| 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 
Netherlands
Local time: 14:54
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
writeaway wrote: Jenny Forbes wrote:
In view of the intractability of the situation, I suggest that... After banging our heads against a brick wall for so long, I think it really...
I responded to this exact pair of quotes on page 127. What do you think of my reply?
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.
So if Proz prints a disclaimer, ...
Sadly I don't think that your view of what "we've wanted" is shared by everyone here (though I certainly agree with it). As for disclaimers, well, no-one reads disclaimers, so a disclaimer will be a feel-good solution only and not really solve anything real. However, I look forward to your reply to my reply on page 127 on this very same issue.
| | | | | Gloves on again :-) | Sep 11, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
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
I think I'd go for more subtle and less specific approach, without referring to native language itself, maybe something like:
"Proz rule 6 forbids misrepresentation in profiles. Do you think it should enforce this rule?"
You could have simple Yes/No/Don't care/Don't know.
I would perhaps prefer:
Yes, because I think it sullies us all by implication, in that profiles cannot be wholly trusted
Yes, because I think it stops me getting jobs I am better qualified to do
Yes (other reasons?)
Yes, for more than one of the above reasons
No (for reasons?)
Don't care
Don't know
Something like that may help pinpoint what members actually perceive the broader issue to be, if any.
| | | | Michael Beijer
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:54
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
| agree with Jenny and writeaway | Sep 11, 2012 |
writeaway wrote: 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.
I completely agree. Since it is obviously never going to happen, we might as well give up and stick a Disclaimer somewhere.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 18:24
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | They don't pay them that much, for one... | Sep 11, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: 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]
One explanation is, they don't pay them much. That is why you get so many 2 cent per word jobs advertised in proz.com.
The other is, even for translations done by native translators, many top-ranking agencies get them reviewed by subject experts, edited and proof-read. This is for insuring against bad quality. So these costs are not saved even when natives do the translation.
| | |
|
|
|
| Selective quote, but no harm done! | Sep 11, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote: 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.
I was rather afraid someone would quote just that bit, and then draw an analogy with some other rule that most people comply with yet where the authorities spend time and effort on enforcement - like laws against murder, or something
Happily you avoided that trap - the key point being of course the sentence immediately before it, implying that the authority in question has to have the will to enforce the rule, whereas Proz does not.
Your point is valid, I think, but again, the will would have to be there, which would, I would hope, be more likely in the event of majority non-compliance.
| | | | | disrepute is no solution | Sep 11, 2012 |
writeaway wrote: (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.
What then is the purpose of stating one's native language truthfully?
I mean, you think that outsourcers are interested in verifying native languages every time they pick a couple of translators listed as native speakers here?
And what do you think does it all say about the confidence you can have in anything around here?
DISCLAIMER:
Before you select a native language translator, please be aware that
a) we don't even know what native language means and
b) welcome anyone who states any native language they like (and more) as a user or paid member.
___________
In accordance with rule #6, whatever someone states here should be the truth.
Or are you going to give up rule # 6?
Apparently, rule # 6 has been broken many times with regard to native language.
To say one can't "define" what native language is and use that as an excuse to allow anyone to claim any native language they so choose is ludicrous.
If anything is apparent in this industry, most professional translators and outsourcers (and most people in general) know exactly what "native language means". There's no excuse if one lies about it.
As far as the NL English is concerned: Broken English it ain't.
Who is going to challenge that it is important to either display your native language or expect clients to seek you out because of your native language, in combination with other aspects of your portfolio?
I believe preventing false native language claims is paramount to giving any credibility to this site. Or turn it around, verified native languages bolster the site's value and image. If that's impossible here, why would you want to stay? You'd be among liars which, by association, probably makes you a liar too.
If nothing else, rule # 6 must be enforced and if necessary, "egregious" cases should most certainly be challenged.
http://www.proz.com/siterules/general/6#6
Now what do you think is easier - challenge every single violator or put in place the promised policy and verify native languages before native language peers.
If that seems too much of a hassle to you, then don't get verified and don't ask to display a native language.
