls.br
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 23:07
Chinese to English
| This might need some finessing | Sep 8, 2012 |
Yeah, I'm just trying to reduce the human element to a minimum, to automate as much as possible. But with international schools it may not be possible.
So, an alternative: for the question "what was the language of instruction at your school", you would be offered all languages; if you select a language which is not an official language of the place where you lived, it sends a query to a real person in Proz. They then do a quick search to see if that makes sense - e.g. they find th... See more Yeah, I'm just trying to reduce the human element to a minimum, to automate as much as possible. But with international schools it may not be possible.
So, an alternative: for the question "what was the language of instruction at your school", you would be offered all languages; if you select a language which is not an official language of the place where you lived, it sends a query to a real person in Proz. They then do a quick search to see if that makes sense - e.g. they find the school website and it tells them the language of instruction. If they don't get a satisfactory answer, then send an email to the member to ask for an explanation.
In the bad old days, people used to pack children off to boarding schools in other countries sometimes, and this real person procedure would cover that possibility, too. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 16:07
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| Would be a bit lopsided, wouldn't it? | Sep 8, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Suggestion for the questionnaire
In your early childhood, what language(s) did you speak at home?
Where did you live? [based on a world linguistic atlas, it pops up a list of languages spoken in that location]
Which of these language(s) was spoken in your community?
What school did you go to? [Unless the school name has the word "international" or the name of a language/another country in, t pops up a list of the official languages of the country/region]
Which of these language(s) was the language of education at school?
[If it's an international school, allow any language; if the name of a language is in the school ("The London German School") then add that language to the list]
Did you move to a place with other languages while you were a child?
[if yes, repeat questions above for new location]
I welcome any suggestion and I definitely want something done, so I'm not knocking this idea. However, at the moment, ProZ don't ask users for any information other than their name (although they don't have to display it). I don't think they even to fill in their country of residence so it seems a bit lopsided to ask them to fill in this questionnaire. There's a lot of personal stuff there.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:07
Hebrew to English
| Haters gonna hate, liars gonna lie | Sep 8, 2012 |
I also don't want to knock any idea put forward as I believe any measure implemented would have to be better than the status quo, but would what stop liars lying on a questionnaire with some well researched lies?
It might force liars to be more creative, but lie they still will.
Personally, however it's implemented, I'm in favour of external identification by a panel of native speakers, which seems to be ProZ's intended path as highlighted by Michele:
... See more I also don't want to knock any idea put forward as I believe any measure implemented would have to be better than the status quo, but would what stop liars lying on a questionnaire with some well researched lies?
It might force liars to be more creative, but lie they still will.
Personally, however it's implemented, I'm in favour of external identification by a panel of native speakers, which seems to be ProZ's intended path as highlighted by Michele:
"In the case of those declaring multiple native languages, the speech will be deemed native if several other ProZ.com Native Speakers find it to be native (according to their own definitions.)"
I also think external identification is the most effective method available and whilst some "false positives" would slip through, they:
a) probably deserve to if they are that "passable"
b) would be far fewer in number than alternative methods.
I also find it quite bizarre that some of the contributors to this thread who are most vocal in speaking against external identification are those who have already opened themselves up to it once when they joined the Certified Pro Program. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 23:07
Chinese to English
| Yes, but it's not obligatory | Sep 8, 2012 |
Sheila Wilson wrote:
...it seems a bit lopsided to ask them to fill in this questionnaire. There's a lot of personal stuff there.
That's a reasonable point.
In my version, you wouldn't have to have a native language. Filling in the native questionnaire would be encouraged but not obligatory. You could put in your working languages without indicating a native language. There would probably have to be a warning onscreen that failure to indicate native language will severely limit your ability to bid for jobs.
| | | | | 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 » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
