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)
Ty Kendall
Ty Kendall  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:49
Hebrew to English
Let's think laterally....... Jul 23, 2012

What hasn't been suggested yet:

1. ProZ could hire a Clairvoyant/Psychic to verify native language claims.
2. Polygraph tests at Powwows.

(Although many people convince themselves of their own lies, so....)

There won't be a perfect solution, no matter what solution may be adopted in the future (I won't hold my breath), it won't be to everyone's liking....which is why I believe it may never happen.

Which is why I also find it hard
... See more
What hasn't been suggested yet:

1. ProZ could hire a Clairvoyant/Psychic to verify native language claims.
2. Polygraph tests at Powwows.

(Although many people convince themselves of their own lies, so....)

There won't be a perfect solution, no matter what solution may be adopted in the future (I won't hold my breath), it won't be to everyone's liking....which is why I believe it may never happen.

Which is why I also find it hard to fathom the belligerence with which every single proposed solution is rebutted, regardless of whether it's borderline illegal, workable or practically pointless.

Kirsten wrote:
If we are talking verification, we should either verify all claims or none of them.


That's not the way the credential verification works so why does it have to be that way for native language verification?

As a first step, I think verifying 2nd native language claims with evidence is quite harmless. I know it wouldn't do anything about those pesky Dutch people who only claim English as their one and only native language, but it would be a start....and the onus would be on people claiming multiple native languages which is the real epidemic here.
Collapse


 
Kirsten Bodart
Kirsten Bodart  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:49
Dutch to English
+ ...
I am looking for a mechanism that works EVERYWHERE Jul 23, 2012

not one that works only for English (although I haven't seen any other language .much addressed in this thread).

I don't know what you are trying to do, Ty.

For the reasons Writeaway stated above, which I agree with, you need to be careful with taking half measures. You might as well leave it at the status quo, because it wouldn't make a difference anyway.

As I said, with a scheme of first native language only verified, what is to keep me from running my tr
... See more
not one that works only for English (although I haven't seen any other language .much addressed in this thread).

I don't know what you are trying to do, Ty.

For the reasons Writeaway stated above, which I agree with, you need to be careful with taking half measures. You might as well leave it at the status quo, because it wouldn't make a difference anyway.

As I said, with a scheme of first native language only verified, what is to keep me from running my translations through Google translate and have Hindi as my verified native language if that is the only one I declare?

If all the Chinese decide that translating into English is more lucrative and if one native language claim does not have to be verified, they will declare their only native language is English. That can't be what we are trying to do, right?

The point is that Proz.com has not got the same resources to its disposal as Cambridge, for example.

As to credentials, apparently there are fraudulent claims about those as well, apparently.
Collapse


 
Charlie Bavington
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 22:49
French to English
Absolutely imperfect :-) Jul 23, 2012

Michele Fauble wrote:

Charlie Bavington wrote:

...there are those making false claims on the one and only native language they do claim.


Yes, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Part of the problem is that it is just too easy to declare a second native language. Making it more difficult would dissuade many from making a false claim.

Rather than verifying native language claims, ProZ would accept native language claims. The first one automatically, and the second one with supporting evidence.


I take a similar-ish view, I think, in terms of keeping it practical and simple. I don't want to test the world and his dog either. Like you, I would rather assume most people are telling the truth most of the time. Unlike you, I would extend the presumption of truth to second or third languages. All I want is a way to challenge liars, be it the 1st, 2nd or 102nd language they clain an "N" for, and ideally a sanction (e.g. deletion) for those proved to be liars.

Meanwhile, if anyone is going to be suing anyone, I would think it should either be those who feel stitched up by a website that is basically aiding and abetting misrepresentation, or those who have paid to join a network implicitly conferring some kind of status of professionalism, only to find they have joined a group including known charlatans and liars run by an organisation that has no intention of doing anything about it.


 
Ty Kendall
Ty Kendall  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:49
Hebrew to English
ProZ aren't broke, trust me. Jul 23, 2012

Kirsten Bodart wrote:

not one that works only for English (although I haven't seen any other language .much addressed in this thread).


Other languages have been addressed, it has also been addressed that the main problem is with false claims of English nativeness, not Swahili or Mongolian or.....

I don't know what you are trying to do, Ty.


I'm not trying to do anything. I'm commenting on a thread about hypothetical solutions to a problem which will continue regardless because of site policies and philosophy.

For the reasons Writeaway stated above, which I agree with, you need to be careful with taking half measures. You might as well leave it at the status quo, because it wouldn't make a difference anyway.


I disagree, just because you can't do everything it doesn't mean you should do nothing.

