| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11] > | Proz-bashing on FB and elsewhere Thread poster: neilmac
|
|---|
Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 03:57
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Enrique Cavalitto wrote:
So, if the objective for some KudoZ comment was to show that the asker had selected a wrong answer, it was against the rule and it was OK to hide it.
So, would it be okay to say "The wrong answer was chosen" but not "The asker chose the wrong answer"? Or if neither, then, would it be allowed to say "The answer that was chosen, is wrong"?
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 03:57
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
1. Get rid of posters dictating the terms (rates, posting language - we don't need to read "quote your "best" rate, "only so and so need to "apply," ....)
Do you mean that there should be a mechanism that checks the job post's wording, and if it finds a black-listed phrase, it should warn the job poster "Your job post mentions 'best rate'. If you confirm, your job post will not be sent to the [23] translators who have elected not to receive job posts that mention 'best rate'.", or possibly even "Your job post mentions 'best rate'. Please remove this phrase from the job post."? Both options will simply lead to job posters inventing new ways of saying "best rate" that doesn't get flagged.
2.Create a new submission form for posters that let's them state what they need in respectful and realistic terms.
Do you mean that, instead of selection options from a list, the job poster should be allowed to write his request in free form, and then hope that ProZ.com's intelligent matching system will correctly match his job post with appropriate translators, based on the phrases that he used in his job post?
If such a feature is implemented, then I would appreciate if ProZ.com would give me the option of not being considered for such posts, for I'm reasonably sure I will end up getting lots of notifications about job posts that only seem to match my profile (but don't actually), due to the phrasing used in the job poster's job post.
My2c.
| | | | | Some really great ideas here | Apr 25, 2015 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I suggest the job board system needs to be completely revamped.
Definitely. Only once I had to use it, to find a suitable partner in translating videos into ES for subtitling.
There was so much to fill in, and so little guidance, that - thinking of other jobs - I sort of empathized with the predicament an agency PM is in when they have to do it every day. I began understanding how some stupid requirements (e.g. EN-PT translator, native speaker of CN) came to be, as a result of getting lost in the middle of so many details.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
1. Get rid of posters dictating the terms (rates, posting language - we don't need to read "quote your "best" rate, "only so and so need to "apply," ....)
Best idea ever. I recently went to the Brazilian chapter of Habitissimo, searching for a carpenter to make me a couple of doors. I was expected to provide specs, measurements, materials, finish, etc. but I was NOT asked about how much I'd be willing to pay.
Why are translation clients expected/prompted/allowed to say how much they intend to pay?
In any NORMAL trade, it's up to the provider to set the price for their services.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
2. Create a new submission form for posters that let's them state what they need in respectful and realistic terms. They are actually the applicants, the "clients" looking for service providers, and the more respectful a post is, the more likely it seems to me that professionals will answer it and suggest a realistic and fair rate and provide a professional service - as one could expect from a person featured on a portal that calls itself "Proz.com.".
This is where the present submission online form is lacking guidance.
Expert job posters have learned to develop a good job post.
Others are left unaided, to focus on "your best rate".
On another facet, I think that the option of submitting bids via Proz should be free for all concerned. However it is my opinion that the job poster should PAY (perhaps the same $1 free users pay to bid) for the option of getting bids via e-mail only.
I think these changes could lead to some significant improvements to the Proz mission and values in practice.
There are enough Proz copycats around, so the prospects who want absolutely nothing but the lowest (they call them "best") rates will gradually learn that there are not so many such options on Proz; they'd be better served elsewhere. Some day they'll realize that machine translation is not so much worse, and start to cleanse the translation market.
| | | | | Constructive suggestions please | Apr 25, 2015 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
1. Get rid of posters dictating the terms (rates, posting language - we don't need to read "quote your "best" rate, "only so and so need to "apply," ....) Do you mean that there should be a mechanism that checks the job post's wording, and if it finds a black-listed phrase, it should warn the job poster "Your job post mentions 'best rate'. If you confirm, your job post will not be sent to the [23] translators who have elected not to receive job posts that mention 'best rate'.", or possibly even "Your job post mentions 'best rate'. Please remove this phrase from the job post."? Both options will simply lead to job posters inventing new ways of saying "best rate" that doesn't get flagged. 2.Create a new submission form for posters that let's them state what they need in respectful and realistic terms. Do you mean that, instead of selection options from a list, the job poster should be allowed to write his request in free form, and then hope that ProZ.com's intelligent matching system will correctly match his job post with appropriate translators, based on the phrases that he used in his job post? If such a feature is implemented, then I would appreciate if ProZ.com would give me the option of not being considered for such posts, for I'm reasonably sure I will end up getting lots of notifications about job posts that only seem to match my profile (but don't actually), due to the phrasing used in the job poster's job post. My2c.
