| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | Clients can now give translator feedback (WWA) without registering Thread poster: Jason Grimes
|
|---|
| The term "unqualified" will be removed | Sep 27, 2013 |
The term "unqualified" will be removed from the translator feedback features. The term "uncorroborated" has already replaced it in some places. Documentation is currently being updated as well.
Thanks again for sharing your opinions about these changes. It's genuinely appreciated.
Best regards,
Jason
| | | | | So this is it? | Sep 27, 2013 |
We simply have to accept that WWAs from direct clients will from now on be labelled ‘uncorroborated’ because they do not pay for being on Proz?
| | | | | Only a Blue Board record is required for corroboration | Sep 27, 2013 |
Sindy Cremer wrote:
We simply have to accept that WWAs from direct clients will from now on be labelled ‘uncorroborated’ because they do not pay for being on Proz?
Hi Sindy,
Your clients don't need membership or even a ProZ.com account to be corroborated. There simply needs to be a Blue Board record in their name, which needs to have an entry from at least one translator who has worked for them besides you.
Does that make sense?
Thanks,
Jason
| | | | | uncorroborated | Sep 27, 2013 |
Jason Grimes wrote:
The term "unqualified" will be removed from the translator feedback features. The term "uncorroborated" has already replaced it in some places. Documentation is currently being updated as well.
Thanks again for sharing your opinions about these changes. It's genuinely appreciated.
Best regards,
Jason
A good word for ... Scrabble; not sure it will be that good for our profession.
| | |
|
|
|
| It doesn't seem fair | Sep 27, 2013 |
I can't see the benefit of this change. As many others have stated here, some of us simply have received feedback from direct clients who are not Proz's regular customers. I was encourage by site staff to have a complete profile, and today the same site staff is telling me that having less WWA in my profile is better that having more. I really want to understand this logic.
To me, the terms "qualified" or "corroborated" are not important, but losing the benefits of perfectly legitim... See more I can't see the benefit of this change. As many others have stated here, some of us simply have received feedback from direct clients who are not Proz's regular customers. I was encourage by site staff to have a complete profile, and today the same site staff is telling me that having less WWA in my profile is better that having more. I really want to understand this logic.
To me, the terms "qualified" or "corroborated" are not important, but losing the benefits of perfectly legitimate feedback is.
Thanks, ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Confidentiality agreements | Sep 27, 2013 |
Jason Grimes wrote: Sindy Cremer wrote:
We simply have to accept that WWAs from direct clients will from now on be labelled ‘uncorroborated’ because they do not pay for being on Proz? Hi Sindy, Your clients don't need membership or even a ProZ.com account to be corroborated. There simply needs to be a Blue Board record in their name, which needs to have an entry from at least one translator who has worked for them besides you. Does that make sense? Thanks, Jason
Dear Jason,
Have you ever read a confidentiality agreement ? Particularly one of those issued by the US agencies and other scientific communities stakeholders ? In most cases, it is clearly indicated that their identity and/or professional details must not be disclosed by the translator. It means that they will never appear in the BB.
It is one of the main reasons why a lot of our colleagues among the most qualified and skilled have so few WWA feedback.
If from now on the client must appear in the BB for his/her feedback to be taken seriously, those colleagues will never get a single WWA
| | | | | In the past, feedback was not allowed at all from clients without a ProZ.com account | Sep 27, 2013 |
Luximar Arenas Petty wrote:
I can't see the benefit of this change. As many others have stated here, some of us simply have received feedback from direct clients who are not Proz's regular customers. . . . To me, the terms "qualified" or "corroborated" are not important, but losing the benefits of perfectly legitimate feedback is.
Hi Luximar,
The intended benefit of allowing uncorroborated feedback is to let your direct clients leave this feedback for you without having to create an account at ProZ.com. In the past, clients had to register with ProZ.com in order to enter feedback. Often they didn't bother, and the feedback was not given.
It's hoped that uncorroborated feedback can be corroborated by way of the Blue Board. Is it possible to create a Blue Board record for these clients and get an entry from one other translator who worked for them?
Best regards,
Jason
| | | | | Corroborated feedback from confidential clients | Sep 27, 2013 |
Catherine GUILLIAUMET wrote: Have you ever read a confidentiality agreement ? Particularly one of those issued by the US agencies and other scientific communities stakeholders ? In most cases, it is clearly indicated that their identity and/or professional details must not be disclosed by the translator. It means that they will never appear in the BB. It is one of the main reasons why a lot of our colleagues among the most qualified and skilled have so few WWA feedback. If from now on the client must appear in the BB for his/her feedback to be taken seriously, those colleagues will never get a single WWA
Hi Catherine,
There are other ways to corroborate the identity of a client, if they are willing to create a ProZ.com account.
