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)
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 21:51
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
@Phil Sep 11, 2012

Phil Hand wrote:
1) People hate tests. Never having to take exams again is one of the great joys of being a grown up. I think people will revolt - it doesn't matter how easy/hard the test is, just the very notion of a test gets people's teeth on edge.


I don't think this is a universal feeling.

People hate filling in forms, too, but they are required to do so if they want to keep their profile pages up to date (even if they do so only once a year), and I suspect very few translators leave ProZ.com in a huff because of the requirement to maintain the profile page.

Also, people see easy tests as a friendly challenge, and besides, the proposed test is of the type that confirms one's self-worth, and such tests are generally popular.

2) You would knock a lot of people (or a lot of their combinations) out of the database. The transition would be rough for Proz, and I don't think the site owners would want it.


Knocking people out of the database is the objective, so it can't be an objection.

Remember, you only need tests for languages that have many, many translators in it. You can even make exceptions for translators who offer rare language combinations (even if the target language is a common language). The idea is simply to help scoop out the dirtiest of the bathwater without throwing the baby out.


 
Siegfried Armbruster
Siegfried Armbruster  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 21:51
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam
Clean up Sep 11, 2012

Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:

A couple of you have mentioned exempting the red Ps from these tests, some of whom (IMHO) would appear to be the worst offenders and have perhaps sought the badge as a way of affording them greater protection from being challenged. Please don’t look at the P scheme to see how things ought to be done.


Why not cleaning up the red P fraction before discussing a yellow P solution for the rest of the users.

The red P fraction is the self proclaimed elite at Proz, with peer review etc. Why do you not concentrate on "cleaning your own house" before you start discussing how to implement a super duper native yellow P class. At the moment Proz looks more like the Indian caste system.

Cleaning up the red P fraction would not only allow to test the validation procedures for nativeness, it might also add some beef to this elite circle and it might attract more translators to apply for membership in this caste. And clients might also honor the added value of such a step.



[Edited at 2012-09-11 09:02 GMT]


 
Balasubramaniam L.
Balasubramaniam L.  Identity Verified
India
Local time: 02:21
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
Because individuals can't have expertise in everything Sep 11, 2012

Ty Kendall wrote:

Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Also, while all types of translation cannot be tackled by the cobbler-translator, all types of translation can be tackled by the Ford method ...


Says who?



Individuals can't have expertise in every field. For example, you can be an expert in software localization, but you might not be an expert in menu translation (just to take an example). So you as a native translator will be able to do always software localization, but you will have to refuse menu translation because you are not an expert in that. The outsourcer who has both software and menu to handle, can depend on you only for software localization but not menus. For menus he will have to go to another translator who specializes in menus.

But in the assembly line process, since skills or requirements are not pinned to any individual, you can replace just that individual component with another individual with the required skill and retain the main chain of processors (the subject reviewer, copy-editor, proofreader, etc) more or less intact. That is, you can get quality output for a wide variety of skill and speciality requirement, which no individual translator can guarantee on his own.

As translation specifications become more and more complex, this assembly line process would become more and more prevalent in our industry, though, as Samuel has pointed out, it is currently only in vogue with the larger, price-sensitive, less quality conscious, volume-oriented, multi-national translation agencies.

As the assembly line process becomes more and more prevalent (as it can be expected to become, given its specific advantages over the individual artisan translator), individual skills, including native language competency will tend to get less and less important.

[2012-09-11 09:01 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]


 
Charlie Bavington
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 20:51
French to English
Most important first Sep 11, 2012

Samuel Murray wrote:

Charlie Bavington wrote:
...but in essence, agreement to enforce the "no misrepresntation" rule has to come from the top first, since confirming others' representations is what it all boils down to, does it not?


How is what you're proposing different from rule #1 in the ProZ.com user agreement? See here, it says clearly (and it says it as the very first rule) "You may not misrepresent yourself or your firm."

Or do you mean that ProZ.com should be more vocal about it?



You must have missed it, but rule 6 has been discussed
http://www.proz.com/siterules/general/6#6
along with some brow-furrowing as to why the site is so enthusiastic about enforcing all of its rules except this one.

The point recurs from time to time, because a) if this rule had been enforced from the outset, this entire thread would be unnecessary, and b) if the rule were enforced now, it would provide at least some kind of solution.

