| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] | Multidimensional Blue Board score Thread poster: ..... (X)
|
|---|
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote: Lincoln Hui wrote:
By adding more you create the risk of diluting that information with various noise. We can all read, can't we? Would you really "get confused" by more information?
Exactly. I never stop at the average BB score when looking up an outsourcer, but on the contrary, I look for further "clues" in the comments, therefore I would definitely like to have MORE info than less, and more clearly/openly stated, rather than having to guess why a reviewer left a 1 without comment, or things like that, because, as things stand right now, it's often impossible to understand why a particular rating was left on the BB — except for 5s with accompanying paeans and serenades, which seem to be always allowed, in every form and flavor, even for outsourcers I wouldn't touch with a barge pole (but that I end up "touching" precisely because I found swarms of rapturous 5s...).
| | | | Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 01:06
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Lingua 5B wrote:
It helps me checking out on an accommodation on different levels when traveling, such as: location, cleanness, staff politeness, bed comfort level, price, etc...
I suspect this is exactly the type of thing Kevin was thinking of. I would not be surprised if, as part of the drive to make ProZ.com more mobile-friendly, there is a wish to make the Blue Board look more like other review sites (with them yellow stars, etc), but for that you need more categories.
I am sure Samuel will say now: just look at the accommodation images they uploaded, and if you have any other questions, just ask them directly.
Not at all, but I don't think one can compare the Blue Board to a product review site.
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 19:06
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Binary information regarding factors of interest | Sep 12, 2016 |
Upon further consideration after having participated in this discussion, I would favor inclusion in BB ratings of the factors suggested by Mirko and others here. Yet I don't think numbered ratings would be the way to go. Instead, a binary choice of yes/no or satisfactory/unsatisfactory would work better (i.e., by ticking a box). The option of N/A could also of course be included.
In this way, information could be conveyed about rates, communication, project support, etc. without cre... See more Upon further consideration after having participated in this discussion, I would favor inclusion in BB ratings of the factors suggested by Mirko and others here. Yet I don't think numbered ratings would be the way to go. Instead, a binary choice of yes/no or satisfactory/unsatisfactory would work better (i.e., by ticking a box). The option of N/A could also of course be included.
In this way, information could be conveyed about rates, communication, project support, etc. without creating clutter in the listings. ▲ Collapse
| | | | ..... (X)
Local time: 08:06
TOPIC STARTER
Thank you for all the great comments, suggestions and ideas.
| | |
|
|
|
Norskpro
Norway
Local time: 01:06
Member
English to Norwegian
+ ...
| Monitoring of remarks | Sep 13, 2016 |
Robert Forstag wrote: Tom in London wrote: Norskpro wrote:
No need to complicate things. In addition to the Blue Board score, there is a comment field for any complaints one may have about the outsourcer. Yes, but the comments are monitored. Negative remarks are not allowed and you can no longer - as you once could - give a low score with the simple comment "for more details contact me privately" (though of course you can still give a low score and say nothing, leaving it up to others to use their brains....). This indeed is the problem (or, more accurately, negative comments are usually prohibited but occasionally allowed, depending on who is doing the vetting of a given post). A "comment" field isn't of much use if the only comments typically allowed are raptures and rhapsodies. The thing that strikes me about this censorship is how utterly unnecessary it is. The current system allows outsourcers to respond, and thus gives them an opportunity to refute low ratings and negative comments. I have seen this done effectively in many instances, and in ways that left me feeling more sympathy for the outsourcer than the rating freelancer.
I was not aware that the remarks are monitored in this way. If that is the case, the comment field is rather pointless.
| | | | | What about a separate section? | Sep 13, 2016 |
I suspect I'm not the only one that uses the BB score as an indication of whether an agency is going to be more hassle than they're worth (purely because they are unprofessional or bad payers), and for people like me including other factors risks making that more difficult to determine due to the issues that Samuel has explained quite clearly.
However, it could be quite useful to have a separate section that includes ratings of the other factors that Proz users are interested in. Th... See more I suspect I'm not the only one that uses the BB score as an indication of whether an agency is going to be more hassle than they're worth (purely because they are unprofessional or bad payers), and for people like me including other factors risks making that more difficult to determine due to the issues that Samuel has explained quite clearly.
However, it could be quite useful to have a separate section that includes ratings of the other factors that Proz users are interested in. That could well help return some more power to translators actually.
But my vote would definitely be for these two things to be separate.
I know from reading these forums and attending industry events that agencies/outsourcers often offer different rates to different translators and that our views of the whole negotiation process and rates can be quite subjective. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 19:06
Spanish to English
+ ...
| The way a separate section could work | Sep 13, 2016 |
Georgie Scott wrote:
However, it could be quite useful to have a separate section that includes ratings of the other factors that Proz users are interested in. That could well help return some more power to translators actually.