But how would you show feedback from a client if their identity must be kept confidential?
Having support for corroborated feedback could offer a solution. It could be possible to allow clients to give feedback while requesting that their identity be hidden. The feedback could be shown as being from a confidential but corroborated source.
Do you think that could work in practice?
Thanks,
Jason
| | |
|
|
|
Jason Grimes wrote: Catherine GUILLIAUMET wrote: Have you ever read a confidentiality agreement ? Particularly one of those issued by the US agencies and other scientific communities stakeholders ? In most cases, it is clearly indicated that their identity and/or professional details must not be disclosed by the translator. It means that they will never appear in the BB. It is one of the main reasons why a lot of our colleagues among the most qualified and skilled have so few WWA feedback. If from now on the client must appear in the BB for his/her feedback to be taken seriously, those colleagues will never get a single WWA Hi Catherine, There are other ways to corroborate the identity of a client, if they are willing to create a ProZ.com account. But how would you show feedback from a client if their identity must be kept confidential? Having support for corroborated feedback could offer a solution. It could be possible to allow clients to give feedback while requesting that their identity be hidden. The feedback could be shown as being from a confidential but corroborated source. Do you think that could work in practice? Thanks, Jason
Yes, it could be a good idea.
When "confidential" clients want to give a feedback, usually they manage to sign it as private individuals, not "officially"on behalf of a company or agency*. This doesn't happen very frequently, but it may happen.
Offering them the possibility of keeping a"confidential" status could be a good solution.
Edit: * I meant : on other portals or professional social media.
[Edited at 2013-09-27 22:28 GMT]
| | | |
Jason Grimes wrote: Hi Sindy, Your clients don't need membership or even a ProZ.com account to be corroborated. There simply needs to be a Blue Board record in their name, which needs to have an entry from at least one translator who has worked for them besides you. Does that make sense? Thanks, Jason
No, it doesn’t. I have a couple of direct clients who hire me exclusively. Why would they want to create a BB record? Their intention behind giving me a WWA is to show their appreciation of my work to my potential clients who visit my Proz page, not to countless other translators they are never going to work with anyway.
To me, uncorroborated has a negative connotation. And it looks negative too: ‘uncorroborated’ entries are now greyed out which makes them look as if they have less value. On top, they are deducted from the total number of WWAs.
I fail to see the benefit of this new system.
Kind regards,
Sindy
[Edited at 2013-09-27 22:36 GMT]
[Edited at 2013-09-27 22:40 GMT]
| | | | | The reason for distinguishing between corroborated and uncorroborated feedback | Sep 27, 2013 |
Sindy Cremer wrote:
I fail to see the benefit of this new system.
Hi Sindy,
I'll try to explain myself more clearly. Thanks for trying to understand.
Uncorroborated feedback can be useful to allow clients to leave feedback easily--for example, without having to register at ProZ.com. But this also opens the possibility of abuse by those who would leave fake feedback entries.
The approach taken here is to allow uncorroborated feedback, but to identify it as such, and let the viewer decide how to interpret it on a case-by-case basis. Preference is given to corroborated feedback when human case-by-case judgement isn't practical (such as when automatically determining profile completeness).
It's important to note that uncorroborated feedback can later be corroborated by others, potentially offering the best of both worlds: clients can leave feedback without friction, yet their identity is corroborated for the benefit of those evaluating the feedback.
Best regards,
Jason
| | | | | I was able to corroborate that feedback entry | Sep 27, 2013 |
Emma Goldsmith wrote:
I agree with the others, the qualified/unqualified classification is a step back. I can't see the advantage for outsourcers or translators.
I've got 8 WWA, and one has just become "unqualified". I think the outsourcer who went to the trouble of giving me this feedback would be disconcerted to see that she has been labelled as being "unqualified". It doesn't look good next to her name, and reduces the value of the excellent feedback she has given me.
So is this just a ruse to get more outsourcers to register with ProZ?
Hi Emma,
I was able to corroborate your remaining feedback entry by linking it to a Blue Board record.
ProZ.com staff will attempt to corroborate as many uncorroborated feedback entries as possible. Anyone who has uncorroborated feedback can help by identifying a matching Blue Board record and submitting a support request with that information.
Thanks,
Jason
| | |
|
|
|
Shai Navé 
Israel
Local time: 16:11
English to Hebrew
+ ...
| Why not just use ProZ memebr and non-ProZ member? | Sep 28, 2013 |
First, why not use the most straightforward terms such as 'Proz member' and non-ProZ member (or outside entity, or similar)?