But saying we should just do "laissez faire" / "whatever floats your boat" and ask outsourcers and clients to start doing background checks about someone's native language is not something I would support. Any client or outsourcers can do these checks if they want but you don't run a translator portal with liars. That doesn't look good.
Jenny Forbes wrote:
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.
At least you agree that translators shouldn't lie.
I wouldn't be so sure that no consensus can be reached about (1) and (2)
(1) I for one argue it is absolutely clear what "native language" means and anyone else who has a native language should really know. But it is usually defined as the language you grew up with, were taught with in school, spoke to your teenage friends, and continued to use until this day. Even if you didn't use it much for a year or two but picked it up again, you're not going to just lose your native language from one day to the next.
What is indeed impossible is to acquire a native language by the click of a mouse.
(2) Several possible ways were suggested: for one native language:
a questionnaire, filled out truthfully, signed and sworn to with your e-signature and a PNS certificate visible in your profile. (Could do it for two languages but I would prefer verification before peers for more than one native language). If you are found not to deserve the credential you can challenge it and get verified before peers.
Jenny Forbes wrote:
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
Jenny, I agree with most of your evaluation but not with ".. if it is clear that they (=rules) cannot be enforced." Yes, they are not yet being enforced but they are supposed to -- it's what I for one deem absolutely necessary to save any reputable aspect of having a profile here.
Quote:
http://www.proz.com/faq/2398#2398
8.3 - How do I get the credential in more than one language? [Direct link]
A member who reports having only one native language is assumed to be a native speaker of that language, and is not required to demonstrate it. However, members who report multiple native languages will in the future be asked to demonstrate their native speech in each language before other native speakers of those languages. Until this has been accomplished, a black and gray icon will be associated with the unconfirmed native languages.
What I would change is that no one should just be assumed to be a native speaker, not even with one native language. The questionnaire and sworn statements should always be used to make it harder for people to lie.
writeaway wrote:
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.
That's what native language means. Raised and educated in one country. That's how you acquire it. And when you speak it or write it, it shows!!
I often get the feeling that the brick wall extends to this thread which (IMO) has many times been taken over by non-native speakers who claim to be natives. Of course they would love it if you can just claim and say whatever you want, including stating a new definition of what native language is: "I somehow learned English and I think I speak it so well that I can call myself a native speaker. But if there are any doubts, let's just do away with the concept altogether."
writeaway wrote:
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.
Is what we wanted? It's not what I wanted. I want to be represented well and if I am honest about my native language here, I want everyone else to do the same.
I don't simply accept that too many people here (or anywhere else) lie, in particular about their native language.
Something should be done to stop them. Putting a disclaimer on this site that people who claim a language as their native language are known to lie (even if they have sworn to it) brings all honest members in absolute disrepute. And you should take everything with a grain of salt is not enough to make me PAY for being here or even staying here.
I am holding my breath and am waiting for a response from staff and support from like-minded colleagues.
Don't let the naysayers win.
B
Edited to fix quotes
[Edited at 2012-09-11 16:20 GMT] (fixed typo)
[Edited at 2012-09-12 03:57 GMT]
| | | | | Sorry Bernhard but I don't understand your reasoning | Sep 11, 2012 |
I have no time to go into everything you've said, but a disclaimer will have no negative effect on honest Proz members.
It just pulls the rug out from under all those who are lying through their teeth and trying to hide behind the currently only 'official' confirmation sign, namely the yellow circle with the blue N. Since there are so may liars already using that, a disclaimer would only serve to place doubt on their already dubious claim.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
As far as the NL English is concerned: Broken English it ain't.
No, it ain't broken English. It's Dunglish, a very recognisable form of English used by Dutch natives.
[Edited at 2012-09-11 15:25 GMT]
| | | | | Er, hang on :-) | Sep 11, 2012 |
writeaway wrote:
I have no time to go into everything you've said, but a disclaimer will have no negative effect on honest Proz members.
It just pulls the rug out from under all those who are lying through their teeth and (...) a disclaimer would only serve to place doubt on their already dubious claim.
Surely a disclaimer places doubt on any and all representations in the profile. Including those that are 100% accurate, honest and true.