Why don't you try to be constructive, Samuel, and not try to shoot down some of what I said?
There need not be a mechanism that checks the job post's wording ... you just give them a form they fill out - where such wording is simply very unlikely to occur. Specifics need to be worked out.
Options from a list are fine as well, but, again, we don't need any irrelevant "demands". So if you ask the right questions on a submission form, you'll get the right answers. Again, specifics need to be worked out.
Now, if your're happy with the status quo, so be it.
[Edited at 2015-04-25 16:29 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
On another facet, I think that the option of submitting bids via Proz should be free for all concerned. However it is my opinion that the job poster should PAY (perhaps the same $1 free users pay to bid) for the option of getting bids via e-mail only.
I think these changes could lead to some significant improvements to the Proz mission and values in practice.
There are enough Proz copycats around, so the prospects who want absolutely nothing but the lowest (they call them "best") rates will gradually learn that there are not so many such options on Proz; they'd be better served elsewhere. Some day they'll realize that machine translation is not so much worse, and start to cleanse the translation market.
Like it!
| | | |
Enrique Cavalitto wrote: This means that the askers have the right to select the answer they find most herpful, and nobody else (not even staff members) can question that choice. This is set in KudoZ rule 3.7 Commentary on askers or answerers, and their postings or decisions to post, is not allowed. Comments or insinuations concerning an answerer's or asker's experience or profile, his/her decision to post a certain question or answer, grade or close a question in a certain way, make a certain glossary entry, etc., are strictly prohibited (whether posted publicly, made directly to the person in question, or made to another site user).
Okay, that's one arbitrary and bad rule that should go. The purpose is to help the asker, this should not be a beauty contest. It necessarily includes explaining why some proposals are detrimental and could harm the asker. Simply posting an unqualified disagree is not enough in such situations.
The rule is also inconsistent with Kudoz mechanics, because:
- agrees, disagrees and even neutral ratings are explicitly supposed to come with up to 255 words of commentary
- discussion is enabled for a reason — presumably not just to say hi or ask if more context is available, but to actually discuss the solution
Also, I'm sorry to need to use strong words here, Enrique, but I need to. Even though the glossary may be a peripheral goal, banning any discussion of glossary entries is unprofessional and detrimental to the community and translators in general. I am not using the word 'unprofessional' lightly, but at the same time I'm using it intentionally here, I didn't misspeak myself. The community expressly aims at professionalism, understanding it as 'not perfect but adequate', but this is not even adequate, it defeats even that humbler goal.
[Edited at 2015-04-25 16:20 GMT]
I also wish to take exception to 'service industry' — that is what Proz.com unfortunately has contributed to making us more like (by reducing our profile and promoting subservience to clients, their requirements etc.), but we are a learned profession rather, and that's something else.
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
This is where the present submission online form is lacking guidance.
Expert job posters have learned to develop a good job post.
Others are left unaided, to focus on "your best rate".
On another facet, I think that the option of submitting bids via Proz should be free for all concerned. However it is my opinion that the job poster should PAY (perhaps the same $1 free users pay to bid) for the option of getting bids via e-mail only.
In my opinion it would be the best if 'bids' disappeared altogether. No matter how many denials are given, a 'bid' is explicitly part of an auction, bids are what makes an auction rather.
Unfortunately, inducing translators to compete seems to be part of Proz.com's selling proposition directed at corporate members.
I would suggest using neutral words instead: responses, quotations even, though that's not ideal.
As regards budget outsourcers, I think there is an alternative solution to getting just rid of them — simply make it two platforms: one for six-cent outsourcers and below, where a competitive commodity-like atmosphere is expected, and another, where serious rates are expected to be paid to serious translators, no funky business.
[Edited at 2015-04-25 16:31 GMT]
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
There need not be a mechanism that checks the job post's wording ... you just give them a form they fill out - where such wording is simply very unlikely to occur. Specifics need to be worked out.
Options from a list are fine as well, but, again, we don't need any irrelevant "demands". So if you ask the right questions on a submission form, you'll get the right answers. Again, specifics need to be worked out.
Rather than simply just parsing the posts, some rules would obviously be necessary, making (habitual or blatant) circumvention a sanctionable violation that staff or moderators would react to.
