Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11] >
Proz-bashing on FB and elsewhere
Thread poster: neilmac
brg (X)
brg (X)
Netherlands
If everything is deleted Apr 26, 2015

nothing will remain. Problem solved, in the long run.

This topic is ridiculous, in some way. Show me a place where the LinkedIn management has been bashed, or the New York Times one. And did it help?

Have a nice day, or week. (I learned recently that this too is a thing that should not been said, and that we should use 'Kind regards' or 'Yours sincerely' instead. Source: grown-up translators talking to each other and giving directives).


 
José Henrique Lamensdorf
José Henrique Lamensdorf  Identity Verified
Brazil
Local time: 02:15
English to Portuguese
+ ...
In memoriam
The difference between a place and a community Apr 26, 2015

houtberg wrote:

If everything is deleted nothing will remain. Problem solved, in the long run.

This topic is ridiculous, in some way. Show me a place where the LinkedIn management has been bashed, or the New York Times one. And did it help?


Proz has become a virtual community. There are hundreds of people here that I've never met, and most likely never will. Yet I know them as if I had shared some part of my life with them. On these Proz forums, over the years, I've read their ideas, and hopefully they read some of mine too. Now and then I refer a translation prospect to one of them, ready for the question, Do you know him/her?". Though nobody ever asked, I have the answer ready: "I think I do, at least to some extent."

LinkedIn, to me, is more like a "place". I go there as if I went to Roosevelt Square, a couple of blocks from where I am. LOTS of strange, unknown people. I may overhear what one or another may say, consider some utterances as great ideas, be indifferent to others, and try to shut my ears to a few as well. That's all.

The other translation portals? Well, quite honestly, I wouldn't be bothered if any of them suddenly turned into a 404 Error. To me, it would mean as much as if Upper and Lower Slobovia decided to unite into one. I am merely an occasional visitor. On the other hand, here I consider myself a Prozian; in other words, some kind of an e-citizen.


Like Bernhard, I'm glad that Enrique Cavallito got interested in this thread. I had the privilege of meeting him and his wife twice, both in Sao Paulo and Buenos Aires. He is a great man in all senses, I'd need a ladder to say how tall he is. However his great ideas are what most likely will bring positive results here.

Summing it up, the major issues raised so far are:

1. Perceived iron-handed/unreasonable moderation on forums and Kudoz - Possibly some communication channel between posters and vetting moderators, as well as some additional training guidance/training for the latter should solve it.

2. Self-degradation of the translation marketplace via the jobs board - There isn't much guidance for job posters while they prepare a job post, so many posters look what's already posted, and go with the tide. If so many lacking guidance offer jobs at, say, 2¢-4¢ rates, many more will see such offers, and will be led to believe they can get an acceptable level of service for that.

Now, thinking of it, maybe this is what originally led Translation Directory on a downward rate spiral, to the point that its operators had to enforce a minimum stated rate to allow jobs to be posted. Perhaps old practices widespread on TD to offer 1¢/word like it used to. Maybe it developed some unstated notion that TD translators are cheaper, while Proz translators are 'expensive', even though some possibly significant portion of them comprises the very same people!

Some well-thought improvements to the jobs posting system could result in radical changes, both to Proz itself and to the translation market.


 
Charlie Bavington
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 05:15
French to English
Endorsements Apr 26, 2015

houtberg wrote:

This topic is ridiculous, in some way. Show me a place where the LinkedIn management has been bashed


Seems to get a regular kicking on Twitter, FWIW. About the purpose of endorsements, for instance.
Not sure we are comparing like with like, though. Any large platform is obviously going to be criticised, from Facebook to MySpace, and including LinkedIn, purely by virtue of the numbers involved. On a smaller scale, I see people complaining about the management of some LinkedIn groups on LinkedIn itself. They tend not to remain in the group in question for long, although at whose instigation I could not say. I can't speak about the NYT, but I can tell you that the moderation of the comments section of the Guardian, for example, comes in for huge criticism.

Nothing online escapes criticism. The only issue really is, where is the appropriate venue for that criticism to be voiced. There are those who are happy with the hardline approach
But I agree that disallowing the public display of discontent is a potentially efficient and often largely successful means of maintaining a system.
. I am not in their number. But then, it's not my website. If I want to slag it rotten, I must go elsewhere. Although that is a habit I have largely dropped, for I am spent, and if I comment at all these days it is to correct misconceptions e.g. that you have to pay to use the blue board.


