| 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)
|
|---|
Kay Barbara
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:18
Member (2008)
English to German
+ ...
| Off-topic but relevant ... | Sep 10, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: traductorchile wrote: Denise Phelps wrote:
CPE is a measure of acceptable performance in a non-native language. Thanks, I will put your answer in a frame: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxx xxx CPE is a measure of acceptable performance in a non-native language.xxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx That is, performance in German, Spanish, Finnish or any other non-native language. Sorry, I realise this is off-topic but can someone please clarify what the CPE is? I thought those Cambridge exams were for people learning English as a foreign language (?). Monolingual exams. If that's the case, why is "traductorchile" mentioning any other language and why does he have the CPE in English to Spanish (verified) and Spanish to English (not verified). Is the CPE also some form of translation qualification???
The CPE is exactly what you say it is: an exam for people learning English as a foreign language. That this is listed as a verified credential is (I assume) because the user chose this credential (i.e. "Cambridge CPE exam) for the two language pairs and asked for verification (which I think may involve providing a certificate or other proof to Proz staff.
By the way, the credential dropdown list also includes e.g. "United Kingdom: Camb ESOL" which you can choose for language pairs. So seemingly a certificate for monolingual language proficiency is readily accepted (by Proz) as a translation credential ... surely this has been raised somewhere before?
| | | | | | XXXphxxx (X) 
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:18
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Thanks for the clarification Kay | Sep 10, 2012 |
Kay Barbara wrote:
By the way, the credential dropdown list also includes e.g. "United Kingdom: Camb ESOL" which you can choose for language pairs. So seemingly a certificate for monolingual language proficiency is readily accepted (by Proz) as a translation credential
More proof, if any was needed, that the system is rotten to the core. Information (even verified information) on profiles is worthless.
| | | | | Track record | Sep 10, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
What matters to me is that people can't lie in their profiles and state a native language when it's CLEARLY not. Never mind their output.
B Surely the output IS the indicator that someone is "clearly" not native? It being, as I keep saying, the dead giveaway that inspired the thread in the first place, and all that... Yes, if you mean "speech and writing" in general.
Ever since I first started talking about "quality of written output" back in July, I've always been very clear it has nothing to with translation, merely the qualities intrinsic to that person's output. Sometimes that output will be a target text; sometimes not (e.g. CVs, kudoz answers, forum & blog posts).
| | |
|
|
|
| Bit confused.... | Sep 10, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
@ Michele - why measure quality to assess nativeness to predict quality?
Charlie put forward the same argument a while back. My response is: Proz is not set up to measure quality (quality of translation/quality of language). Measuring quality directly is really hard (witness the fuss about exam results every year in the UK). You need a big, dedicated team to make sure it's fair. This isn't Proz's business, and it's never going to be.
The tests that some are advocating (I'm now not supporting verification just because the number of members is too big to make it universal) could be quality based, or could be native intuition based, but either way, they're not supposed to be strict quality measures. They're a rough empirical check on a claim of nativeness, just a glance at a person's language, to say, is this claim plausible? And they yield only a yes/no answer.
Your second paragraph seems to contradict the first. You first say you don't want the approach I've been championing since July, then go on to suggest a couple of methods by which it could work.
(You'll note all I've tried to do up to now is push forward the logic of the argument as Michele summed up succintly a day or 2 ago. I've tried to avoid leaping to the solution stage yet. I would add that, as far as I am concerned, this approach not intended as universal testing, merely the approach to deal with suspect or indeed egregious cases. FWIW, I'm not in favour of any universal verification.)
I admire your tenacity regarding the ground rule or principle that Proz is not set up to measure quality (despite the implications of "P" rosette). It's good to have boundaries, they can help set the scope. Thing is, this rejection of quality by Proz is precisely why the website now has the reputation we're all trying to salvage (well, those of us who have used the feeling of being tainted by association as their reason for endorsing the idea behind this thread, at least). A reputation is a quality judgement.
| | | | Kay Barbara
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:18
Member (2008)
English to German
+ ...
| Native language verification? | Sep 10, 2012 |
I have been following this thread for quite a while now and I was always on the fence as to which side of the argument I should take. Now I have made up my mind and will share my thoughts with you.
In the earlier stages (i.e. around pages 80-100) I thought that verification would probably be okay and that I wouldn't mind. I always thought that it's not a big deal for me as I work into DE only and that the English natives probably had a point when talking about false claims of nativ... See more I have been following this thread for quite a while now and I was always on the fence as to which side of the argument I should take. Now I have made up my mind and will share my thoughts with you.
