| 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: 00:33
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Sheila Wilson wrote:
But I would certainly support "English native" searches being restricted to those whose only native language declared is English.
That would solve Lisa's problem but not Phil's. Phil's problem (if I understand correctly) is a high number of ZH-EN translators who declare only English as their native language, when in fact their native language is really Chinese.
I realise what I'm suggesting is also "baby and bathwater", but in the case of English there is a lot of bathwater -- in fact, there is so much bathwater that the baby is typically overlooked anyway.
[Edited at 2012-07-06 17:44 GMT]
| | | |
Kirsten Bodart wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
Why do we need to demonstrate an absolute or relative threshold to satisfy you? One person lying about native ability is one too many.
Perception is the only truth when it comes to reputation, and you may remember that the piss-poor reputation of the honesty of profiles on this website is (part of) the reason some of us would like to clean it up. I don't give a toss if you can demonstrate there are 10 or 10,000, 0.75% or 75%, of profiles with untrue "N" claims. I do know that if we can remove as many of them as possible, the atrocious reputation "enjoyed" by proz might slowly start to rise from the stinking mire it is currently in, and that both of us, and every other poor sap in this thread, might benefit from that. Why are you perpetually putting pointless obstacles in the way of that process? Why do we need to demonstrate an absolute threshold? It beggars belief. It is simple, you cannot assess if you do not have a reference. Assessment works according to an example that is a reference. When Cambridge assesses someone for a certificate of proficiency they have predefine what it means to be proficient.
My point about thresholds was not a proficiency point wrt individuals and profiles. It was about about Samuel's ploughing through reams of searches and stats to determine what percentages of what pairs claim what numbers of "N"s, as if counting the problem can somehow help define the solution.
You can't remove an N if you don't know what it is or stands for.
But we do all seemingly accept that it stands for some kind of proficiency, of even a minimum native-level standard. And the original aim of the thread was just to root out those obviously failing to attain even that. I agree some kind of standard or threshold is required to determine such failure (and with the understanding that "not failing" is not = yellow "N").
It's an impefect solution, which creates and accepts 3 categories (Native, unknown/bordeline/don't know, and definitely not, rather than 2 (native or non-native). I can see a lot of people want the black/white native/non-native solution. Ideally, I would too, but I see it as too complex, costly and time consuming for this website at this time. So I'm just looking to eliminate the "N"s from those who are definitely not "N", which does not, for our purposes, require "N" to be defined, just simple broad agreement on what it is not, in terms of failure to attain even basic proficiency, not even close to borderline, as measured by a certain number of errors unequivocally agreed upon to be errors by a certain number of people (of character and status to be decided - one of the things I thought this thread might thrash out). Yes, it's imperfect. Oh, I just said that. Well, it bears repeating.
The Conrads would have nothing to fear. My yardstick is only the quality of written output.
And yes, I agree that although false claims of English "N" are probably the root cause behind the thread, the same rule should definitely apply to everyone, all the time.
I'd also be happy to go along with a long term goal of just "N" or not, I just don't think now is necessarily the time. I could be persuaded if its advocates could come up with something quick and cheap (for proz - they'd need to be persuaded of some ROI, I think)
I woudl also contend that the 'atrocious reputation' proz enjoys is as much down to the poor quality of some translators as well as the poor quality of outsourcers available. Yet, we are not somplaining about that, are we. That is digressing, after all.
The "P" was supposed to help sort that out, but it has been conflated with other requirements and has been seen to not be as rigorous as might be desired in terms of translator quality anyway.
I suspect the poor quality of many of the projects and outsourcers might not be unrelated to the idea of the "market for lemons".
[Edited at 2012-07-06 17:20 GMT]
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 15:33
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Let the outsourcer choose | Jul 6, 2012 |
Sarah Elizabeth Cree wrote:
Native language searches:
I support the position that if an outsourcer wants to see results for native language translators only, those results should only include translators with verified native language claims.
Give outsourcers the option of choosing native language (grey icon) or confirmed native language (yellow icon) for directory searches.
| | | | | Thanks for the feedback so far, and signing off (for now) | Jul 6, 2012 |
Hello all,
Thanks to everyone who has provided input on this subject so far.
As I mentioned earlier, ways of strengthening the native language credential system are being worked on, and the feedback given here and in previous discussions on the topic has proven and will prove useful. It should be noted that initial improvements to the system will most likely center around providing a greater level of differentiation to those who are able to verify a native language, ra... See more Hello all,
Thanks to everyone who has provided input on this subject so far.