(Here is a post that mentions it: http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/227485-should_“native_language”_claims_be_verified-page88.html#1992334 )

The main issue seems to be no mechanism for reporting it, apart from submiting support requests, which I think Lisa & Phil both may have tried as a test, with no joy (unless I missed the joy while I was away!). The suspicion is the site has no interest in enforcing it, because of its general live-and-let-live approach (see also: kudoz limits/abuse).


 
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 21:51
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
@Lisa I Sep 11, 2012

Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
My definite impression over the last couple of months of this debate is that the proportion of Certified Pros misrepresenting themselves as regards their native language is no lower than amongst the rest of registered users.


Do you remember the experiment near the start of this thread where people who actually challenge a few serious offenders to see if ProZ.com takes the challenges seriously? Well, I think challenging a fellow red pee member is a duty. Don't the red pee clubs have tribunals where such challenges are heard and voted on? Or is the principle that you're a red pee-er for life, and your credentials will go unchallenged, if only you manage to get in? Surely not -- let red pee members set an example for the rest of us, and challenge publically (in their private forums).


 
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 21:51
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
@Lisa II -- the poll and the petition Sep 11, 2012

Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Anyone interested in running a poll, as a potential prelude to a petition? Any consensus on the wording?


Instead of just asking for any wording for a poll or a petition, I think it would be safer for you to tell us which particular aspect of this debate you are referring to. Am I right that what you're talking about here can be summarised by these three posts below?

Phil's initial simple petition wording
We move that Proz take some action to enforce rule [whatever it is], with particular reference to native languages declared in user profiles.

Phil's expanded petition wording
Proz is the biggest and best translation website on the internet. We believe that it is well run and that its rules help to create a fair and effective marketplace and forum for translators and our clients. In particular, we appreciate the importance of site rule 6: Misrepresentation and fraud are forbidden. However, it has become apparent that certain members are misrepresenting themselves by claiming to be native speakers of languages in which they are not even competent, let alone native. We believe that allowing this state of affairs to continue brings the website into disrepute, and we request that Proz takes measures to curb the problem, not just for an elite subset of members, but for all members.

Lisa's reiteration of what she believes the issue is
The mod appears to have misunderstood our intention and thinks we're seeking better ways of reporting abuse. This is not what I think the majority of us are after ... Rather our wish is simply that they implement ... the Native Speaker Credential, which were there when we all joined the site (in certain cases as far back as 10+ years ago) and finally set up the long-awaited verification strategy.

So let me see if I can just get this right:

What we want is that the Native Speaker Credential is implemented as originally envisaged, warts and all. We acknowledge the potential pitfalls of the process of verification in the original credential design (i.e. one-time verification by a number of fellow native speakers who apply their own definition of "native language"), but it is better than nothing.

In addition, verification should be voluntary, but non-verified translators should be somehow excluded in searches or filters for native speakers (either as a rule, or by adding an option to the search/filter for "verified" natives, which would give clients and fellow-translators the option to filter out non-verified natives).

In addition, verified natives should be allowed to challenge any other verified native's nativeness (with due respect for privacy), and in the case of a successful challenge, sanctions should apply to the verifiers who originally confirmed that person's nativeness (e.g. they themselves should get reverified).

Finally, a reasonable timeframe should be given for all of this to be implemented (e.g. 6 months to design the verification system, 1 year to live-trial it, and then 2 years before non-verified natives start getting excluded from searches).


Does that sum up the demands?

As for the poll, I think the biggest issue is whether folks would actually support the Native Speaker Credential as we envisage it. Here is a suggested question:

How would you feel about native language verification in ProZ.com that would give prominence to verified native speakers in search results, job posts and KudoZ notifications?

* Support, for whatever reason
* Oppose, because native language can't be reliably verified
* Oppose, because we all have different ideas about what native language is
* Oppose, because native language is not relevant to quality
* Oppose, because of the risk of abuses in such a system
* Oppose, because too many translators would get excluded
* Oppose, because my membership fee gives me the right to be included
* Oppose, for some other reason


What would be really great would be if we could get a poll that actually refers to the above bolded text (or your rewrite of it), so that we can ask people simply whether they would support it or vehemently oppose it (without running the risk of too many comments, which would simply derail the process again due to loss of focus).

Samuel

==
Edited to remove some stuff that some might regard as sarky.


