ProZ.com staff deleting Blue Board entry?

Jenny Forbes wrote:

..... I'd certainly never work for this outsourcer again.

Robert Forstag wrote:



Positive ratings and comments are immediately accepted while many (if not most) negative comments are immediately rejected.

It is hard to see this clearly established pattern as anything other than a bias in favor of the outsourcers listed on the BB and against translators reporting unsatisfactory experiences with said outsourcers.

The rules regarding negative comments on the BB are also applied in a highly inconsistent way. Thus, I continually see harsh comments on the BB of recent origin, and yet any time during the past few years when I have tried to post a negative comment, it has been rejected for somehow being out of compliance with the rules.

Given that some of my own rejected comments have been considerably less harsh than those I've seen posted, this pattern is truly baffling. Maybe it all depends on who is doing the vetting at a given time.

The BB allows the "safe option" of posting a rating of "1" or "2" without any accompanying comment. This is the route I've taken when I've had problems with outsourcers, but it really is unsatisfactory, as it provides no justification of the rating, and requires anyone consulting the record to take the extra step of contacting the rater via e-mail in order to find out the story behind the low rating.

Jenny Forbes wrote:
I myself recently and most reluctantly decided not to make a negative entry about an outsourcer who, I think, treated me shabbily for fear of (a) not getting paid anything for the job concerned and (b) the outsourcer unfairly alleging poor performance which might damage my reputation. Now that I have been paid (less than originally agreed), I suppose I could make a negative entry but I'd still run the risk that the outsourcer might make a negative comment about my work and I no longer have all the correspondence about the job with which to "prove my innocence". I'd certainly never work for this outsourcer again.

Henry Dotterer wrote:

Hi all,

Paula has already shared and explained the policies used to oversee the Blue Board, so I won't elaborate on those details. But I will add the following general points:

* Our goal is to oversee the Blue Board in as fair and as responsible a manner as possible. We believe that this is the best way to serve our translator members.

* The comments in this thread suggesting that there has been some change in the Blue Board oversight policies are inaccurate. The policies in question have been around for years; these are the policies that have helped to make the Blue Board the most trusted and relied-upon tool of its kind in this industry.

* Some of the translators in this thread have complained that the Blue Board is biased in favor of outsourcers. When we talk with outsourcers, it is fairly common to hear exactly the opposite. (Yet most parties on both sides, it seems to me, would say that the Blue Board is fair overall.) This reassures me that we are doing ok in terms of fairness.

Henry

Robert Forstag wrote:



Positive ratings and comments are immediately accepted while many (if not most) negative comments are immediately rejected.

It is hard to see this clearly established pattern as anything other than a bias in favor of the outsourcers listed on the BB and against translators reporting unsatisfactory experiences with said outsourcers.

The rules regarding negative comments on the BB are also applied in a highly inconsistent way. Thus, I continually see harsh comments on the BB of recent origin, and yet any time during the past few years when I have tried to post a negative comment, it has been rejected for somehow being out of compliance with the rules.

Given that some of my own rejected comments have been considerably less harsh than those I've seen posted, this pattern is truly baffling. Maybe it all depends on who is doing the vetting at a given time.

The BB allows the "safe option" of posting a rating of "1" or "2" without any accompanying comment. This is the route I've taken when I've had problems with outsourcers, but it really is unsatisfactory, as it provides no justification of the rating, and requires anyone consulting the record to take the extra step of contacting the rater via e-mail in order to find out the story behind the low rating.

Jenny Forbes wrote:

... following the collapse of my hard disk and the installation of a new computer and emailing system, so I don't have any of the correspondence concerning the troublesome job I did for this particular client in May. Thus, if I made a negative entry and the outsourcer were to claim poor performance, I'd be unable to prove what actually happened. That is what is stopping me.

Tom in London wrote:

No longer

Instead of posting a negative comment about a bad agency, I used to simply give a low score and my only comment was "contact me privately for further details."

Apparently you can't even do that now.

I too am sad about what has happened to the BlueBoard. But it could be fixed, if there was a desire to do so.

Enrique Cavalitto wrote:

As far as I can see, the only time in the last several years that you offered additional information to those who contacted you privately in a negative negative BB entry was in January 2013, and this was approved by staff.