As I mentioned earlier, ways of strengthening the native language credential system are being worked on, and the feedback given here and in previous discussions on the topic has proven and will prove useful. It should be noted that initial improvements to the system will most likely center around providing a greater level of differentiation to those who are able to verify a native language, rather than centering around the elimination of declared languages which have not yet been verified.
While I will still be following the thread, I'm signing off for now. I will report back here as soon as the first improvements can be implemented.
Jared ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:33
Hebrew to English
| But native language is still a recognised and valuable criterion | Jul 6, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
the client will now have to select good translators based on other criteria.
Have to? The outsourcer deserves to be able to stream according to native language if they want to and (especially from a purported 'professional' site) they definitely deserve to have search results which are accurate and not just a long list of liars.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 00:33
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Sarah and @Ty | Jul 6, 2012 |
Sarah Elizabeth Cree wrote:
Perhaps a different thread should be started on the topic of what the critera are for 'native language'?
That would be a nice discussion, and I might even join in, but you would have to be aware that your discussion will be irrelevant to ProZ.com's "native language" feature. At ProZ.com, the real definition (the dictionary definition) of "native language" is not useful because it does not match translators' expectations and it does not match clients' expectations and it is not easily verifiable.
The only way to get widespread honesty about native language is to disassociate it from jobs. Right now, "native language" is a loophole to get more jobs. Drop it from the job search and directory search. It could be useful to have it in the KudoZ search, though. But as long as "native language" is an easy way to get included in more jobs searches, it will be abused.
==
Ty Kendall wrote:
The outsourcer deserves to be able to stream according to native language if they want to and ...
The outsourcer also deserves to be able to stream according to gender, age and race, but no-one will let him, because those are things a translator has no control over, i.e. he can't better himself in those aspects. The same applies to native language, if you think about it -- you either have it or you don't, and no amount of effort on your part will change that. So is it fair to discriminate against translators because of it?
[Edited at 2012-07-06 17:47 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:33
Hebrew to English
| Conventional Wisdom | Jul 6, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
The outsourcer also deserves to be able to stream according to gender, age and race, but no-one will let him, because those are things a translator has no control over, i.e. he can't better himself in those aspects. The same applies to native language, if you think about it -- you either have it or you don't, and no amount of effort on your part will change that. So is it fair to discriminate against translators because of it?
Gender, age and race have no bearing on translation. Native language does.
(If you're going to nitpick, which I sense you might, you could argue gender might have some bearing when translating a cosmetics website or some such, but this is rather a moot point).
ProZ clearly believes that native language has a bearing on translation, as do many academics, as do the major professional associations....you and others may disagree, but you have to concede by doing so you are going against conventional wisdom.
Next you'll be arguing the outsourcer should be able to stream according to who eats cornflakes or rice krispies.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 06:33
Chinese to English
| Too hard, not going there | Jul 6, 2012 |
That sounded like a pretty definitive answer from Jared, couched though it was in approximations and generalities.
Clearing out the existing cases of untrue claims and preventing future untrue claims is too hard. There may be a move toward an enhanced two-stream set up in future, where more controls will be imposed on the elite red splodge members.
Rather an unsatisfactory conclusion, though not entirely irrational.
I guess we can disband this little fellow... See more That sounded like a pretty definitive answer from Jared, couched though it was in approximations and generalities.
Clearing out the existing cases of untrue claims and preventing future untrue claims is too hard. There may be a move toward an enhanced two-stream set up in future, where more controls will be imposed on the elite red splodge members.
Rather an unsatisfactory conclusion, though not entirely irrational.
I guess we can disband this little fellowship, then. I might go off and pursue something in Chinese, but I leave the rest of you at the mercy of the Dastardly Dutchmen and the like. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 00:33
Italian to English
| a working definition of 'native language' is implicit in the 'nl' profile category | Jul 6, 2012 |
Hi Samuel,
Why should a working site definition of 'native language' be an impossibilty? It seems rather a necessity given that the site is issuing verification for native speaker claims.
True enough, to date, site policy is that in all cases users decide what 'native language' means - even in cases of verfication, it's up to the chosen site user verifiers to use their ow... See more Hi Samuel,
Why should a working site definition of 'native language' be an impossibilty? It seems rather a necessity given that the site is issuing verification for native speaker claims.