But like I said, perhaps leaving a separate section for price-driven outsourcers would be preferable, in order to avoid the whole rules changing, post parsing and banning drama while making sure they don't dilute the serious business pool.
[Edited at 2015-04-25 16:36 GMT]
[Edited at 2015-04-25 16:37 GMT]
| | | | | Both would be wrong | Apr 25, 2015 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Enrique Cavalitto wrote:
So, if the objective for some KudoZ comment was to show that the asker had selected a wrong answer, it was against the rule and it was OK to hide it. So, would it be okay to say "The wrong answer was chosen" but not "The asker chose the wrong answer"? Or if neither, then, would it be allowed to say "The answer that was chosen, is wrong"?
Both would be wrong, as both are questioning the answer's choice.
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | | ProZ.com uses 'quotes', nos 'bids' | Apr 25, 2015 |
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote: Enrique Cavalitto wrote: This means that the askers have the right to select the answer they find most herpful, and nobody else (not even staff members) can question that choice. This is set in KudoZ rule 3.7 Commentary on askers or answerers, and their postings or decisions to post, is not allowed. Comments or insinuations concerning an answerer's or asker's experience or profile, his/her decision to post a certain question or answer, grade or close a question in a certain way, make a certain glossary entry, etc., are strictly prohibited (whether posted publicly, made directly to the person in question, or made to another site user). Okay, that's one arbitrary and bad rule that should go. The purpose is to help the asker, this should not be a beauty contest. It necessarily includes explaining why some proposals are detrimental and could harm the asker. Simply posting an unqualified disagree is not enough in such situations. The rule is also inconsistent with Kudoz mechanics, because: - agrees, disagrees and even neutral ratings are explicitly supposed to come with up to 255 words of commentary
- discussion is enabled for a reason — presumably not just to say hi or ask if more context is available, but to actually discuss the solution
Also, I'm sorry to need to use strong words here, Enrique, but I need to. Even though the glossary may be a peripheral goal, banning any discussion of glossary entries is unprofessional and detrimental to the community and translators in general. I am not using the word 'unprofessional' lightly, but at the same time I'm using it intentionally here, I didn't misspeak myself. The community expressly aims at professionalism, understanding it as 'not perfect but adequate', but this is not even adequate, it defeats even that humbler goal.
Thanks Łukasz,
You may post an answer, and all reference information supporting it. You can also post a disagree on another answer, including the reasons behind it. Then the askers chose the anwer they found most helpful and an entry is made in the glossaey. Questioning the askers choice is out of the question, as only they are in a position to determine which of the answers were more useful for them.
Having a post-question debate in the glossary area is an idea that has been in ProZ.com plans for some time, and I personally hope we will be able to do it at some point in the future, when the resources become available and other priorities have been served.
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
This is where the present submission online form is lacking guidance.
Expert job posters have learned to develop a good job post.
Others are left unaided, to focus on "your best rate".
On another facet, I think that the option of submitting bids via Proz should be free for all concerned. However it is my opinion that the job poster should PAY (perhaps the same $1 free users pay to bid) for the option of getting bids via e-mail only. In my opinion it would be the best if 'bids' disappeared altogether. No matter how many denials are given, a 'bid' is explicitly part of an auction, bids are what makes an auction rather. Unfortunately, inducing translators to compete seems to be part of Proz.com's selling proposition directed at corporate members. I would suggest using neutral words instead: responses, quotations even, though that's not ideal.
ProZ.com does not use bid but quote. If you find a ProZ.com page where the term 'bid' is used, please submit a support request and it will be corrected.
Kind regards
| | |
|
|
|
| For PROZ: The rationale on the $1 fee for a job poster selecting quotes via e-mail | Apr 25, 2015 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
On another facet, I think that the option of submitting bids via Proz should be free for all concerned. However it is my opinion that the job poster should PAY (perhaps the same $1 free users pay to bid) for the option of getting bids via e-mail only.
I think these changes could lead to some significant improvements to the Proz mission and values in practice.
There are enough Proz copycats around, so the prospects who want absolutely nothing but the lowest (they call them "best") rates will gradually learn that there are not so many such options on Proz; they'd be better served elsewhere. Some day they'll realize that machine translation is not so much worse, and start to cleanse the translation market. Like it!
Let's assume a prospect has posted a job restricted to Proz members. As a paying member, I can see it, of course, and quote in the manner (via Proz or e-mail) chosen by the job poster.