 
TonyTK
TonyTK
German to English
+ ...
Confucius? Apr 26, 2015

houtberg wrote:

If everything is deleted, nothing will remain.



Or is it a haiku?


 
brg (X)
brg (X)
Netherlands
None of these Apr 27, 2015

TonyTK wrote:

houtberg wrote:

If everything is deleted, nothing will remain.



Or is it a haiku?


It has not the form of a haiku neither the wisdom of Confucius. Just call it fatalism. I was wondering about the role of bashing and of the trolling of this thread. Don't take me wrong, I have been moderated here and didn't like it (heavy-handed, as you call it, for things that were quite trivial = useful information for translators that should not been mentioned), I am a moderator elsewhere (not a translator's forum), I saw severe company bashing at several occasions. I saw people wishing the death of a company. (and in fact, the moral and material consequences, were quite heavy).
Each time I ask myself why some people want to destroy other people's work. Did they hurt you at that extent?
If you don't like it, just go away.



[Edited at 2015-04-27 08:17 GMT]


 
Tim Drayton
Tim Drayton  Identity Verified
Cyprus
Local time: 07:15
Turkish to English
+ ...
Quite so Apr 27, 2015

Jenny Forbes wrote:

Perhaps it was the words "it beggars belief", rather than the word "presumably", which were actually deemed "unacceptable", since those words are (probably intentionally) somewhat disparaging?
Not that one shouldn't be allowed to be disparaging - when a situation demands ...


A lot of people at the time said they thought that post was a offensive. I don't see why. It quite honestly beggars my belief that somebody living in Germany and who must be pretty good at German (obviously he must, if he is earning his living as a translator from German to English - this is a reasonable presumption, although not actually having met the person and tested his knowledge of German, I cannot state this to be so as a fact, hence the use of 'presumably') claims that he is unable to find out what the VAT threshold is in Germany. I was being critical of this person because I believed that that he was fluent and literal in German, not because I believed he wasn't. In fact, I found that thread and his attitude towards the German authorities to be offensive given that he was making the absurd allegation that they deliberately deceive people about the VAT threshold so that they can later impose a penalty on them. I think a disparaging comment was called for. Anyway, I stopped participating in discussion forums after that, and seeing these comments here, I can see that was the right policy.


 
Tim Drayton
Tim Drayton  Identity Verified
Cyprus
Local time: 07:15
Turkish to English
+ ...
That was actually my strong suspicion Apr 27, 2015

Samuel Murray wrote:


Dan, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say it, but I'm surprised and baffled by your interpretation of what was written. To me it is very obvious that the quoted reply is insinuating very strongly that the original poster is either lazy or stupid, despite the fact that it is supplemented by a useful URL.



Number one: The point of the URL was not to be useful, it was proof of the ready availability of the information the topic starter alleged that the German authorities were conspiring to keep secret - by the way, the title of the topic was, I believe, quoting from memory, the hysterical "BEWARE - THEY HIDE THE TRUTH".

Number two: Yes, perhaps given the ready availability of the information the topic starter alleges is kept secret (as demonstrated through the URL quoted), and willfully so, in order to impose penalties on people when they unwittingly fall foul of the threshold (an allegation that is probably downright defamatory, let alone offensive), I DID suspect that this person was stupid or lazy. It is a sad fact that some people are stupid and/or lazy. Does this mean that even if I have good grounds to believe that this applies to a particular person, I am not permitted to give voice to this suspicion, even through insinuation?

Incidentally, your statement "I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say it, but I'm surprised and baffled by your interpretation of what was written" to me clearly insinuates that you think Dan is stupid. How come you can do it and I can't? This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.


 
Jacques DP
Jacques DP  Identity Verified
Switzerland
Local time: 06:15
English to French
Yes Apr 27, 2015

Does this mean that even if I have good grounds to believe that this applies to a particular person, I am not permitted to give voice to this suspicion, even through insinuation?