As I said, with a scheme of first native language only verified, what is to keep me from running my translations through Google translate and have Hindi as my verified native language if that is the only one I declare?


I don't quite understand this. If you were to run anything through Google Translate I don't think you'd run the risk of anyone thinking you were a native speaker of anything. A native speaker of gobbledygook maybe.

If all the Chinese decide that translating into English is more lucrative and if one native language claim does not have to be verified, they will declare their only native language is English. That can't be what we are trying to do, right?


Which is why 2nd native language verification would only be an interim measure. You don't know till you try.

The point is that Proz.com has not got the same resources to its disposal as Cambridge, for example.


Perhaps not, but they can't exactly go claiming poverty on us. I think we can all agree they aren't short of a bob or two.

[Edited at 2012-07-23 11:58 GMT]


 
Cetacea
Cetacea  Identity Verified
Switzerland
Local time: 23:49
English to German
+ ...
There's just one little problem... Jul 23, 2012

Michele Fauble wrote:
Rather than verifying native language claims, ProZ would accept native language claims. The first one automatically, and the second one with supporting evidence.


Nothing would stop any (non-paying) fraudster from establishing multiple profiles, each one with a different native language. Actually, that is the reason ProZ gives for my "N" icon being gray even though I declare only one native language: Since I am not a paying member (anymore), I might establish several profiles.

Ironically enough, I stopped paying a few years ago because I had enough of funding a site that not only does nothing to protect the actual pros from fraudsters and pretenders, but indeed penalizes those who try to do something about it. Just try and expose certain trolls for repeatedly posting completely nonsensical answers to KudoZ questions in such sensitive areas as medicine, and you'll see what happens. But I digress, sorry.

Come to think of it, if claiming multiple native languages is that profitable, nothing will stop paying members from having two profiles, either.

[Edited at 2012-07-23 12:34 GMT]


 
Robert Forstag
Robert Forstag  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 18:49
Spanish to English
+ ...
I agree with this approach Jul 23, 2012

Michele Fauble wrote:

Let members/users declare one native language. If a member/user wants to declare a second native language, the burden of proof that the second native language claim is true should be borne by the member/user. Let him or her submit whatever evidence in support of the claim he or she wishes. Let the claim be evaluated by ProZ with the help of native speakers of the second declared language.


I think the practical focus should be on claims of more than one native language, and that single native language claims should (as now) be accepted as true, even if there are some that will abuse this.

People who do abuse this kind of system would likely be caught out very quickly in any case. After all, most outsourcers ask to see a CV, and if the CV (for example) shows that someone received their primary and secondary education in Russia, and yet claims English as their one and only native language--well, this ought to raise the eyebrows of any PM who isn't brain dead (not to mention the fact that the CV and/or the cover letter are themselves likely to contain telltale errors).

[Edited at 2012-07-23 12:54 GMT]


 
Sheila Wilson
Sheila Wilson  Identity Verified
Spain
Local time: 22:49
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
Why should clients know better than native speakers? Jul 23, 2012

Robert Forstag wrote:
most outsourcers ask to see a CV, and if the CV (for example) shows that someone received their primary and secondary education in Russia, and yet claims English as a native language--well, this ought to raise the eyebrows of any PM who isn't brain dead (not to mention the fact that the CV and/or the cover letter are themselves likely to contain telltale errors).


This is a recurring suggestion (not just from you, Robert): let the client spot the non-natives in a language. At the same time, others are querying the ability of native speakers to spot whether native-speaking claims are justified or not.

So, where's the truth? Is it practically impossible for a native speaker of a language to recognise another native speaker; or is it easy for any translation agency's PM (of whatever nationality) to decide?


 
Robert Forstag
Robert Forstag  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 18:49
Spanish to English
+ ...
@Sheila: We have to start somewhere Jul 23, 2012

Sheila Wilson wrote:

Robert Forstag wrote:
most outsourcers ask to see a CV, and if the CV (for example) shows that someone received their primary and secondary education in Russia, and yet claims English as a native language--well, this ought to raise the eyebrows of any PM who isn't brain dead (not to mention the fact that the CV and/or the cover letter are themselves likely to contain telltale errors).


This is a recurring suggestion (not just from you, Robert): let the client spot the non-natives in a language. At the same time, others are querying the ability of native speakers to spot whether native-speaking claims are justified or not.

So, where's the truth? Is it practically impossible for a native speaker of a language to recognise another native speaker; or is it easy for any translation agency's PM (of whatever nationality) to decide?


My point (and I think that of others who advocate this appraoch) is that such a suggestion would be easier to implement than other solutions offered, and thus make it more difficult for the site to reject on the grounds of impracticality, cost, or whatever.