[Edited at 2012-09-11 09:42 GMT]


 
Ty Kendall
Ty Kendall  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 20:51
Hebrew to English
Yet..... Sep 11, 2012

Bala wrote...
Individuals can't have expertise in every field...


....my point about the prohibitive costs of such a comprehensive inclusion of half a dozen individuals remains.....


[Edited at 2012-09-11 10:43 GMT]


 
XXXphxxx (X)
XXXphxxx (X)  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 20:51
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Done Sep 11, 2012

Samuel Murray wrote:

Do you remember the experiment near the start of this thread where people who actually challenge a few serious offenders to see if ProZ.com takes the challenges seriously? Well, I think challenging a fellow red pee member is a duty.

On 4 July. This was the test case that Charlie referred to. The reply was: "Thanks for submitting this report. I will investigate and take appropriate action if required." Nothing has been done.


Don't the red pee clubs have tribunals where such challenges are heard and voted on?


No.


Or is the principle that you're a red pee-er for life, and your credentials will go unchallenged, if only you manage to get in?


I understand a KudoZ abuser had his/her P withdrawn. I know of no other cases.


Surely not -- let red pee members set an example for the rest of us, and challenge publically (in their private forums).

The same rules apply as on the rest of the site and we're all well aware of those, i.e. direct challenges are not allowed.


 
José Henrique Lamensdorf
José Henrique Lamensdorf  Identity Verified
Brazil
Local time: 17:51
English to Portuguese
+ ...
In memoriam
Machiavellian or Salomonic? Sep 11, 2012

Assuming that the native speaker claim constraints could be implemented as strictly as proposed by its most radical advocates, what if...

... outsourcers were required to have a minimum WWA = 4.8 composite in order to be enabled to completely screen out non-native-speaker applicants on their job posts?


 
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 21:51
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
@Lisa, re the red pees Sep 11, 2012

Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
My definite impression over the last couple of months of this debate is that the proportion of Certified Pros misrepresenting themselves as regards their native language is no lower than amongst the rest of registered users.


My dear Lisa, let's not cast suspicions on everything. If the red pee system can be abused, what guarantee is there that the PNS wouldn't be abused in the same or very similar ways? Merely having the attitude "this time we'll do it right" won't make the PNS any less susceptible to abuse than the red pee.

The fact that you notice native language reporting abuse among the red pee members might simply mean that your definition of native language (or how natives should behave) is different from the general consensus in the red pee club. And if this is so, then that is of great concern for the native language verification campaign, because it means that what you (we?) really want is not what we'll actually get, even if the PNS is implemented with all bells and whistles.


 
XXXphxxx (X)
XXXphxxx (X)  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 20:51
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
There IS no difference Sep 11, 2012

Samuel, first of all I am casting aspersions based on what I have seen, these are not “suspicions”.

We’ve already established that to get the red badge you simply have to prove that you are “adequate”, submit a few samples (which anybody can copy from anywhere) and one or two references (can’t quite remember). Oh, you also can’t have too many black marks against your name (i.e. admonishments for rudeness on forums etc.). In all other respects it is the same, your prof
... See more
Samuel, first of all I am casting aspersions based on what I have seen, these are not “suspicions”.

We’ve already established that to get the red badge you simply have to prove that you are “adequate”, submit a few samples (which anybody can copy from anywhere) and one or two references (can’t quite remember). Oh, you also can’t have too many black marks against your name (i.e. admonishments for rudeness on forums etc.). In all other respects it is the same, your profile doesn’t change, the native languages you declare don’t change and you are still perfectly able to change this in a few clicks of your mouse.

I do agree with you that their inability to create a genuine “Certified Pro” team does not bode at all well for any quality control anywhere on the site, which takes us back to Jenny’s solution as being the best we can hope for.
Collapse


 
Charlie Bavington
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 20:51
French to English
Sigh Sep 11, 2012

Samuel Murray wrote:

Charlie Bavington wrote:
Samuel Murray wrote:
Allow all translators to create profiles and use the site features, but disallow translators from bidding or being found in the search results if they haven't passed a basic language skill test.

People who have already paid membership of the site ... are probably gonna take a pretty dim view of either having part of that service withdrawn or having to jump through extra hoops to get that service, all because other people are misrepresenting themselves.


So your objection basically means that the test should only apply to new people as well as people whose membership runs out. Not really a big objection.