I think it does. ProZ has created the rule, because your insinuation that the other is stupid, and the likely consequences of the insinuation, are seen as pollution in forums which have another aim, and in which preserving a friendly and goal-oriented atmosphere is seen as essential.

Help them if you want, ignore them otherwise. But showing to everyone how stupid they are is not considered a worthwhile contribution.

I'm not sure what you find so surprising in this rule. Is it the restriction of your freedom of speech?

You can do these sorts of things in society at large, because society at large is not a private company running a business platform and community with definite aims and corresponding rules.


 
Tim Drayton
Tim Drayton  Identity Verified
Cyprus
Local time: 07:15
Turkish to English
+ ...
Message received Apr 27, 2015

Jacques DP wrote:

Does this mean that even if I have good grounds to believe that this applies to a particular person, I am not permitted to give voice to this suspicion, even through insinuation?


I think it does. ProZ has created the rule, because your insinuation that the other is stupid, and the likely consequences of the insinuation, are seen as pollution in forums which have another aim, and in which preserving a friendly and goal-oriented atmosphere is seen as essential.

Help them if you want, ignore them otherwise. But showing to everyone how stupid they are is not considered a worthwhile contribution.

I'm not sure what you find so surprising in this rule. Is it the restriction of your freedom of speech?

You can do these sorts of things in society at large, because society at large is not a private company running a business platform and community with definite aims and corresponding rules.


OK, message received.

So, it is OK for somebody to start a highly inflammatory, and most probably also defamatory, thread here alleging that the German authorities have a deliberate policy of keeping the VAT threshold secret so that people will fall foul of it and they can then impose a penalty on them. I have shown that this allegation not true as this is information that is readily available in the public domain, and I quoted a URL to prove this.

On the other hand, it is apparently not OK for somebody, made angry by this unsubstantiated slur against the German authorities, and, having first expressed sympathy with this person (and my heart genuinely bleeds for somebody who is so stupid, lazy, naive or incompetent (or whatever else the reason is) as to set themselves up in business in a foreign country without finding out such basic information, which constitutes a breach of the duty of due diligence owed by anybody who sets up a business), simply stated that I find it absolutely unbelievable (the objective truth - it does beggar my belief, really and truly) that somebody can allege to be incapable of finding out information that is in the public domain and turns up on the first page of a Google search using relevant terms.

OK, it seems that it is fine in this community for somebody to raise the most bizarre and absurd allegations that hold no water against the authorities in their country of residence, but it is not OK for another person to point this out.

To me, my post was perfectly called for and I am puzzled to why, in the context, it is deemed to be offensive - yet not a word is said about the topic starter's allegations, which I find to be gratuitously offensive against the German tax authorities. I can only conclude that my values are so totally our of synch with those of this community that I have no business posting here.

By the way Proz, you have committed an own-goal in making that so-called offensive post, which has been kept hidden for years, visible. Perhaps you should take it down again.


 
Charlie Bavington
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 05:15
French to English
Likewise Apr 27, 2015

Tim Drayton wrote:

It is a sad fact that some people are stupid and/or lazy. Does this mean that even if I have good grounds to believe that this applies to a particular person, I am not permitted to give voice to this suspicion, even through insinuation?


I do not believe you are, no. (This appears to mean I share Jacques' opinion on this point, which is a novelty as far as this thread is concerned!)

In essence, my view is that in general online, as in life, you may criticise a particular opinion, action, view, etc. but preferably not extrapolate that to a person's character in general. As one might to a child: "that was a foolish thing to do/say", not just "you are a fool"*.

I will say that "it beggars belief that you couldn't find X" probably passes that test for me. The word lazy would probably fail it (being a general character attribute). It's also worth pointing out that it can be a fine line between the two, and that this website, in my view, errs far too much on the side of caution when deciding where the line is.

*Clearly there comes a point when a cumulative set of foolish actions and statements would lead to the inevitable conclusion. Still don't think you should say so on a forum, though.

[Edited at 2015-04-27 12:29 GMT]


 
Enrique Cavalitto
Enrique Cavalitto  Identity Verified
Argentina
Local time: 02:15
Member (2006)
English to Spanish
Mutual respect, professionalism and fair play Apr 27, 2015

Tim Drayton wrote:

Samuel Murray wrote:
Dan, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say it, but I'm surprised and baffled by your interpretation of what was written. To me it is very obvious that the quoted reply is insinuating very strongly that the original poster is either lazy or stupid, despite the fact that it is supplemented by a useful URL.