After all, I think all of us can agree that we are not exactly dealing with an entity that has shown itself to be highly responsive to the suggestions of its members and users. Surely you are acutely aware of this dynamic, given what you've witnessed at first hand as regards the rollout of the initiative to include outsourcers in the CPN program, and the response to the objections raised by you and others concerning the way this was handled....


 
Charlie Bavington
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 22:49
French to English
Some "yeah buts" Jul 23, 2012

Robert Forstag wrote:

Michele Fauble wrote:

Let members/users declare one native language. If a member/user wants to declare a second native language, the burden of proof that the second native language claim is true should be borne by the member/user.


I think the practical focus should be on claims of more than one native language, and that single native language claims should (as now) be accepted as true, even if there are some that will abuse this.


Why? There are simple solutions proposed that close that loophole. Why not close it? What is the justification for leaving it open, all the more so at this, the hypothetical stage of the discussion, when (if claims in this thread are to be believed, unless I mis-read or mis-remembered them) close to half the speakers of one language are actually claiming £nglish as their sole mother tongue? Does that not strike the pair of you as a ludicrous situation to allow to continue if something can easily be done?

People who do abuse this kind of system would likely be caught out very quickly in any case. After all, most outsourcers ask to see a CV, and if the CV (for example) shows that someone received their primary and secondary education in Russia, and yet claims English as their one and only native language--well, this ought to raise the eyebrows of any PM who isn't brain dead (not to mention the fact that the CV and/or the cover letter are themselves likely to contain telltale errors).

[Edited at 2012-07-23 12:44 GMT]

I'm all for a spot of caveat emptor, but we mustn't overlook the inescapable fact that outsourcers quite often outsource precisely because they haven't got the target language skills, and vast numbers of people are not in a position to judge the quality of a CV.

Let us not forget, this is (was, anyway) supposed to be a website for professionals, not shysters. Inexperienced visitors (whether generally or in a particular pair) ought to be able to expect a certain quality of service. And that is, in part, why I'm continuing to argue the toss in this thread, because I'm fed up being associated with liars, "service" providers indulging in evident misrepresentation, and those who seek to allow them to continue to do so.


 
Kirsten Bodart
Kirsten Bodart  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:49
Dutch to English
+ ...
Not a few bob, physical resources Jul 23, 2012

Ty Kendall wrote:
Other languages have been addressed, it has also been addressed that the main problem is with false claims of English nativeness, not Swahili or Mongolian or.....


I said 'much'. So the primary focus is still on English. I agree that English represents the largest number of false language claims (probably), but you are not alone on this site. Hence, if you want to find a solution, you need to find it for everyone and all languages, not for English alone.

I disagree, just because you can't do everything it doesn't mean you should do nothing.


You might well disagree, but that way you only move up the problem. As Cetacea said, what's going to stop people from making several profiles if first native language claims are not checked? What's the purpose of second native language verification then?

Come to think of it, you could then introduce a scheme where verified natives are ranked higher in the direectory than unverified ones, similar to the Kudoz system. That might work in that case to motivate members to have their second native language verified. It still begs the question just what should be verified in that case, though.

I don't quite understand this. If you were to run anything through Google Translate I don't think you'd run the risk of anyone thinking you were a native speaker of anything. A native speaker of gobbledygook maybe.


My verified yellow N would still be on my profile and I would still be a verified native speaker of Hindi. If I only write forum posts in English (is there even a Hindi forum?), I couldn't even be spotted. I could embellish my profile a little bit, maybe even declare a false place of residence (the UK?), if I am clever enough, and away I go. Outsourcers would contact me in the belief I was a native speaker of Hindi with excellent English, living in Blackpool, and they would only discover I wasn't a native speaker of Hindi if they read my translation properly. Granted, in all likelihood I would never by paid.
As the subject of this thread is really those members who discredit the site with their false native language claims, I think that is pretty relevant, don't you? I would discredit the site with my verified native Hindi claim.

Which is why 2nd native language verification would only be an interim measure. You don't know till you try.


It's true that you don't know until you try, but you can at least try to reason.

Perhaps not, but they can't exactly go claiming poverty on us. I think we can all agree they aren't short of a bob or two.


No, not of a bob or two, of physical resources like exam centres and a staff infrastructure that allows appeals and whatever verification that is not open to fraud.

Who is to check whether I don't let a native Hindi speaker do my verification test or whatever is required?


 
Bernhard Sulzer
Bernhard Sulzer  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 18:49
English to German
+ ...
let's be practical and fair Jul 23, 2012

Robert Forstag wrote:


I think the practical focus should be on claims of more than one native language, and that single native language claims should (as now) be accepted as true, even if there are some that will abuse this.

