| 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)
|
|---|
Balasubramaniam L. 
India
Local time: 21:19
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Protecting the turf... | Jul 29, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
I wouldn't give up that rhetorical piece of ground quite so easily. I'm proud of protecting my turf...".
I told you so!
And what is this anti-market bull whereby it's somehow bad for me to want to win clients by forcing my competitors to play on a level playing field?
Are you serious? By keeping out potential competitors (those whom you have bracketed as non-natives) who can also do as good a job as you, how does the playing field become level? Does it not careen rather sharply towards you?
[2012-07-29 15:43 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | | You'll need to explain yourself more :-) | Jul 29, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
@Charlie
I don't really see the point of extra sanctions on people who fail a native test. They just don't get to declare native in that language again. This goes back to a point I made to you earlier - for a threat to be effective, it has to be widely understood and feared. I don't think either will be true in this case.
What extra sanctions? If you mean kicking people off, I only mention it because it is more relevant and pithier at expressing the strength of my feeling on the subject than describing how I wouldn't cross the street to piss on these people if they were on fire.
We all know no-one's going to get kicked off anything. Well, if anyone does get kicked off, it'll be the people who suggest it, not the people who deserve it. Although I still have to disagree with your final analysis, in that I find it hard to believe that anyone who has taken the trouble to register and tell lies would not prefer to stay on the site than get kicked off, hence I see it as a hypothetical threat to be "feared" (or at least viewed as a sub-optimum outcome!).
My version: declare language Q to be native, and you get a very obviously "unverified" native sign. This native sign would allow you to bid on Q-native only jobs. You have to do the test within Z time (couple of months?). If you pass, your language goes a beautiful salmon pink; if you fail, you lose it altogether. One retest would be allowed after a certain time (sometimes things go wrong). Before test 2, you would not be allowed to declare language Q. If you fail test two, you're never allowed to declare or test in language Q again.
That works for me, IF we assume everybody has to get verified at some point (and no-one's ever going to get deleted) - the universal approach I know you prefer, versus the challenge approach which I had always thought would prove cheaper and more manageable, since I prefer to believe that, in fact, most people are honest most of the time and universal testing is not necessary. Proper stats (on false claims regarding the "N" quality of output) would be needed to persude me that more than 50% of profiles contain lies about "N" and that universal testing is therefore necessary.
My favoured test is still the write X words in 20 minutes thing that I've written up a couple of times - have any better suggestions been made?
Every suggestion that is based on scheduled tests rather than an assessment of pre-existing output (preferably spontaneous e.g. profiles, CV, but could be e.g. a translation posted as a sample) has some obvious flaws, IMHO. It is also these flaws that lead me to instinctively shy away from universal testing - if you're gonna have an imperfect test (and you are), you may as well minimise the number of people you subject to it.
| | | | | Those are not the only options | Jul 29, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
This is a real problem, hence the big argument over verification for all vs. verification for second languages only. (...)
Hmm. That's still 10,000 a month, isn't it? OK, maybe a rethink needed. (...) . I know there'll be a problem with the rump, but it's better than nothing.
Better than nothing - yes.
Better than other options that are at least hypothetically available - probably not.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:49
Hebrew to English
| If only this did happen..... | Jul 29, 2012 |
| | |
|
|
|
| You confused me with someone else, matey. | Jul 29, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
As I see it, it is simply a case of protecting the turf.
In that case, you are either not reading the thread properly or your understanding of what you are reading is so poor you should probably review your position of offering translations out of English, frankly.
Or you're trolling.
Which is it?
I appreciate Phil's stance differs, because he does suffer from a severe "market for lemons" effect which is not the case for all of us (but probably goes a long way to explain the positions he adopts).
Fortunately, a few are realizing the futility of their position and are returning to the quality argument, (Charlie, for example, in his recent posts). But the majority are loathe to give up the special and unfair advantage that the badge of nativity confers upon them over their competition, without a bitter fight.
I've been consistent in my approach for a very long time now - I first mentioned "quality of written output" on July 5th but the idea was rattling around before that specific phrase. And it is not and never has been about any "special and unfair advantage" - if I can't demonstrate superior skills to a non-native and earn a living, I'm in the wrong job. See comment above.
Ah, balls... I've been suckered into feeding the troll, haven't I?
| | | | psicutrinius
Spain
Local time: 17:49
Member (2008)
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Yes, Charlie | Jul 29, 2012 |
Balls or otherwise, you have been
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 23:49
Chinese to English
| How would the challenge thing actually work, then? | Jul 29, 2012 |
Sorry, I suspect you've explained this a few times, but I haven't got it clear in my head yet.
"Every suggestion that is based on scheduled tests rather than an assessment of pre-existing output (preferably spontaneous e.g. profiles, CV, but could be e.g. a translation posted as a sample)"
I can't see how this could be made into a usable site policy. How would you word the rule?
E.g.: "If another site user believes that information in your profile is untrue... See more Sorry, I suspect you've explained this a few times, but I haven't got it clear in my head yet.