It is certainly a solution that makes us all equal (hence I can get behind it as a second-best alternative) but it makes us all equal by assuming we are all potential liars, rather than making us all equal by ensuring that only truthful information is displayed.
| | |
|
|
|
| BB disclaimer | Sep 11, 2012 |
Disclaimer
ProZ.com does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. ProZ.com staff reserves the right (but assumes no obligation) to remove or edit any content posted here. ProZ.com staff does not review items before they are published; there is no real-time moderator on duty, so readers enter at their own risk.
| | | | | not so clear | Sep 11, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
This was perhaps one value of this thread, to show and share how although most languages have a problem with native language declaration, they don't all have the same problem with it.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
The problem we established at the beginning of this thread is that people are intentionally lying about their native language. Not more, not less.
Samuel Murray wrote:
Yes, yes, I understand... for you the issue of native language is about ideology, not more, not less. The practical implications of the various aspects of native language is not of interest to you, as long as the sanctity of "native language" as a concept remains untouched. Do I understand your point of view correctly?
Ideology? Supporting native language is an ideology? Because I claim native language is a clear concept?
If that's an ideology then what is claiming that one can't have a clear concept of native language? Or do you have a clear concept of it?
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I get the feeling you are definitely not for verifying native languages.
Samuel Murray wrote:
The fact that I consider methods of solving native language related problems that do not involve verifying native language does not say anything about my opinion about verifying native language.
Would yes or no be a possible answer?
Well, what is your opinion on it? Why do you see native language related problems but don't think that lying about one's native language is the problem??
Native language related problems?
I'm not relating lying about one's native language PER SE to other language related problems in order to excuse lying. And I'm sure that's not your intention either.
Samuel Murray wrote:
I have met a few translators in my own native language whose nativeness (according to the linguistic definitions that you so dearly love) is not in question, and who can speak their native language fluently, but whose written language is so bad that...
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
You can try to discredit it by saying that native language cannot guarantee translation quality which you clearly do in your statement above.
Samuel Murray wrote:
I don't think admitting or stating that some native speakers are terrible writers of it is any way a discredit to the idea of native language. Do you?
Put it in perspective, please. You said they were "translating" which means they were "writing". So it seems you are saying they were native speaker translators alright.
And then you say people like that were writing "terrible "translations"? That has nothing to do with the fact that they were native speakers. I wouldn't use the native speaker aspect as the reason for bad translations. I know you'll say I didn't but it just comes across like that.
As I tried to explain before, a native speaker translator is supposed to be a translator, not an unskilled worker (and I don't mean that in a derogatory way).
As a translator, the "native language" aspect is indeed important.
When you say you met a few "translators" who were native speakers and botched the job, you are in fact saying they did it DESPITE the fact that they were "native speakers" (that's what it sounds like to me). That's discounting the importance of the "native speaker" competence for translators. Even if you did not intend to do that.
They botched the job not because they were native speakers but because they weren't really translators.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I don't know what else to say to convince you that native language as the only criterion for choosing a translator is a complete misinterpretation of the native language criterion.
Samuel Murray wrote:
I don't know what to say to convince you that what you seem to think my opinion on this matter is is in fact nothing of the sort. I think you're confusing me with someone else.
Samuel
So I hold then that you do ascribe importance to the native language criterion in conjunction with other aspects (experience, expertise, honesty) that are important when you're a professional translator?
B
Edited at 2012-09-11 21:32 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-09-11 21:33 GMT]
| | | | | Actually, Bernhard ... | Sep 11, 2012 |
Bernhard, we're on the same side. I agree with you about the definition of native language and that people shouldn't lie about it and that such claims should be verified if the rules say so.
But in your recent posting some of the "quotes" you entered under my name were actually written by Writeaway, not me. You mixed up my words with Writeaway's.
It doesn't much matter, as I agree with Writeaway, anyway, but please don't attribute someone else's words to me.
Jenny
| | | |
Jenny Forbes wrote:
Bernhard, we're on the same side. I agree with you about the definition of native language and that people shouldn't lie about it and that such claims should be verified if the rules say so.