People who do abuse this kind of system would likely be caught out very quickly in any case. After all, most outsourcers ask to see a CV, and if the CV (for example) shows that someone received their primary and secondary education in Russia, and yet claims English as their one and only native language--well, this ought to raise the eyebrows of any PM who isn't brain dead (not to mention the fact that the CV and/or the cover letter are themselves likely to contain telltale errors).

[Edited at 2012-07-23 12:54 GMT]


I agree. And to strengthen the one-native language claim, the applicant could be asked a few questions before he/she receives the "unverified" "N" icon (suggested before in this thread). And I would say you can't get the "definitive" (yellow) "N" icon as long as your identity is not verified which needs to be done by a certain set deadline.

For multiple claims, I suggested giving out the "unverified" icons and setting a deadline by which the person will have to get these languages verified or will not be able to declare any native languages at all (the disclaimer on the profile page could then read: no native language declared - also suggested before in this thread).
Which means the "unverified" grayed-out icons will be displayed temporarily only, and that only for a relatively short time.

As far as the process of verification of multiple native languages is concerned, I favor a conversation at a Powwow or during a video conference. There are many other suggestions here.

Multiple profiles? You can counter that with a mandatory identity verification and restrict use to one profile per person.

There will always be people trying to abuse the system. But there are practical ways to make it better that are suggested here, and discussing possibilities here and having a dialogue with Proz.com is a good way to help achieve it.

And there are many good thoughts in this thread.


B



[Edited at 2012-07-23 14:22 GMT]


 
Sheila Wilson
Sheila Wilson  Identity Verified
Spain
Local time: 22:49
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
Maybe we don't need to verify everybody Jul 23, 2012

Robert Forstag wrote:
I think all of us can agree that we are not exactly dealing with an entity that has shown itself to be highly responsive to the suggestions of its members and users. Surely you are acutely aware of this dynamic, given what you've witnessed at first hand as regards the rollout of the initiative to include outsourcers in the CPN program, and the response to the objections raised by you and others concerning the way this was handled....


Agreed, but I'd rather continue battling for a better outcome than the suppression of all but one native language, with absolutely no verification of that language.

There can be no proof of native language - these pages have clearly shown that we'll never find criteria to prove nativeness - but evidence can be examined and recommendations made. And who is best placed to examine the evidence of native writing? Certainly not non-native clients or agency PMs. How about members of this site, professional translators themselves and verified native speakers of the language in question, a.k.a. CPN members? The verification of native language already exists for them, after all.

But perhaps we don't need to worry about the claims made by all users of the site. I know for a fact that there are registered users who only use the site to give/receive KudoZ help. I gather that the account type on ProZ is what determines your inclusion in the directory. "Other" users are not included, whereas "translator" members are. Maybe ProZ should encourage more users to switch to a "Language User" category (who wants to be labelled as "Other"?) with few requirements for the profile, at the same time as verifying claims made by those who want to have their name in a directory of professional translators and to be able to quote for jobs here. I don't know what proportion of users here really are genuine working translators AND are keen to be contacted for work - maybe someone else has a better idea.

In short, I wonder whether we shouldn't first identify the population causing us this enormous problem: is it any registered user or member of the site whose native language is important, or is it only those claiming to be active translators using this site as a professional networking opportunity?

Sheila


 
Ty Kendall
Ty Kendall  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:49
Hebrew to English
What if, what if, what if.... Jul 23, 2012

Kirsten Bodart wrote:
I said 'much'. So the primary focus is still on English. I agree that English represents the largest number of false language claims (probably), but you are not alone on this site. Hence, if you want to find a solution, you need to find it for everyone and all languages, not for English alone.


There's no probably about it.
English definitely is the most misrepresented language.
How about we cross bridges when we come to them?
I would refer you to the "just because we can't do everything, doesn't mean we should do nothing" line of reasoning.
It simply may not be possible to weed out false claims of native Zulu, but there again, it this a problem on the same scale which needs addressing?

You might well disagree, but that way you only move up the problem. As Cetacea said, what's going to stop people from making several profiles if first native language claims are not checked? What's the purpose of second native language verification then?


What's to stop anyone from doing anything at any time? You are going to have to acknowledge that no solution will be perfect and foolproof.

No, not of a bob or two, of physical resources like exam centres and a staff infrastructure that allows appeals and whatever verification that is not open to fraud.


The funny thing about money is that you can use it to buy physical resources.

Who is to check whether I don't let a native Hindi speaker do my verification test or whatever is required?