In the earlier stages (i.e. around pages 80-100) I thought that verification would probably be okay and that I wouldn't mind. I always thought that it's not a big deal for me as I work into DE only and that the English natives probably had a point when talking about false claims of nativeness. But apart from the practical problems of implementing a thorough verification process, I think this thread suffers from this pro-verificationists who give (me) the impression that it's more about making themselves feel good - it seems to be increasingly about vanity, not about professionalism.
I think the right way would be to focus more on translation output and the end-product instead - native language is such a marginal indicator when it comes to translation output (and I make this point because, after all, Proz is a translation platform, not a native speaker platform).
And to all those making this verification sound like it would protect clients: a) it wouldn't help a lot because, as Samuel said, the biggest problem for clients is shoddy translation quality, not whether the (amateur) translator was native or not: b) it can be expected from clients to show due diligence (as Siegfried seems to do) when choosing a translator. You usually find much more information about them than just their native language (and if you don't, that's not very reassuring); and c) I have edited some horrendously shoddy game translations by translators who were definitely German native speakers - I so personally can't see what difference verification makes when they are just unprofessional (i.e. translate in fields they know hardly anything about)?
For the above reasons alone I feel that I cannot support the verification as discussed so far in this thread. Certification by peer-review is open to abuse, plus you would need to assemble teams of at least two or three who share the same definition of "native speaker" (are there two people in this thread who agree on the same definition yet?) - so far the explanations of what makes a native speaker are a bit too fuzzy to be consistently applied, it seems to be a case of "I know it when I see it". Assessing written output would be pointless, you will never know who wrote it. With Skype/phone conversation you also wouldn't know who you are talking to. Moreover, with the sheer number people having to be certified, how long would that take (or how many peer reviewers would you need)?
All in all, an interesting thread but it does not really make a strong point for the relevance of verification. So I'm out ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:18
Hebrew to English
| Agree..........strongly. | Sep 10, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
What matters to me is that people can't lie in their profiles and state a native language when it's CLEARLY not. Never mind their output.
B Surely the output IS the indicator that someone is "clearly" not native? It being, as I keep saying, the dead giveaway that inspired the thread in the first place, and all that... Yes, if you mean "speech and writing" in general. Ever since I first started talking about "quality of written output" back in July, I've always been very clear it has nothing to with translation, merely the qualities intrinsic to that person's output. Sometimes that output will be a target text; sometimes not (e.g. CVs, kudoz answers, forum & blog posts).
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:18
Hebrew to English
Kay Barbara wrote:
Certification by peer-review is open to abuse
That's interesting from a fellow P holder. I don't think the P system is particuarly corrupt or being abused, and this is a system built on peer-review.
plus you would need to assemble teams of at least two or three who share the same definition of "native speaker"
I don't think you would. As it currently stands in their own rules, a native speaker would be declared native if a panel of native speakers found the speech native "according to their own definitions". I don't think they need to share the exact same definition, although I believe they'd reach the same conclusion the vast majority of times. In fact, I think it makes for a more fair system if the panel do have their own definitions and don't rigidly stick to one single definition. That way if someone is deemed non-native then this is by any number of definitions, not just a single one.
Moreover, with the sheer number people having to be certified, how long would that take (or how many peer reviewers would you need)?
I don't think a mass rollout is practical either....but then as Sheila pointed out nobody is going to bother verifying the 1000s of inactive or barely active profiles and even with the active profiles, I and others made it clear the focus should be on the most egregious cases.
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 14:18
Chinese to English
Kay Barbara wrote:
I so personally can't see what difference verification makes when they are just unprofessional
Well, one rather obvious difference is that they would be *caught* being unprofessional at an earlier stage.
By being eliminated from client searches, a proportion of unprofessional translators (not all, just some) would be removed from the potential pool for some jobs - those jobs where the client decided native language was relevant.
| | | | | A change of tack | Sep 10, 2012 |
In view of the intractibility of the situation, I suggest that FROM NOW ON Proz should make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that "native language" claims here are NOT VERIFIED. Thus, outsourcers would be fully aware that it is up to them to check the veracity or otherwise of "native language" claims if that factor is important to them in their selection of a translator.
I suggest this not because I think it doesn't matter if translators lie (or delude themselves) about their native language but becaus... See more In view of the intractibility of the situation, I suggest that FROM NOW ON Proz should make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that "native language" claims here are NOT VERIFIED. Thus, outsourcers would be fully aware that it is up to them to check the veracity or otherwise of "native language" claims if that factor is important to them in their selection of a translator.
I suggest this not because I think it doesn't matter if translators lie (or delude themselves) about their native language but because, after this long and heated debate, it is clear that consensus is not going to be reached about (1) what "native language" means and (2) how it can be verified.
As matters now stand, the impression given is that Proz verifies "native language" claims, whereas, in practice, it doesn't.