But in your recent posting some of the "quotes" you entered under my name were actually written by Writeaway, not me. You mixed up my words with Writeaway's.
It doesn't much matter, as I agree with Writeaway, anyway, but please don't attribute someone else's words to me.
Jenny
Sorry, Jenny. And thanks for pointing it out. I will fix it.
...
Fixed.
Bernhard
[Edited at 2012-09-11 17:24 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
writeaway wrote:
BB disclaimer
Disclaimer
ProZ.com does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. ProZ.com staff reserves the right (but assumes no obligation) to remove or edit any content posted here. ProZ.com staff does not review items before they are published; there is no real-time moderator on duty, so readers enter at their own risk.
1. The fact that a disclaimer appears, without attracting too much adverse comment from members or a thread visible from outer space, in one section of the site should not be used as a precedent for assuming similar disclaimers can resolve all issues elsewhere (I have to assume that something along those lines was your intention, since just posting the text with no further comment as to the purpose in doing so is remarkably obtuse).
2. I would have a disclaimer too for the BB, since it involves situations where there are inevitably 2 sides to a story, taking place in an arena invisible to the eyes of proz mods or management. Unlike false claims of native language, where the actual evidence is usually visible in the very same place as the false claim.
[Edited at 2012-09-11 17:12 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 14:54
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Samuel Murray wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
This was perhaps one value of this thread, to show and share how although most languages have a problem with native language declaration, they don't all have the same problem with it. The problem we established at the beginning of this thread is that people are intentionally lying about their native language. Not more, not less. For you the issue of native language is about ideology, not more, not less. The practical implications of the various aspects of native language is not of interest to you, as long as the sanctity of "native language" as a concept remains untouched. Because I claim native language is a clear concept?
Well, because you insist that "native language" is a clear, unambiguous, universal concept, despite all that you've read in this thread from translators whose posts indicate different. Does this not mean essentially that you hold anyone who adheres to a definition that is different from yours to be either liars or fools?
Your reply implied (in my understanding) that the discussion between me and Michele was utter nonsense because it fails to comply with your view that there is only one, single relevant problem related to native language, and it is not that which we were discussing.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Samuel Murray wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I get the feeling you are definitely not for verifying native languages. The fact that I consider methods of solving native language related problems that do not involve verifying native language does not say anything about my opinion about verifying native language. Would yes or no be a possible answer?
I apologise for being vague -- allow me to state my opinion more clearly: while I don't have a single, fixed opinion about whether native language should be verified, I do acknowledge that a verification process for it (even if it has its faults) would be extremely useful for us on ProZ.com, because it would reduce the number of incorrect claims of native language.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Samuel Murray wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
I have met a few translators in my own native language whose nativeness (according to the linguistic definitions that you so dearly love) is not in question, and who can speak their native language fluently, but whose written language is so bad that... You can try to discredit it by saying that native language cannot guarantee translation quality which you clearly do in your statement above. I don't think admitting or stating that some native speakers are terrible writers of it is any way a discredit to the idea of native language. Do you? Put it in perspective, please.
The correct perspective of the original quote is the context in which it was originally written, namely the discussion of the compulsory language test. My comment about the bad translators who are native speakers was part of my argument that a compulsory language test would weed out more bad translators than a successful, operational native language verification ever would.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Samuel Murray wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I don't know what else to say to convince you that native language as the only criterion for choosing a translator is a complete misinterpretation of the native language criterion. I don't know what to say to convince you that what you seem to think my opinion on this matter is is in fact nothing of the sort. So I hold then that you do ascribe importance to the native language criterion in conjunction with other aspects (experience, expertise, honesty) that are important when you're a professional translator?
Yes -- I do not believe that native language alone can be held as a valid criterion for a suitable translator, though I do believe that native language can (in some scenarios) have of very high importance among the criteria for a suitable translator. Does this satisfy you?
| | | | | just saying what I think | Sep 11, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Does this satisfy you?
Your replies are always welcome.
Sorry if I seem stand-offish. That's not my intention. You are entitled to your opinion. And no, I don't think anything you say is nonsense.
I am just telling you what I think.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-11 18:06 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? | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | 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 