Number two: Yes, perhaps given the ready availability of the information the topic starter alleges is kept secret (as demonstrated through the URL quoted), and willfully so, in order to impose penalties on people when they unwittingly fall foul of the threshold (an allegation that is probably downright defamatory, let alone offensive), I DID suspect that this person was stupid or lazy. It is a sad fact that some people are stupid and/or lazy. Does this mean that even if I have good grounds to believe that this applies to a particular person, I am not permitted to give voice to this suspicion, even through insinuation?


I think the last question can be better answered by the (shortened) general rule 2:
    Mutual respect, professionalism and fair play are expected. Site users are expected to treat each other with courtesy, whether posting publicly or making direct contact, and are advised to act under the assumption of good faith. Harassment of, or attacks or ad hominem statements on, individuals or groups, of any form, as well as discouragement of another's use of the site, will not be tolerated.


Regards,
Enrique


 
Tim Drayton
Tim Drayton  Identity Verified
Cyprus
Local time: 07:15
Turkish to English
+ ...
But the thread itself broke the rules Apr 27, 2015

Enrique Cavalitto wrote:

Tim Drayton wrote:

Samuel Murray wrote:
Dan, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say it, but I'm surprised and baffled by your interpretation of what was written. To me it is very obvious that the quoted reply is insinuating very strongly that the original poster is either lazy or stupid, despite the fact that it is supplemented by a useful URL.


Number two: Yes, perhaps given the ready availability of the information the topic starter alleges is kept secret (as demonstrated through the URL quoted), and willfully so, in order to impose penalties on people when they unwittingly fall foul of the threshold (an allegation that is probably downright defamatory, let alone offensive), I DID suspect that this person was stupid or lazy. It is a sad fact that some people are stupid and/or lazy. Does this mean that even if I have good grounds to believe that this applies to a particular person, I am not permitted to give voice to this suspicion, even through insinuation?


I think the last question can be better answered by the (shortened) general rule 2:
    Mutual respect, professionalism and fair play are expected. Site users are expected to treat each other with courtesy, whether posting publicly or making direct contact, and are advised to act under the assumption of good faith. Harassment of, or attacks or ad hominem statements on, individuals or groups, of any form, as well as discouragement of another's use of the site, will not be tolerated.


Regards,
Enrique


".. attacks or ad hominem statements on, individuals or groups ..."

So why was this thread itself permitted, given that it constituted a gratuitous and clearly unfounded attack on the German tax authorities?


 
Kim Metzger
Kim Metzger  Identity Verified
Mexico
Local time: 23:15
German to English
Discussing moderation procedures Apr 27, 2015

Years ago I submitted a post discussing whether we should revisit the site rule "Speculating on others' opinions is not allowed. Commenting on others' opinions without authorization ('Jenny seems to think...'), is not allowed."

My concern was that this rule can be interpreted by members of staff in many different ways and I wondered whether it can be enforced consistently as written.
This post was rejected, and I was advised to submit a support ticket.
So my question is
... See more
Years ago I submitted a post discussing whether we should revisit the site rule "Speculating on others' opinions is not allowed. Commenting on others' opinions without authorization ('Jenny seems to think...'), is not allowed."

My concern was that this rule can be interpreted by members of staff in many different ways and I wondered whether it can be enforced consistently as written.
This post was rejected, and I was advised to submit a support ticket.
So my question is: can we now discuss this rule in the forums and suggest improvements?

Samuel Murray wrote:
The prohibition to speak publically about moderator decisions is another problematic rule that serves no purpose other than to protect moderators' feelings...
That would be true if this prohibition applied only to posting comments about moderation in threads that are not devoted to discussing the actions of moderators. But on ProZ.com you can't even post a message or start a thread about this in a dedicated sub-section of the forums, where it wouldn't pollute the other threads.


Enrique Cavalitto wrote:
Hi Jacques,
Discussing the ProZ.com moderation procedures, tools and practices is OK, as all feedback is welcome, and in many cases they lead to improvements.