I say this too because, perhaps understandably in view of the much-discussed difficulties of verifying these claims, Proz has exhibited no eagerness to enforce its verification rule and has given no sign as to how or when it might start doing so.
There is no point in having rules that are not enforced if it is clear that they cannot be enforced and if they are seen not be be enforced. That merely brings rules in general into disrepute and contempt.
Would making it clear that "native language" claims are NOT verified resolve the problem to some extent?
A ray of hope?
Jenny ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Not so fast, old girl :-) | Sep 10, 2012 |
Jenny Forbes wrote:
I suggest this ... because, after this long and heated debate, it is clear that consensus is not going to be reached about (1) what "native language" means and (2) how it can be verified.
A ray of hope?
I see the ray of hope in the gradual realisation that worrying about "native language" per se, as a (usually) objective attribute possessed by any individual, may not, in fact, be the aspect that needs to be addressed ...
(That said, of course, the "aspect that needs to be addressed" probably depends on your perception of what the underlying problem is that you would like to see fixed.)
| | | | | Bravo, Charlie! | Sep 10, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: I see the ray of hope in the gradual realisation that worrying about "native language" per se, as a (usually) objective attribute possessed by any individual, may not, in fact, be the aspect that needs to be addressed ...
Maybe some people will miss the impact of this statement, so I'll try to spell it out simply, with an example.
Let's envision a translator named "Maria da Silva" (the local equivalent to "Jane Doe"), born and raised in Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil, therefore a truly native speaker of Brazilian Portuguese. She never went outside the Sao Paulo state in her life. She studied at Cultura Inglesa (the local ESL school sponsored by the British Council) and, after seven years of study there, passed the exam and secured a CPE certificate.
The above information by no means helps to predict the quality one should expect from her translations from UK English into her truly native BR Portuguese; they may be post-facto ranked anywhere within the gamut spanning from horrible to superb. Anyone wanting to predict her translation quality from her Proz profile should look elsewhere.
This entire thread is a mountain made out of a molehill.
| | |
|
|
|
Jenny Forbes wrote:
In view of the intractibility of the situation, I suggest that FROM NOW ON Proz should make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that "native language" claims here are NOT VERIFIED. Thus, outsourcers would be fully aware that it is up to them to check the veracity or otherwise of "native language" claims if that factor is important to them in their selection of a translator.
...
Would making it clear that "native language" claims are NOT verified resolve the problem to some extent?
A ray of hope?
Jenny
Yes. Great suggestion imo. Since it's clear that Proz probably will not and/or cannot reliably 'verify' native speaker claims and since the road to making false claims is as wide open as ever, the best solution may well be for Proz to publish a (very) visible disclaimer as they do for other things on the site. I really think that could solve it for once and for all.
[Edited at 2012-09-10 11:02 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 08:18
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Lisa and @Kay - suggest solutions, don't just point fingers | Sep 10, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: Kay Barbara wrote:
By the way, the credential dropdown list also includes e.g. "United Kingdom: Camb ESOL" which you can choose for language pairs. So seemingly a certificate for monolingual language proficiency is readily accepted (by Proz) as a translation credential More proof, if any was needed, that the system is rotten to the core. Information (even verified information) on profiles is worthless.
Some credentials are worth more than others, and obviously some are worth less than others, and a monolingual second-language credential is certainly worth less than a bilingual credential, but it is a verifiable credential nonetheless. The main value of a verifiable credential is that it shows that the translator was honest with his declaration. A secondary value exists where the client is aware of the specific credential and wants a translator who specifically has it.
I do agree that the feature is imperfect. If you declare a credential and if it is verified that you do have that credential, then your credential status changes from "declared" to "verified", and unfortunately that creates the impression to some clients that you are a good translator (i.e. that you are a "verified" translator), which is not true at all. Having a credential verified should carry no more value than having your identify verified.
An overhaul of the credential system may be a topic for a separate discussion, but since it is raised here, let me try to suggest a quick fix:
First change the wording in the search page from "N/A; Reported; Verified" to "N/A; Reported". Then, change the results so that if a translator declares any verifiable credential and fails to get his credential verified (by staff), he is treated in the search results as having declared no credential (even if he declared other credentials also, both verifiable and non-verifiable). Third, don't change the wording on the translators' profile pages -- the change suggested here only impacts the search function and not the profile page. This means that clients can filter out translators who made verifiable claims that are as yet unverified, but can still check the translators' profile pages to see which credentails were claimed and/or verified.
This is just a stick in the bush -- since you complained about this issue, what would you suggest as a workable solution for it?
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:18
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
I think you misunderstand me. I'm certainly not saying that some credentials are worth more than others, nor am I quibbling with unverified credentials. What I am saying is that there are a large number of profiles with credentials that don't even exist and in this instance it has even been verified.
| | | | | 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? | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | 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 