"Every suggestion that is based on scheduled tests rather than an assessment of pre-existing output (preferably spontaneous e.g. profiles, CV, but could be e.g. a translation posted as a sample)"
I can't see how this could be made into a usable site policy. How would you word the rule?
E.g.: "If another site user believes that information in your profile is untrue, they may ask for a review. If the information in question is your reported native language(s) then...?"
A user might not have anything in their profile; they might not chat on the forums; one poor kudoz post could trigger a challenge, and then what will the reviewer work on? And who will these reviewers be?
And what would the challenge mechanism be? Given that the private email to the site staff is non-functional? Are you going with Lisa's button idea, because I just can't see it happening. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Mouseovers instead of Tests | Jul 29, 2012 |
I think testing would be really difficult to implement for many reasons.
I tend to favor one of Samuel's suggestions a few pages back, which is that members provide an explanation of why they consider themselves native in each language they declare. This information could then be viewed in a mouseover that accompanies each native-language icon. If, for example, you are a native speaker of U.S. English (like I am), the mouseover might read: Born, raised, and educated to degree-level ... See more I think testing would be really difficult to implement for many reasons.
I tend to favor one of Samuel's suggestions a few pages back, which is that members provide an explanation of why they consider themselves native in each language they declare. This information could then be viewed in a mouseover that accompanies each native-language icon. If, for example, you are a native speaker of U.S. English (like I am), the mouseover might read: Born, raised, and educated to degree-level in the United States.
I also think it might be a good idea to have similar icons that allow you to explain why you consider yourself fluent or near-native in a particular language. So your icons might read something like this:
John Smith:
Native in: English (mouseover explanation)
Near-native in: Spanish (mouseover explanation)
Fluent in: German (mouseover explanation), Swedish (mouseover explanation)
Working languages would still be listed in the same manner they are now.
Although people can still fudge the truth, a "near-native" option might deter people from claiming complete nativeness in languages that they are very good at, but not technically native speakers of. For example, I consider my children near-natives of English. I have spoken to them in English since birth, but they have been mostly raised and educated in an Arabic-speaking country. Although they could perhaps make a good case for being native speakers of English, a near-native mouseover would allow them to explain their unique situation a bit more accurately. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| the challenge thing | Jul 30, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Sorry, I suspect you've explained this a few times, but I haven't got it clear in my head yet.
I think a few ideas have been bounced around, that's all.
"Every suggestion that is based on scheduled tests rather than an assessment of pre-existing output (preferably spontaneous e.g. profiles, CV, but could be e.g. a translation posted as a sample)"
I can't see how this could be made into a usable site policy. How would you word the rule?
E.g.: "If another site user believes that information in your profile is untrue, they may ask for a review. If the information in question is your reported native language(s) then...?"
The straightforward answer is that we don't need to, there is already a rule about misrepresentation. It just needs to be enforced (and, arguably, the reporting/challenging mechanism explained). It might also need to be explicitly stated that this includes claims of "N" languages (any - first, second, whatever).
In the interests of transparency, it might be good to expand still further to state the sanction in the event of being found "guilty". Assuming no proper hardcore proposals are likely to get through, your suggestion from earlier about not being allowed to respond to jobs is a good start. I assume, if the "N" is at minimum removed, it will also stop these people showing up on searches, too.
A user might not have anything in their profile; they might not chat on the forums; one poor kudoz post could trigger a challenge, and then what will the reviewer work on? And who will these reviewers be?
If the user posts nothing, then, frankly, the main issue that many of us have solves itself. Our reputations are not sullied by those that stay silent, they are sullied by those claiming "N" and writing ungrammatical nonsense. However, personally, I think I'd like to see the allowable evidence extended to, e.g. translation work commissioned via the site, CVs and suchlike.
There would need to be a threshold, about which I look forward to massive arguments
Alternatively, we could take the testing idea, assuming that the nuts and bolts of pass/fail are worked out as they would need to be for universal testing, and just apply it to challenges only. That is, the challenge is initiated on the basis of spontaneous output from here (and elsewhere?) and the resolution takes the form of the test you want everyone to take.
The issue of the reviewers/testers applies to any mechanism or procedure (challenge or universal), and I think it remains an open question at this point. I think the only obvious rule is that it can't be done by people working in the same language pair(s).
And what would the challenge mechanism be? Given that the private email to the site staff is non-functional? Are you going with Lisa's button idea, because I just can't see it happening.
Again, the straightforward answer is that the private email to site staff should not be non-functional, and that policy by the site needs to be reviewed.
There are some points that need sorting, naturally. As you say, triggering this process on the basis of one person objecting to one kudoz entry would probably be excessive. I do see some advantages to a button. It would probably make counting easier, both in terms of logging the challenges made against a person, to trigger the process, and indeed (because we have to accept that this would happen) counting the challenges people make, to ensure that people do not make unjustified, trivial or vexatious challenges (and that if they do, the option to challenge is removed). And yes, this adds a layer of complexity missing from the "universal" approach. But on the other hand, it wouldn't take 5 years to improve the situation.