Secondly, clearly presenting feedbacks from entites who don't have a BB entry as inferior is a big problem, but first a little about online feedback, testimonials, endorsements, recommendations, and so forth. Generally, they are useless (not only on ProZ). If no strict identity authentication mechanism is in place they could be easily falsified, thus losing their va... See more First, why not use the most straightforward terms such as 'Proz member' and non-ProZ member (or outside entity, or similar)?
Secondly, clearly presenting feedbacks from entites who don't have a BB entry as inferior is a big problem, but first a little about online feedback, testimonials, endorsements, recommendations, and so forth. Generally, they are useless (not only on ProZ). If no strict identity authentication mechanism is in place they could be easily falsified, thus losing their value (think LinkedIn's endorsements or even recommendations in many cases); and let's not pretend that there isn't quite a bit of barter reputation trading on ProZ as it is. Conversely, if a strict identity authentication is in place, this becomes a commercial security problem, because one actually exposes the information of his or her business partners.
Recommendations, testimonials, and endorsement have limited value in today's online world, and they do not apply equality to everyone. They are probably more relevant to employees than for independent, sole-proprietor type of service providers.
In ProZ's own little world WWA and LWA might make some sense, especially for new members who like to present the WWAs as some kind of trophy. Although there is some business espionage going on there as well and I'm always amused by some agencies who try to compartmentalized the translators they work with - even when a direct line of communication would benefit everyone involved, while having tenths or hundreds of LWAs or other type of feedbacks that clearly expose the identity of the translators (and even some clients) they work with. Mind you, even ProZ itself doesn't take the WWA into account in its own directory ranking formula or otherwise, and that's saying a lot. However, having to create a BB entry for direct clients or agencies, the latter probably know about Proz but chose not to register for their own reasons, is something completely different. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind creating a BB entry for a client who didn't opt do to it themselves. I can almost guarantee that the minute one does, this client will be flooded with emails and/or phone calls by unscrupulous "colleagues" and agencies offering the same, as well as other and irrelevant, services. If that client digs a little and finds out that one is responsible for this flood of unsolicited communications, I can imagine that the business partnership won't last long in most cases.
Having the client corroborated and appear as confidential is not a good solution to me either, simply because, and no insult intended, I wouldn't trust a commercial third-party service (which is what ProZ is) with my confidential business information. This is an unnecessary risk. It is not uncommon for databases to be hacked or for commercial services to sell the information that they have gathered. I, and I believe that more than a few others, prefer not to have outside WWAs than having them displayed as inferior or being conditioned on creating a BB entry for someone that didn't ask for it. It is one thing to create a BB entry for an agency that didn't pay - this is considered to be a community service - and completely different to turn the BB into a database of translation buyers.
[Edited at 2013-09-28 01:22 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Chris Hall
Local time: 14:11
French to English
+ ...
| Bizarre change indeed to say the very least | Sep 28, 2013 |
Am not happy at all with this change in any way, shape or form. It massively devalues translator's profiles. I will not be spending / wasting time submitting support requests to validate their existence as genuine outsourcers in the real world.
Why weren'y we consulted before it wasmade
It makes me wonder as to ProZ's motivation. It makes me seriously wonder about renewing my ProZ membership in February 2014.
Uncorroborated - wow, fancy word, good score at... See more Am not happy at all with this change in any way, shape or form. It massively devalues translator's profiles. I will not be spending / wasting time submitting support requests to validate their existence as genuine outsourcers in the real world.
Why weren'y we consulted before it wasmade
It makes me wonder as to ProZ's motivation. It makes me seriously wonder about renewing my ProZ membership in February 2014.
Uncorroborated - wow, fancy word, good score at Scrabble but absolutely meaningless. I agree with Sindy Cremer. It seems as if ProZ wants them to register, sign up and pay as BlueBoard outsourcers.
All a bit fishy... I, for one, am not impressed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Thanks for the feedback | Sep 28, 2013 |
Thanks for the feedback, we'll have to consider the issue of language and display. We'll get back to you all on that.
It seems as if ProZ wants them to register, sign up and pay as BlueBoard outsourcers.
Apparently Jason's announcement left some room for misunderstanding. The change announced here was made in response to user requests to make the process of obtaining feedback more open, not more closed.
Until now it has not been possible for a client to give feedback without registering at ProZ.com. (Allowing feedback from unregistered users was something that was objected to by members upon initial release of the WWA due to concerns of fraud.)
The change announced here makes it possible, while attempting to address the risk of fraud. Far from encouraging registration or membership, this change enables a client to come in, provide feedback and leave, without registering or paying for anything.
Again, we'll consider and get back to you all on language / display. This change was not intended to detract from anyone's profile, but once again, the contrary: in fact, recent changes already have resulted in significantly higher response rates from clients on WWA requests.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Clients can now give translator feedback (WWA) without registering | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