Possibly not, but then your transition period becomes massive. Which is a consistent problem with universal or near-universal testing schemes. Some of them are good ideas if we were starting a website from scratch (and expected to attract liars and charlatans!). It seems to me that under the circumstances, such schemes would, perhaps, go some way to achieving the desired result (which is just accurate & honest profiles, AFAIAC) within perhaps 2 years from now. I'd rather do less, more quickly - start chipping away at it now.

And, of course, your amended suggestion doesn't address the population of non-paying members who, arguably less visibly perhaps being at the bottom of searches & sometimes excluded from bidding, also sully the site's overall reputation with misrepresentation.


But even so, I don't share your view that people would "probably" object to this test.

Yes, that's "probably" in the sense that some would and some would not but I'm not sure of the proportions, not in the sense that perhaps they all would and perhaps they all wouldn't but I'm not sure which.
Human nature being what it is, and despite your "here's why" arguments (all reasonable, especially the one about reputation, and excluding the red P exemption idea), you would be guaranteed to lose members by instigating a compulsory test, and some of those members would be members who have done nothing wrong and proz wouldn't want to lose (nor would I).



...you're still likely to be administrating thousands or tests.


What part of "automated" don't you understand?


The gloves are off, eh?

What part of "automated" didn't I read, more like. I must have missed it from shaking my head at another expensive, time-consuming, inappropriate and fundamentally flawed suggestion that Proz will never agree to in a month of Sundays. We can't even get them to enforce an existing rule for the egregious cases (seems to be the adjective of choice - I can go with the flow on that one). How on earth do you expect them to agree to the time and expense of setting up a separate process (automated or otherwise) to enforce universal compliance with a rule most people are, in fact, complying with?


 
QUOI
QUOI  Identity Verified

Chinese to English
+ ...
I say just get rid of the "native in" field all together... Sep 11, 2012

because clearly it is just a bit of decoration.



 
writeaway
writeaway  Identity Verified
French to English
+ ...
This is why it's time to take a long(er) look at Jenny's suggestion Sep 11, 2012

Samuel Murray wrote:

Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
My definite impression over the last couple of months of this debate is that the proportion of Certified Pros misrepresenting themselves as regards their native language is no lower than amongst the rest of registered users.


My dear Lisa, let's not cast suspicions on everything. If the red pee system can be abused, what guarantee is there that the PNS wouldn't be abused in the same or very similar ways? Merely having the attitude "this time we'll do it right" won't make the PNS any less susceptible to abuse than the red pee.
...



(I have added the bold)

Jenny Forbes wrote:
In view of the intractability 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


After banging our heads against a brick wall for so long, I think it really is time to look at a possible 'optional' solution that appears to be easily doable at no cost, with no time-consuming extra scrutiny and which will basically pull the rug out from under the liars by giving (potential) outsources/clients the heads-up we have wanted to give them from the start.
If Proz prints a clearly visible disclaimer, then outsourcers will immediately know they have to take claims with a grain of salt and make sure they are true. In some cases it will obvious they are true, but in many cases it will give rise to a pause for thought when someone born, raised and educated in one country declares themselves to be a native speaker of language of a different country.
After all, that is we've wanted. For outsourcers to be aware that some/too many people here lie about their native language when they see it to their advantage to do so. And we've seen after all this time that nothing can or will be done to stop them.
So if Proz prints a disclaimer, the responsibility for checking will land with the outsourcer/client, which is where is actually belongs anyway imo.
I personally think Jenny's suggestion is the only way around this problem and is certainly one that the powers that be can implement with no pain. After all, there are already other disclaimers on the site.


 
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 21:51
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
@Charlie Sep 11, 2012

Charlie Bavington wrote:
Samuel Murray wrote:
What part of "automated" don't you understand?

The gloves are off, eh?


Sorry, that was a bit insensitive. The gloves are still on.

How on earth do you expect them to agree to the time and expense of setting up a separate process (automated or otherwise) to enforce universal compliance with a rule most people are, in fact, complying with?


That is an interesting thought, if I understand correctly -- the idea that ProZ.com is more likely to spend resources on enforcing compliance with something that most people are not yet in compliance with.



[Edited at 2012-09-11 13:07 GMT]


 
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?






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 »
Wordfast Pro
Translation Memory Software for Any Platform

Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users! Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value

Buy now! »