(All that said, I know sod all about what stats are already kept on support emails, and perhaps some of that data is already available from the existing procedure.)
I think that could crack it!
a) find an objective test of written competence (with potential instant messaging or some other solution if need be, either as well or instead - I do worry about the spontaneous output issues (!) so if we could agree on that for existing written output, I'd be happy with that too)
b) use the existing rules and methods to allow challenges to "N"
c) upon a certain threshold of challenges, make the person do the test in a)
d) decide on the sanction for failing the test or refusing to take it (and on the people to make the pass/fail decision)
e) (new point) decide on a sanction for abuse of the challenge function
f) pour a glass of brandy, light a fat cigar, and sigh contently over a job well done.
Against that, the universal option does seem to probably only include a), c) (without the threshold) and d), but would need to be applied to absolutely everyone, for all possible "N" languages (it's probably fair to say that some languages are never going to be challenged!).
Which is more likely to achieve the desired result? More quickly? At least cost?
(And note that any objections to a) and d) will, I think, apply to any solution.)
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 16:49
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| In that case... | Jul 30, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: Sheila Wilson wrote:
There's room for us all on ProZ, but let's differentiate between paying, verified members who can be contacted for translations and who can apply for jobs, and non-paying registered site users who can play an active part in KudoZ and the forums but will not be included in the directory or be permitted to quote for jobs. At the moment Proz benefits from effects of scale. You can find anyone one here, so it's a useful place to look. If you stop non-members from applying for jobs entirely, then those scale benefits will all be lost, and both clients and users will desert the site in droves.
In that case, perhaps ProZ might be more amenable to allowing non-paying members to quote on jobs (if the client chooses), but not adding their names to the directory.
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 08:49
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | You must be kidding | Jul 30, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
I don't think 90% of Americans could tell if somebody is a British English native speaker or if the person is from another country and just has a very good command of the language.
Sorry, I am still busy laughing my head off.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 23:49
Chinese to English
| Any possibility of this happening, though? | Jul 30, 2012 |
Few things:
the straightforward answer is that the private email to site staff should not be non-functional, and that policy by the site needs to be reviewed.
Yeah, so this is where I see the problem. We've just had Jared say he's not doing this. In the interests of a realistic chance of a change, what are you suggesting we say to Jared or to the wider membership to drive a change in policy?
Proz is a coop, so if we get a lot of people onside, we can, as owners, force a change. But it might be easier to persuade Jared and friends.
If the user posts nothing, then, frankly, the main issue that many of us have solves itself. Our reputations are not sullied by those that stay silent, they are sullied by those claiming "N" and writing ungrammatical nonsense.
Not sure about that, because these people are still bidding on (and getting) jobs - they write their nonsense in emails to outsourcers, and I suspect outsourcers are more interested in those emails (and CVs, and translation output) than forum posts.
It would be interesting to know if there are any mechanisms for feedback to the site about a translator following a job (other than the WWA) - I suspect there aren't.
However, personally, I think I'd like to see the allowable evidence extended to, e.g. translation work commissioned via the site, CVs and suchlike.
There would need to be a threshold, about which I look forward to massive arguments
This is my problem with using existing stuff - if the input to the review process is non-standardised, how can you set a threshold?
There are some points that need sorting, naturally.
Yeah, but I think we need to sort them ourselves. The signal from the staff is "not interested". No-one is going to work out these details other than us. If there is to be any possibility of change, I think we need to be presenting fully fleshed-out plans (possibly costed), and applying some serious pressure. Otherwise we are just completely wasting our time here.
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:49
Hebrew to English
| Me too Nicole - poor, poor Americans | Jul 30, 2012 |
Nicole Schnell wrote: LilianBoland wrote:
I don't think 90% of Americans could tell if somebody is a British English native speaker or if the person is from another country and just has a very good command of the language.
Sorry, I am still busy laughing my head off.
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 08:49
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam
Ty Kendall wrote: Me too Nicole - poor, poor Americans Nicole Schnell wrote: LilianBoland wrote:
I don't think 90% of Americans could tell if somebody is a British English native speaker or if the person is from another country and just has a very good command of the language.
Sorry, I am still busy laughing my head off.
I highly recommend to anyone who considers Americans particularly deaf and dumb and stupid to move into a better housing area.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:49
Hebrew to English
| @Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov (LilianBoland) | Jul 30, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
No, Ty, I don't have any higher education really in any other language than English. There might have been one course or two at one of the universities where I studied in another language, but the language of instruction was English.
With respect, are you sure of this?
According to the information publicly available online, English/Linguistics is not taught in English at the University of Silesia, but Polish.
http://www.english.us.edu.pl/courses-english-0
Current information would indicate only a handful of Sciences are taught in English there.
If I'm wrong or missing something, I'm open to being corrected!
[Edited at 2012-07-30 08:49 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 » |
| | 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 