However let's suppose that the job involves specialized translation in some area I don't cover. Nevertheless, I have a friend who is a specialist translator in that area, and I owe him/her a favor (e.g. some client referral). Let's assume that friend is NOT a Proz (paying) member, at best a free user, or isn't even registered there.
If quotes are allowed only via the Proz system, that friend simply cannot send one.
However if quotes are accepted via e-mail, all I have to do is to provide that friend with a copy of the job post (easy to convert into a PDF) and the e-mail address. Technically, Proz will have 'lost' that friend's $1 for quoting, or their membership fee.
Consequently, the job poster, upon asking for quotes via e-mail should make up for Proz's lost income (possibly higher than $1 per post in this case).
| | | | | Functions and perceptions are what count | Apr 25, 2015 |
Enrique Cavalitto wrote:
ProZ.com does not use bid but quote. If you find a ProZ.com page where the term 'bid' is used, please submit a support request and it will be corrected.
You could call it cucumber, it wouldn't mean it is one. The perception is the process functions much like a reverse auction and ergo what are submitted are akin to bids.
See also earlier remarks about "hidden" versus "deleted". The effect of hiding a post is essentially the same as it would be if it were deleted - the key point of a forum post being its visibility to other people - therefore hidden posts are perceived as deleted.
This is one aspect where site terminology is irrelevant. People are calling things by what they most appear to resemble.
| | | | | Answering to Łukasz | Apr 25, 2015 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Enrique Cavalitto wrote:
ProZ.com does not use bid but quote. If you find a ProZ.com page where the term 'bid' is used, please submit a support request and it will be corrected.
You could call it cucumber, it wouldn't mean it is one. The perception is the process functions much like a reverse auction and ergo what are submitted are akin to bids. See also earlier remarks about "hidden" versus "deleted". The effect of hiding a post is essentially the same as it would be if it were deleted - the key point of a forum post being its visibility to other people - therefore hidden posts are perceived as deleted. This is one aspect where site terminology is irrelevant. People are calling things by what they most appear to resemble.
Hi Charlie, I was addressing Łukasz' suggestion to replace the term 'bids' with something on the line of 'responses' or 'quotations'
| | | | | Nested quotes, point still stands | Apr 25, 2015 |
Enrique Cavalitto wrote:
Hi Charlie, I was addressing Łukasz' suggestion to replace the term 'bids' with something on the line of 'responses' or 'quotations'
Yup, I got that. I went for brevity in the end and avoiding nested quotes (truth is the post was long & I kinda lost my way trying to quote the right bits). With the benefit of an hour's hindsight, I can see why you'd think I'd missed it and was addressing only you. Apologies if you felt individually singled out. The same point applies to any messing about with nomenclature without addressing the underlying issues, whoever suggests it and whatever terms are proposed or adopted. The jobs board does tend to be seen as an auction and therefore responses will tend to be known as bids (as a whizz through the forums shows), at least in the vernacular, until the jobs board itself changes.
| | |
|
|
|
| More context for an example | Apr 25, 2015 |
Tim Drayton wrote: How about this example Dan Lucas wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
One reason people criticise this website elsewhere is simply that it's pretty difficult to criticise proz on proz itself. Again, a decision site management is perfectly entitled to make. But I do know that some fairly draconian moderation decisions have driven many people away (sometimes to leave, sometimes just to keep their own counsel). My knowledge of and participation in ProZ only dates back a year, but what Charlie says rings true. I find ProZ to be a very... what's the word? I almost want to say "prudish" site. I find moderators quick to act and heavy-handed when they do act, often snuffing out comments that moderators on most other forums would let stand. (And I have some experience here, having been online for nearly 30 years, starting with JANET in the late 1980s and Cix during its heyday in the pre-internet days of the early 1990s.) One of my posts was deleted because it included the words "I'm somewhat alarmed to find myself partly agreeing with Mr. A ", where Mr. A was another user who - as I verified by email - had taken no offence. Who in their right minds would construe that as offensive anyway? But deleted it was. I've seen other, equally innocuous messages struck out. In nearly all cases these were posts that the man or woman in the street would not consider to be problematical. Maybe it's because management (New York-based, right?) is a bastion of political correctness. Maybe it's because many moderators are not, as far as I can see, native speakers of English and may be unable to accurately assess tone in written English. Whatever. Contrary to the stated aims of one of the site staff in a recent post, heavy-handed moderation does not give the impression that ProZ is a professional site for mature people. Heavy-handed moderation gives the impression that ProZ is run by prim busybodies who do not trust their paying users and who would rather drive them away than risk giving offense to some imaginary "sensitive reader". Allowing only milquetoast discussions is not the way to build an energetic and thriving community. People will go elsewhere to talk and maybe one day elsewhere to pay for access to job listings. Regards Dan I once made a post including the clause: "..., who is presumably fluent and literate in German, ..." and was told to delete the word 'presumably' because I was supposedly implying that this person wasn't fluent and literate in German and, thus, insulting them. This, in my opinion, is nonsense. All I knew about this individual was that he advertised his services as a German to English translator and so I could make the presumption that he must be pretty good at German, but I did not know this for a fact. There is nothing insulting about that. I refused to comply, and the post remained deleted.