True enough, to date, site policy is that in all cases users decide what 'native language' means - even in cases of verfication, it's up to the chosen site user verifiers to use their own personal definitions:
http://www.proz.com/faq/2383#2383
But then again the site has already taken a stand on how many native languages a person can reasonably have (users can only declare 2 native languages):
http://www.proz.com/faq/111754#111754
And what's more, it is already working on a strategy for verifying claims of more than two native languages:
http://www.proz.com/faq/4867#4867
To sum up:
Proz already recognizes that the designation of verified status to claims of more than one native language cannot be left up to the person making the claim.
Proz already has the native language credential policy under review (a policy which as evidenced by the site FAQ is still a policy-in-progress anyway).
Proz is already developing a strategy for dealing with more than two native language claims - this implies that the current way of dealing with claims of two is deemed insufficient for claims of three or more - and so doesn't this also imply recognition that some kind of working site definition is needed? Otherwise, why not deal with three the same way as with two?
So why shouldn't the site have a working definition of 'native language' to stand behind the claim and the badge that it issues?
I wonder what outsourcers (would) think of the current policy that 'native language' is whatever the user says it is (or whatever the users verifying a user's claim say it is). Isn't this policy kind of odd?
(And I will repeat that I support verification of ALL claims prior to listing them as verified, even for users who claim only one native language.) ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Ah-ha! on the one hand, and facepalm on the other | Jul 6, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
The only way to get widespread honesty about native language is to disassociate it from jobs.
A point I made about a week ago, possibly longer ....!
For example:
on June 28th, Charlie Bavington wrote:
Personally, I don't see this debate as being about what services you can or cannot (claim to) provide so much as it is about components of your..... ah, now here, I could say "very being" (the native/mother tongue thing) or "skills set". (....)
I distinguish between the pairs offered or the services provided under a profile, and the skills claimed by the actual individual who owns the profile.
If I have (or think I can get!) people to regularly and professionally translate in my reverse pair (which would be Eng->Fr) or indeed between Estonian and Portuguese, then I think I should be allowed to offer them as pairs.
Not that it bloody matters now.
Jared wrote:
It should be noted that initial improvements to the system will most likely center around providing a greater level of differentiation to those who are able to verify a native language, rather than centering around the elimination of declared languages which have not yet been verified.
It was always about more serious situations than just "...not yet been verified" which, naturally, could prove entirely true - it's always supposed to have been about declared languages which are obviously substandard, to couch it in terms as neutral as I can muster. But either way, I suppose elimination was the name of the game, and the site has responded true to form in that regard, since we all know there's only one thing that ever actually gets eliminated on here. Site policy remains "don't look if you don't like it" (see also kudoz abuse).
Ah well, it was fun. God knows what I'm supposed to do with the weekend now. S'pose I'll have to talk to the family, or something....
| | | | QUOI
Chinese to English
+ ...
| So near (native) yet so far... | Jul 7, 2012 |
This sentence says it all:
As a project manager, my first job was a(n) engine control system manual (Chinese to English).
Samuel Murray wrote: Alan Wang wrote:
I am lately given to the tantalizing delusion that I might qualify for "near native status" when it comes to translating from Chinese to English. I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to comment on your near-nativeness in English by analysing your introduction on your ProZ.com profile page. I would not evaluate your forum posts because forum posts are written quickly and conversationally, but a translator's profile page is usually tweaked until perfection, so what he writes in his profile page is what he believes is correct language, don't you agree? I would not evaluate a résumé as strictly either, since résumés tend to be written according to marketing rules (odd phrase sequences to move keywords to the start of the sentence, etc). Your text: Technical translation: I worked as a technical translator for 8 years (from 2000~[1]2007) at a[2] appliance maker[3], where my job description was to translate patents (English to Chinese), inter-company contracts and product testing and certification norms, and [4]design and edit user manuals, etc. After that, I worked briefly at a translation agency as a translator, proofreader and project manager. As a project manager, my first job was a[5] engine control system[6] manual (Chinese to English). I coordinated 3 person's[7] work and translated a third of the manual. Since end 2007[8], I became[9] a freelance translator. My comments (I'm non-native in English, and I use South African English): 1. The tilde is not used in ZA English at all, except in mathematical texts (but not in the meaning "to"), though I suspect that it may be acceptable in US English. By the way, I prefer not to use a hyphen for "to" if I have used "from", but that is just my preference and I understand that some people do not regard that as an error. 2. an. 3. My feeling is that "maker" should be used for a human or a single machine only. The word you need to use here is "manufacturer". 4. I would have included the word "to" after "and". 5. an. 6. In my mind of minds I can "hear" an "s" here, which is not a possesive (systems manual, not system manual), but that is just a feeling I have. 7.1 The plural of person is persons, not person's. 7.2 I would use "persons" only in very formal or officialese types of texts. Here, "people" would be more appropriate. 8. I understand that "since end 2007" is acceptable in some Englishes, but in ZA English that would have to be "since [the] end of 2007". 9. Should be either "Since the end of 2007, I have been" or " At the end of 2007, I became". Now its time for the native English speakers in this thread to tell me (for interest sake) which of my comments above are false positives, and if I had missed anything. I'd also like to know which of these errors are "non-native" errors as opposed to simply schoolboy errors (perhaps Phil can tell us, since he is the Chinese-English translator here). [Edited at 2012-07-02 08:40 GMT]
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 18:33
Spanish to English
+ ...