On the other hand, forum discussions on specific instances of moderation are not allowed, based (as most of ProZ.com rules) on almost 15 years of experience.


Jared Tabor wrote:

Yesterday … I posted about ProZ.com's scope and rules, and how they limit what can be discussed on the site, and how those things can be discussed. Staff and moderators work to uphold the scope and rules in the forums. The scope and rules are not arbitrary.


Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
The rules generally are not … but application sometimes is. And when it's not arbitrary per se, the style might be, and communication about moderator actions is very far from perfect. Generally, communicating with Proz.com via the support system is an extremely onerous ordeal due to staff pasting in excerpts from rules without explaining their interpretation of them, just repeating things a second time while adding 'hope this helps' etc. Insufficient passive command of English may be an additional source of problems, too, sometimes. In any case, a most horrible experience almost every time….
Collapse


 
Charlie Bavington
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 05:15
French to English
This thread Apr 27, 2015

Tim Drayton wrote:

So why was this thread itself permitted, given that it constituted a gratuitous and clearly unfounded attack on the German tax authorities?


This thread's about slagging off proz on Facebook and suchlike

That thread was about something else, is a bit off topic here, and risks running foul of the rule about questioning moderators' decisions, which I'm sure Enrique will be delighted to quote us shortly


 
Enrique Cavalitto
Enrique Cavalitto  Identity Verified
Argentina
Local time: 02:15
Member (2006)
English to Spanish
Ad-hominem comments are not allowed Apr 27, 2015

Tim Drayton wrote:

Jacques DP wrote:

Does this mean that even if I have good grounds to believe that this applies to a particular person, I am not permitted to give voice to this suspicion, even through insinuation?


I think it does. ProZ has created the rule, because your insinuation that the other is stupid, and the likely consequences of the insinuation, are seen as pollution in forums which have another aim, and in which preserving a friendly and goal-oriented atmosphere is seen as essential.

Help them if you want, ignore them otherwise. But showing to everyone how stupid they are is not considered a worthwhile contribution.

I'm not sure what you find so surprising in this rule. Is it the restriction of your freedom of speech?

You can do these sorts of things in society at large, because society at large is not a private company running a business platform and community with definite aims and corresponding rules.


OK, message received.

So, it is OK for somebody to start a highly inflammatory, and most probably also defamatory, thread here alleging that the German authorities have a deliberate policy of keeping the VAT threshold secret so that people will fall foul of it and they can then impose a penalty on them. I have shown that this allegation not true as this is information that is readily available in the public domain, and I quoted a URL to prove this.

On the other hand, it is apparently not OK for somebody, made angry by this unsubstantiated slur against the German authorities, and, having first expressed sympathy with this person (and my heart genuinely bleeds for somebody who is so stupid, lazy, naive or incompetent (or whatever else the reason is) as to set themselves up in business in a foreign country without finding out such basic information, which constitutes a breach of the duty of due diligence owed by anybody who sets up a business), simply stated that I find it absolutely unbelievable (the objective truth - it does beggar my belief, really and truly) that somebody can allege to be incapable of finding out information that is in the public domain and turns up on the first page of a Google search using relevant terms.

OK, it seems that it is fine in this community for somebody to raise the most bizarre and absurd allegations that hold no water against the authorities in their country of residence, but it is not OK for another person to point this out.

To me, my post was perfectly called for and I am puzzled to why, in the context, it is deemed to be offensive - yet not a word is said about the topic starter's allegations, which I find to be gratuitously offensive against the German tax authorities. I can only conclude that my values are so totally our of synch with those of this community that I have no business posting here.


Of course you can post all the information you find on the issue under discussion, in order to show that the original post was wrong, or even utterly wrong. By doing this you keep the focus on the issue being discussed. On the other hand, when you post negative comments on the character or intelligence of the thread started, your comment becomes ad-hominem and out of line with general rule 2.

Tim Drayton wrote:
By the way Proz, you have committed an own-goal in making that so-called offensive post, which has been kept hidden for years, visible. Perhaps you should take it down again.


I thought about this issue, but concluded that keeping the comment removed from the identity of its target was acceptable, and I believe it was better to show the whole comment rather than the edited version you had published as example in this same thread.

Regards,
Enrique


 
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 »
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 »