This example could become clearer with some more context. A site member started a thread about an issue related to taxes, and Tim provided a useful URL together with the comment:
"I am sorry to hear about your problems but, quite frankly, it beggars belief that somebody doing business in Germany, especially one who is presumably fluent and literate in German, is incapable of finding out a crucial piece of information such as the VAT threshhold. It took me less than two minutes of googling to find the following: {URL}
I find this comment to be inappropriate and I would also have asked for a rewording before making it visible. I don't think this is just about a linguistic nuance.
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | Andy Watkinson
Spain
Local time: 03:57
Member
Catalan to English
+ ...
I am sorry to hear about your problems but, quite frankly, it beggars belief that somebody doing business in Germany, especially one who is presumably fluent and literate in German, is incapable of finding out a crucial piece of information such as the VAT threshhold. It took me less than two minutes of googling to find the following
I find this comment to be inappropriate and I would also have asked for a rewording before making it visible. I don't think this is just ... See more I am sorry to hear about your problems but, quite frankly, it beggars belief that somebody doing business in Germany, especially one who is presumably fluent and literate in German, is incapable of finding out a crucial piece of information such as the VAT threshhold. It took me less than two minutes of googling to find the following
I find this comment to be inappropriate and I would also have asked for a rewording before making it visible. I don't think this is just about a linguistic nuance.
Enrique
................
Someone earlier suggested having such cases made subject to review by a second or third party.
I originally thought such a measure to be unnecessary and improbable.
I stand corrected.
It's still improbable, if not impossible that any such feature will ever see the light of day on Proz, but it's obviously necessary as shown by your reply, Enrique.
Were, for example, the House of Commons to adopt your same approach and censor the word "Presumably", it would have to be shut down.
"Presumably, the honourable member for Little-Storping-in-the-Swuff is familiar with the dire consequences of derogating the Trafficking of CupCakes Act of 2005?"
"Presumably" does not cast any doubt on a person's knowledge; on the contrary, it means "you obviously do know xxx so how can you possibly say/ask/affirm/doubt/demand...etc. xxx?
And, BTW, I've had two posts hidden/deleted (same thing) when I had simply quoted a previous poster adding a simple "I agree".
Yet the post I quoted was never removed.
No-one, despite repeated requests, ever answered the simple question "if mine, why not the (Presumably) offending post?"
Still waiting... ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Then the rule is wrong | Apr 26, 2015 |
Enrique Cavalitto wrote: Samuel Murray wrote: Enrique Cavalitto wrote:
So, if the objective for some KudoZ comment was to show that the asker had selected a wrong answer, it was against the rule and it was OK to hide it. So, would it be okay to say "The wrong answer was chosen" but not "The asker chose the wrong answer"? Or if neither, then, would it be allowed to say "The answer that was chosen, is wrong"? Both would be wrong, as both are questioning the answer's choice. Regards, Enrique
And what, pray, is wrong with questioning the answer's choice - apart from being forbidden by some rule, that is?
Enrique, I understand what the rule says, but I think it is a deeply misguided one. The fact that KudoZ answers get to form part of a glossary may be a secondary consideration, while the primary one is to help the asker - so the asker may very well decide that a certain answer is the most helpful for him. But at that point that answer, as chosen by the asker, ends up in the glossary used by many other translators.
And if because of a misguided rule it is not even possible to point out that the chosen answer (albeit rated as "most helpful" bu the asker) is factually wrong, that means that the wrong answer may be adopted by less experienced translators in their own work "because they found it on ProZ".
I believe you that saying that a certain answer, though selected by the asker as "most helpful", is factually wrong is against the rules; it is precisely the results of this kind of arbitrary rules that has convinced many experienced translators not to use KudoZ answers any longer as reference materials, nor to contribute to the KudoZ system.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Proz-bashing on FB and elsewhere | 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 » |
| | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