I was thinking the same thing myself in the course of this discussion. The way this could work would be to list these "other factors" at the beginning of the listing of each agency as follows: "4 of 10 translators thought that communication with PMs was adequate"; "8 of 10 translators thought rates offered were adequate"; etc.
"Depersonalizing" the additional information in this way would have the added benefit of allowing translators to express their views regarding such issues without fearing retaliation (e.g., from an agency miffed at a translator characterizing rates, PM behavior, etc. as "unsatisfactory."
By the by, I would advocate inclusion of whether an agency typically uses "cattle call" e-mails to assign projects. This seems to be the increasing trend, and I would venture to say that most freelancers don't particularly appreciate it. I know I don't.
[Edited at 2016-09-13 16:30 GMT]
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 19:06
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Certain highly important factors are not easily quantifiable | Sep 13, 2016 |
It occurs to me that certain factors that truly are important to a freelancer in his or her relations with an agency are not easily quantifiable. Three come to mind immediately: 1.) whether a freelancer receiving frequent e-mails from an agency actually ends up getting a decent percentage of the jobs in which he or she expresses interest; 2.) whether PMs of a given agency make a decision quickly re assignment after communication has been initiated with a freelancer (or whether they tend to leav... See more It occurs to me that certain factors that truly are important to a freelancer in his or her relations with an agency are not easily quantifiable. Three come to mind immediately: 1.) whether a freelancer receiving frequent e-mails from an agency actually ends up getting a decent percentage of the jobs in which he or she expresses interest; 2.) whether PMs of a given agency make a decision quickly re assignment after communication has been initiated with a freelancer (or whether they tend to leave the freelancer hanging); and 3.) whether a freelancer perceives a sense of "loyalty" on the part of an agency that contacts him or her for jobs frequently and personally, and allows a reasonable time for response (rather than making contact every once in a while through "cattle calls" and informing a translator who has responded within 3 minutes to an offer that a job has already been assigned).
None of these issues can be easily quantified, and yet they are all highly important in a freelancer's ongoing relationship with an agency. It ought to be possible to capture such experiences (positive or negative) in the "Comments" section, but that raises the issue of the heavy and capricious censorship applied there to any negative comments....
[Edited at 2016-09-13 16:32 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Lingua 5B
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Local time: 01:06
Member (2009)
English to Croatian
+ ...
| Also possibly... | Sep 13, 2016 |
"Agency misrepresented a project"
Say it was a call for a specific project, but then in the end they just want you to fill out a form in their data base and possibly do a translation test (no current project existing at all). Yes, they may say the client canceled it or anything of that sort, but I still spent my time applying for nothing.
| | | | | Useful for consumers too | Sep 14, 2016 |
The information that Robert and Lingua B mentioned is also quite relevant for consumers as I think a lot of end clients would be less than delighted to know that their important projects were subject to mass "cold-call" emails.
Obviously agencies and outsourcers have a right to benefit from this process too. That simply means presenting these ratings using positive language. It would be nice for the agencies that don't send mass emails, who choose their translators on an individual ... See more The information that Robert and Lingua B mentioned is also quite relevant for consumers as I think a lot of end clients would be less than delighted to know that their important projects were subject to mass "cold-call" emails.
Obviously agencies and outsourcers have a right to benefit from this process too. That simply means presenting these ratings using positive language. It would be nice for the agencies that don't send mass emails, who choose their translators on an individual basis subject to that translator's experience and who conduct the recruitment process professionally to get some recognition for this. If I need something translated in a language pair I don't have a contact for these are certainly the agencies I would want to work with. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Georgie Scott wrote:
I know from reading these forums and attending industry events that agencies/outsourcers often offer different rates to different translators and that our views of the whole negotiation process and rates can be quite subjective.
True, that is why evaluation should be linked to "objective" (and public) comparison values, such as community rates (which don't seem to be particularly high to begin with). For instance, if 80 translators out of 100 were to report "low" rates (compared to community rates), then this would most probably mean the rated outsourcer simply tends to pay low rates, no matter what, subjectivity and differences in negotiation aside.
Actually, the real problem I see with this (which would be a VERY helpful piece of info to separate the wheat from the chaff) is the fact that in order to post on the BB you must have worked with an outsourcer, while, when an outsourcer "offers" ridiculously low rates (or you don't come to an agreement anyway), chances are you're not going to work with that outsourcer at all, which in turn would mean not being able to report such ridiculous rates anyway, so that would be the main problem (and a real pity, in my opinion)...
I would really like to see the BB "evolve" into something more meaningful and useful for translators, which truly does what it's supposed to, that is to say, express translators satisfaction and willingness to work with an outsourcer, but, as things stand, there seem to be too many obstacles (and possibly vested interests) for that to really happen. But maybe this could be a first step in that direction...
| | | | | The proportion of unpaid hassle to paid work - does the agency have a time-wasting portal? | Sep 14, 2016 |
I'm coming late to this discussion, but what I would add is:
It would be useful to know whether agencies keep up the relationship. Very often, after asking a translator to fill in forms, NDAs and so on, the agency sends one job, asks for a BB rating, and never approaches the translator again.
