| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | Hidden Outsourcer Information counterproductive Thread poster: Michael Meinhardt
|
|---|
Maria Karra 
United States
Local time: 06:45
Member (2000)
Greek to English
+ ...
Kim Metzger wrote:
Yes, why lose any sleep over funny web site translations where we receive, for instance, all sorts of interesting informations about sightseeings in the Alps? The web site host is happy and may well even believe that it takes a German to translate German into English.
Oh, these sound much more interesting than the websites I always stumble upon, with advices on which softwares to buy, sites about aircrafts and spacecrafts and other ...arts and crafts. The website owners may be happy but readers aren't.
I know Maria Karra has put a lot of thought into the subject, and I'm looking forward to the new thread she promised us.
 A lot of thought indeed! You were one of the first people to see and give feedback on my original proposal a couple of years ago, remember? Of course it has changed a lot since then (in fact it is no longer "my" proposal but a collaborative effort which I find very promising). It's still under discussion which is why there hasn't been any thread about it in this forum. All I can say at this point is that I'm glad this thread was opened because it started the ball rolling again and I honestly think that we're getting somewhere and that this problem can really be solved.
| | | | | One way of showcasing your skill in the "wrong" direction | May 30, 2008 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
There are true bilinguals who are fully qualified to translate into two languages, and there are non-natives who have native-equivalent skills. I too would like to see a solution that would give members an honest way to express their skills rather than feeling they are forced to claim two native languages when it's simply not the case.
I suppose the sample translation feature on the profile pages might be one way of showing a client what one might have to offer when translating into one's second language.
However, I would be surprised if any solution to the "native speaker problem" is found which makes everyone happy. Eliminating the possibility for an outsourcer to filter according to this criterion - or eliminating the display of this information altogether - will likely have the effect that many have less confidence in the directory and probably just stop using it. Or the information will be obtained indirectly (from CVs, for example) or the outsourcer will simply ask directly and probably be irritated at the extra effort this entails. As far as I can see, the "double native" status is as good a way to deal with the problem as any - if someone wants to claim that level of competence let him or her do so and let the customers decide if they are right.
I rather like those funny web site translations, Kim. In fact, I find them inspiring Why? Because they make it that much easier to identify potential direct customers desperately in need of good translation. I bookmark the sites, and once in a while when I find the time I send a friendly note to the web master suggesting a little quality upgrade.
| | | | | Another hint. (uh oh) :-) | May 31, 2008 |
It appears that at least some of us agree that it would be a step in the right direction to let the market decide about whether a translator is good or not.
I do understand that an outsourcer needs something to go by, a universal guideline, as it were, to pick the translator best suited for a particular job.
Translation samples are nice. Even quicker, in my opinion, is the WWA rating.
It is somewhat unfair to new translators because by definition they cann... See more It appears that at least some of us agree that it would be a step in the right direction to let the market decide about whether a translator is good or not.
I do understand that an outsourcer needs something to go by, a universal guideline, as it were, to pick the translator best suited for a particular job.
Translation samples are nice. Even quicker, in my opinion, is the WWA rating.
It is somewhat unfair to new translators because by definition they cannot have a WWA rating yet.
But if the WWA rating could be extended into different categories of rating we might get somewhere productive.
At this point the outsourcer can only give a point rating, but the points are not specified. So why not have several scales from 1 to 5?
Maybe one for subject expertise, one for language quality, one for (product) appearance, one for deadline adherence and one for communication. Or something along those lines.
It's probably a good idea to get the outsourcers to specify the rating system. But in general this would be a quick and easy way to get an idea about a translator.
Rating systems like that are in place all over the internet already and people are familiar with the principle. So why reinvent the wheel? ▲ Collapse
| | | | | WWA has its limits | May 31, 2008 |
Michael Meinhardt wrote:
Translation samples are nice. Even quicker, in my opinion, is the WWA rating.
The problem with WWA is that it reflects the satisfaction of the client with the working relationship, not the actual quality of what is delivered. I have a number of agency clients who are very satisfied with my work for a variety of reasons, but some of these are utterly unable to judge the actual quality (except by customer feedback perhaps or 3rd party review) and will openly admit this - to me at least. The relationship is built on trust. Mind you, that is also probably useful for an outsourcer to know, but it still doesn't give me a more useful first impression of your work quality than reading several samples would do. There is a certain translator I know in Germany who has great charm and runs a very professional business, delivering jobs on time and generally keeping PMs happy. On this person's profile page you will find well-deserved positive WWA comments. However, from what I have seen of the English translations produced (which we have corrected on a few occasions), they are an absolute disaster, and anyone judging by the WWA alone in this case will be sadly misled. That said, I have seen worse from native speakers of English.
In the end, it is the client's responsibility to exercise due care and take reasonable steps to obtain a translation that meets the requirements. "Native speaker" is a very important criterion that is relevant more often than many realize, but it is not a bullet-proof criterion, and in many cases it might make excellent sense to have the non-native do the review to ensure that a complex source text was interpreted accurately. This is perhaps another reason not to screen out the non-native speakers in all cases. (That's the theory at least. In reality, the non-natives often cause too much trouble by correcting grammar and vocabulary that they do not understand properly. If I had a euro for every time a German reviewer tried to screw up my verb tenses, I'd be rich!)
| | |
|
|
|
| I second every word | Sep 23, 2008 |
Michael Meinhardt wrote:
When I signed up with Proz I was able to send an application to nearly every outsourcer that posted a job in my pair.
Now most of the outsourcer information on jobs I would be entirely eligible for and capable of doing is hidden, practically making me unable to apply.
I kind of get the credentials thing. In some cases they may come in handy. But what about native speaker restrictions?
...
Now I can't even apply?
That is not what I signed up for with Proz and it certainly isn't what I am paying for.
I consider this practice hopelessly counterproductive and entirely unfair.
I urge the Proz Team to go back to unhidden outsourcers, at least in terms of the nationality of the translator.
Michael
[Edited at 2008-05-27 13:30]
Same story here.
I am a russian translator based in Estonia.
I cannot quote for Estonian projects as my mother tongue is not Estonian.
I cannot quote for Russian projects as I am not based in Russia.
I cannot check the Blue Board as the name of an outsorcerer is hidden.
I cannot contact active outsorcerers who are looking for translators as I don´t see their names.
In one of the posts the new system of hiding outsorcerers´ contact information was named as 'encouraging new members to pay for full membership'.
As I see it, it's discouraging. The scope of my actual possibilities is now reduced to that of an unpaid member... Which means, 'what to pay for?'
| | | | | You are right! | Oct 17, 2008 |
[quote]Michael Meinhardt wrote:
When I signed up with Proz I was able to send an application to nearly every outsourcer that posted a job in my pair.
Now most of the outsourcer information on jobs I would be entirely eligible for and capable of doing is hidden, practically making me unable to apply.
-------------
I was also really disappointed when I could not see anymore the information of certain agencies/companies. In many cases, I would have loved to apply to certain jobs which I felt comfotable to work in. Why doesn't Proz give us that possibility as they did before? At the end, the client is the one who is going to choose for the right translator; we pay for the membership and would like to apply to as many jobs as possible, and Proz doesn't lose anything.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Hidden Outsourcer Information counterproductive | 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 