Well, that's why my "Polygraph @ Powwow" idea is just such an undiscovered gem.

It may surprise you to know there were five "if's" (not including "what about"s or "what's to stop"s" in your last post. I would refer you to Phil Hand's "what if, what if, what if" post rather than repeat it here.

[Edited at 2012-07-23 13:57 GMT]


 
Bernhard Sulzer
Bernhard Sulzer  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 18:49
English to German
+ ...
I do believe native language can be verified Jul 23, 2012

Sheila Wilson wrote:

There can be no proof of native language - these pages have clearly shown that we'll never find criteria to prove nativeness - but evidence can be examined and recommendations made. And who is best placed to examine the evidence of native writing? Certainly not non-native clients or agency PMs. How about members of this site, professional translators themselves and verified native speakers of the language in question, a.k.a. CPN members? The verification of native language already exists for them, after all.



Just my thoughts, Sheilah,

I and many others here do believe you can "verify" native languages.
There are many criteria that are being discussed in this thread. As far as I'm concerned, these pages do not show that we'll never find criteria to prove 'nativeness' in a language. I have seen quite a few criteria that I find applicable.

Sheila Wilson wrote:

But perhaps we don't need to worry about the claims made by all users of the site. I know for a fact that there are registered users who only use the site to give/receive KudoZ help. I gather that the account type on ProZ is what determines your inclusion in the directory. "Other" users are not included, whereas "translator" members are. ...



I am sure our discussion is about individual translators and interpreters and not "others". But if "other individuals" would indeed show up in the search of individual translators/interpreters and claim one or two native languages, the same verification rules should apply to them, I would say.

B


 
Kirsten Bodart
Kirsten Bodart  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:49
Dutch to English
+ ...
No what if Jul 23, 2012

Ty Kendall wrote:
There's no probably about it.
English definitely is the most misrepresented language.
How about we cross bridges when we come to them?
I would refer you to the "just because we can't do everything, doesn't mean we should do nothing" line of reasoning.
It simply may not be possible to weed out false claims of native Zulu, but there again, it this a problem on the same scale which needs addressing?


That might be. Unless we have any Proz-wide figures, it is not very professional to make decisions about that. Nevertheless, the title of this topic is 'native language claims' not 'English native language clims', so we are crossing the bridge and we have come to it.

It might surprise you, but we are on a worldwide website and not on an English website. I don't know how big the problem is in French and Spanish.

At any rate, Proz.com cannot start a policy only for English. Why? Because it cannot discriminate. If you start mandatory verification only for English native language claims, you are igoring all the other languages. That might even be illegal.

What's to stop anyone from doing anything at any time? You are going to have to acknowledge that no solution will be perfect and foolproof.


The issue that is staring you in the face, but which you don't want to really ackowledge, is the fact that Proz is a uniquely internet-based organisation. From the start, it was not meant to be a professional association like the ATA or its counterparts, so it did not put mechanisms in place like exams or mandatory tranlation degrees/certificates. And now people are surprised that less scrupulous people have started abusing things a bit. What do you expect? Do we really have to be so surprised about it? Whenever you leave people too free to do what they want, abuse is what you get and when the abuse is there, it is difficult to root it out (look at the sports world).

The only way you could tackle this is like the ATA and its counterparts, have everyone do an exam, rated by certain well-placed people, or submit a copy of their degree. Do they sit the exam and were they approved? They get cerfitied or whatever you will call it, regardless of their native language. Anything short of that is lacking in seriousness. (it has been tried, it failed once [see Samuel's post about instant jobs] and it is now beig criticised [Proz. Certified Professional network])

But then, as has also been said by someone else, such a scheme would mean that Proz would lose much of its fee-paying members, i.e. of its revenu, and that's why nothing happens.

The funny thing about money is that you can use it to buy physical resources.


Of course you can! You just have to maintain them, all over the world, and pay your permanent staff a salary for being there. You think that something that was designed as a relatively low-cost cash cow (that's probably what it is, excuse the term) wishes to profile itself that way and incur more costs? If I was a stake holder, my answer would be, 'No.'

If you are the ATA, you are confined to one country which makes things cheaper. Cambridge has accredited schools, so they assure their presence outside the UK that way. Proz is not a professional organisation with standing like Cambridge, hence accreditation, hmmm, why would I want that as a school? And Proz is not confined to one country. Tell me, how is it going to work?

It may surprise you to know there were five "if's" (not including "what about"s or "what's to stop"s" in your last post. I would refer you to Phil Hand's "what if, what if, what if" post rather than repeat it here.


That doesn't surprise me. It's called lateral thinking.

[Edited at 2012-07-23 16:17 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?






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! »
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 »