I don't mind filling out a detailed form about all the subject areas I work in for an agency that is clearly planning to send more work, but doing lots of paperwork for a one-off job mean... See more I'm coming late to this discussion, but what I would add is:
It would be useful to know whether agencies keep up the relationship. Very often, after asking a translator to fill in forms, NDAs and so on, the agency sends one job, asks for a BB rating, and never approaches the translator again.
I don't mind filling out a detailed form about all the subject areas I work in for an agency that is clearly planning to send more work, but doing lots of paperwork for a one-off job means in effect that I do as much unpaid work as work on the project I am officially paid for.
Does the agency actually make use of the information in the database to send relevant work in your specialist area? Whether the rating is based on a single job or a longer-term business relationship is quite relevant.
Another question is whether the agency has an efficient system for sending work, receiving deliveries and receiving invoices.
I simply refuse to work for agencies with time-consuming portals and platforms, but am happy to do so if the system is efficient.
It wastes my time if I have to spend half an hour trying to break in to the login system and renewing my password, 'nickname', whatever that is and user name... First to download files, then to deliver, and finally to send an invoice, expecially if it does not comply with the tax regulations etc. I still have to prepare my own invoice for my accountant and make my tax returns.
Some portals are fine, while others, again, just mean a lot of unpaid work and frustration. That kind of thing is an important factor in whether I would work for an agency again - or work for them at all. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| The agency's policy on CAT tools | Sep 14, 2016 |
Policy on CAT tools cannot be rated - if an agency insists on a specific CAT, then it will be ideal for translators who like that CAT, and a potential problem for others.
Some agencies are flexible, others are not.
A section for a brief comment might be very relevant.
Does the agency use its own online TMs, and how easy are they to access? This can be a critical question for some translators.
Some are fine, and can be linked to the translator's own TM... See more Policy on CAT tools cannot be rated - if an agency insists on a specific CAT, then it will be ideal for translators who like that CAT, and a potential problem for others.
Some agencies are flexible, others are not.
A section for a brief comment might be very relevant.
Does the agency use its own online TMs, and how easy are they to access? This can be a critical question for some translators.
Some are fine, and can be linked to the translator's own TMs an termbases, while others are slow and difficult to work with - and the translator cannot make corrections easily or benefit from his/her earlier work.
Asking the agency directly will not give all the answers - the PMs only know the system from their side!
CATs should be an advantage for translators as well as agencies, but they are not always set up that way. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 00:06
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| 1. Would we recommend them? 2. (optionally) on what basis? | Sep 15, 2016 |
One thing I really hate about the BB is the idea of the whole thing being based on one's willingness to work with the client again. What relevance does that have to anyone else on the planet??? Just changing that to "Likelihood of recommending this client to a translator friend" would improve the BB immensely, IMHO. I know a lot of translators here are willing to work for peanuts, wait for 90+ days for payment etc, etc - maybe they're desp... See more One thing I really hate about the BB is the idea of the whole thing being based on one's willingness to work with the client again. What relevance does that have to anyone else on the planet??? Just changing that to "Likelihood of recommending this client to a translator friend" would improve the BB immensely, IMHO. I know a lot of translators here are willing to work for peanuts, wait for 90+ days for payment etc, etc - maybe they're desperate for the money, I don't know - but would they recommend those clients to friends.
Lingua 5B wrote:
It [Example: travel website] helps me checking out on an accommodation on different levels when traveling, such as: location, cleanness, staff politeness, bed comfort level, price, etc...
Different people will find different aspects important (eg. bed comfort vs. location vs. view from the balcony perhaps), so multidimensional reviews def. help and make sense.
On Trip Advisor, as an example, you can put in just an overall score out of 5 or you can optionally give a separate score for various categories. That would work for the BB too. Let us choose how much information to give. Optional scores could be for:
- administrative overhead (i.e. loads of form-filling, signing, freebies, and other time-wasting practices or simple and efficient admin through their interface or by email)
- relations (friendly; responsive; respectful of your needs & wishes too; not a different faceless PM every job)
- working conditions (impose a particular CAT tool; only provide PDFs; or go out of their way to provide better solutions)
- T&C (accept yours or impose theirs?; discount-hunters or fair play?; keep to the contract e.g. pay on time?)
- support (happy to pass on questions; help with technical issues where nec; support you if the end client acts unfairly)
I'm sure there are other sub-scores that could be optional. And of course, we should continue to have the free comments field. I think we should be allowed one come-back too. If you say you're very upset because they haven't paid, and they come back to apologise and say it's sorted, you shouldn't have to change your comment; you should be able to add to it. Maybe they should be given the last word after that? I don't mind. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Multidimensional Blue Board score | 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 » |
| | 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 