| If I understand correctly, this sounds like a responsive and responsible approach. | Jul 7, 2012 |
Jared wrote:
Hello all,
Thanks to everyone who has provided input on this subject so far.
As I mentioned earlier, ways of strengthening the native language credential system are being worked on, and the feedback given here and in previous discussions on the topic has proven and will prove useful. It should be noted that initial improvements to the system will most likely center around providing a greater level of differentiation to those who are able to verify a native language, rather than centering around the elimination of declared languages which have not yet been verified.
While I will still be following the thread, I'm signing off for now. I will report back here as soon as the first improvements can be implemented.
Jared
If I understand correctly, this will mean allowing people to declare whatever native languages they want, and then allowing those who wish to verify native languages (I assume the intent here is to provide verification of second, third, etc. declared native languages) to do so.
If this is the case, then I would say this discussion has not been in vain. Of course, we have to see what actually happens in the end....
[Edited at 2012-07-07 12:13 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| That's correct, Robert | Jul 7, 2012 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
If I understand correctly, this will mean allowing people to declare whatever native languages they want, and then allowing those who wish to verify native languages (I assume the intent here is to provide verification of second, third, etc. declared native languages) to do so.
Correct.
Of course, we have to see what actually happens in the end....
True too. I can't promise overnight results, of course, but I hope to be able to post back here soon with some first steps. I think one thing this thread shows is that it's not as simple as it may look at a glance, and proceeding with care is in everyone's best interest.
Jared
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 00:33
French to English
| thank you Samuel and sorry Lisa for continuing the OT... | Jul 7, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Texte Style wrote:
I would like to add that I was considering taking out membership to Proz and as this thread progresses, I am increasingly thinking that I might as well not. I only have one language pair and only one native language, ... So if there is no way for me to stand out from the crowd without acquiring hundreds of Kudoz... I did a couple of test searchest in your pair and fields, and it strikes me that your main problem is that which I was trying to address in this suggestion. Specifying "Art/Literary" as a subject field would have no discernable effect on the results list, simply because ProZ.com allows all users to select all fields, if they want to, so you have to compete for search result position with translators who do not specialise in "Art/Literary" but simply selected it because it looked nice on their profile.
Thank you Samuel for taking the time to look into this for me. I'm not sure I see what you mean but I shall read the thread you mention.
For the moment I'm not really looking for work so I have not worked very hard on my profile or raising my visibility on Proz. I'm pretty sure there is more that can be done should it become necessary and no doubt I'll be posting to ask for suggestions in the "getting established" section at that point !
| | | |
Robert Forstag wrote:
If I understand correctly, this will mean allowing people to declare whatever native languages they want, and then allowing those who wish to verify native languages (I assume the intent here is to provide verification of second, third, etc. declared native languages) to do so.
If this is the case, then I would say this discussion has not been in vain.
Except, of course, that the point of the OP wasn't about bloody verifying anything, it was the precise and exact opposite of verifying. So the original problem, of lying about the quality of one's output, remains utterly unresolved, as long as the liars keeps their heads down and don't seek verification.
No doubt the reply to such criticism is that the intention is that, in the long run, everyone will get verified apart from liars and then liars will be obvious. Except of course:
a) it'll never happen, and
b) in the long run, we'll all be dead.
Apart from that, yeah, terrific work.
| | | | | 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 » |
| | 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 
