| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51] > | New at ProZ.com: Outsourcer "willingness to work again" feedback for translators Thread poster: Enrique Cavalitto
|
|---|
| You are right, Henry | Jun 28, 2006 |
Dear Henry,
Yes, most of those who totally oppose the new feature mainly expressed feelings, fears and a profound natural dislike. However, since such things are the main ingredients needed for winning or loosing an election in our "democratic" societies, all these opinions should be taken into account by ProZ.
IMHO, the most serious problem could be the potential legal implications for ProZ (there is no shortage of lawyers looking to grab such cases).
I be... See more Dear Henry,
Yes, most of those who totally oppose the new feature mainly expressed feelings, fears and a profound natural dislike. However, since such things are the main ingredients needed for winning or loosing an election in our "democratic" societies, all these opinions should be taken into account by ProZ.
IMHO, the most serious problem could be the potential legal implications for ProZ (there is no shortage of lawyers looking to grab such cases).
I believe that the solution implemented should allow members the option of "nothing at all". If the beast eventually turns out to be the beauty, many will opt-in.
Saludos cordialesd,
Pablo ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Henry wrote: Pablo Grosschmid wrote:
Maybe those who strongly oppose the new feature would like to know why ProZ insists on allowing outsourcers to enter feedback on those members who do not want it to be shown in their profiles.
If it will not be shown anywhere and it really does not serve to any purpose, only to generate potential legal trouble to ProZ, why allow it?
Personally, I do not know if I will participate in the scheme or not... Actually, you've hit one of the nails on the head with this comment. I'll explain in a bit... but I asked first. 
That is just the thing. When I went through the posts, many people asked for a way to opt out/out... but most didn't give any reason they require it. [/quote]
Hi Henry,
You should have by now my private answer. I am going to address here only some of the reasons why people may oppose to collecting info about them.
People, in general, is concerned about Big Brother. They may not want to empower him to any larger extent. Pablo probably stated this point of view to the largest possible extent.
There may be many legit biz reasons for ProZ to collect info. There is nothing illegal about collecting info. But this is a volunteer situation: Why should ProZ members not to oppose? What is in there for them to allow that intrusion? Again, this is not a legal issue, just a marketing one. Further, what is that "unknown channel"? If we knew what that channel is, the opposition might not be that hard. I see at least one channel where I would not oppose ProZ collecting data, as it would allow me to parrticipate or not in that channel, namely, a mandatory feedback re job postings.
I do not expect ProZ to use any data it collects about me to be used illegally. By limiting the vetting to ProZ staff you have addressed my main issue about privacy and libelous use of the info. But why ProZ members should collaborate with it?
Further, clearly ProZ cant use that info in any illegal manner, but why should ProZ members risk it? ProZ might get a rogue employee, or be bought by another corp, or their server intruded, or many other things that ProZ cant really control. It is of no help the abillity to sue, as that is risky and expensive.
Again, this is not an issue of legality. ProZ can collect and maintain any data they want. Cannot use it, though. But, certainly, it is an issue of whether the org. members would like to be able to decide on their own.
Best,
Luis
| | | | Susana Galilea 
United States
Local time: 19:56
English to Spanish
+ ...
| not quite... | Jun 28, 2006 |
Henry wrote:
Thanks, Susana. May I conclude that your desire to opt out of receiving WWA entries, like Marc Prior's and Dyran's, is based primarily on my prior point 2, ie. "You do not want your relationship with you clients to be affected in any way by a new ProZ.com feature"?
I do not want my chosen professional modus operandi to be affected in any way by this very specific ProZ.com feature--and by extension, by any feature not approved by a majority of the members that support this site, with their dues and otherwise.
I have welcomed other initiatives and site developments with open arms in the past, as I am sure you are aware.
Thanks for allowing me to clarify, although I still feel we are being asked to split straws here (is that the correct expression?). Hopefully this will be useful
Susana
| | | | | Sorry for leaving your name out, Ivana | Jun 28, 2006 |
Ivana de Sousa Santos wrote:
Henry,
I thought it was clear in my previous posting(s) and I was not included in your out/out list.
Pardon me. I knew that, but somehow your name escaped the list. The out/outs are now fifteen.
Let me just ask you something to see if I am understanding the point of this thread at this moment (after having read all of the postings...): Are you asking if I want this feature removed from my profile even if a client's feedback is only visible to me?
If so, my answer is YES, I want it removed.
No, that is not exactly it. Together, we have already decided that when you opt not to show, nothing is left in your profile. So the profile should no longer be an issue.
If I choose to have the feedback only visible to me, I also don't see the point of it. If a client wants to give me some feedback, he/she must adress it directly to me.
Did I answer your question or am I missing the point of the discussion now?
Almost, thanks! I can understand that most clients will just give you feedback directly (Susana and Lesley have just made this point, too.)
So you don't need it and won't use it. Got it.
But "opting out of receiving" goes beyond that... as Luis pointed out, it entails *preventing* feedback from being entered by those who would like to. What I really am trying to ascertain is which of the (perfectly valid reasons) for *preventing* feedback is most important to you.
Bear in mind, it may never come to pass that someone wishes to leave feedback for you. This is just an exercise in understanding the motivations.
| | |
|
|
|
heikeb
Member (2003)
English to German
+ ...
| all of the above | Jun 28, 2006 |
Hi Henry,
I support the out/out option for all the reasons named above:
-privacy
-relationship with clients
-principle.
To explain a bit more on the principle side (this has been mentioned previously be a number of people):
I'm not too happy about the way this new feature has been approached - kind of backwards. Instead of presenting the feature in detail in the forum, it's pros and cons (also collecting feedback), maybe offering several o... See more Hi Henry,
I support the out/out option for all the reasons named above:
-privacy
-relationship with clients
-principle.
To explain a bit more on the principle side (this has been mentioned previously be a number of people):
I'm not too happy about the way this new feature has been approached - kind of backwards. Instead of presenting the feature in detail in the forum, it's pros and cons (also collecting feedback), maybe offering several options to choose from right from the beginning, we were confronted with the "thing": Here it is - implemented. What do you think?
You were (and had to be) "talked into" making several consessions (at least, that is the way it came across). This approach divides the community into opposing camps.
I'm happy that the out/out option is apparently accepted.
I also sensed a bit resistence on your part to look at and discuss the issues involved openly and to acknowledge that all concerns are justified. That's why the "conspiracy theory" was voiced: If we can opt not to show the data, why is it still being collected? What's the hidden agenda?
Particularly when personal data is concerned, transparency should be an underlying principle, and all questions regarding the purpose should be answered immediately and openly.
As all three reasons are interrelated, I can't say which one is the most important for me.
Thank you, Henry, for addressing these issues! ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Blatantly Satirical Profiles ... | Jun 28, 2006 |
Marc Prior had this to say:
… If the ProZ.com policy of offering a tightly constrained feature and function for every aspect of translators' professional activity continues, we may start to see an increase in the numbers of amused bystanders: even more experienced colleagues appearing under pseudonyms, with near-empty or for that matter blatantly satirical profiles …
Marc: what on Earth can you mean? Is there a single profile on this site that is “blatantly satirical”? If there is, and to obviate the need for me to scan about a million web pages, can you send me a link to it (a personal email is fine)?
Thanks,
| | | |
Jackie Bowman wrote: Marc Prior had this to say: … If the ProZ.com policy of offering a tightly constrained feature and function for every aspect of translators' professional activity continues, we may start to see an increase in the numbers of amused bystanders: even more experienced colleagues appearing under pseudonyms, with near-empty or for that matter blatantly satirical profiles …
Marc: what on Earth can you mean? Is there a single profile on this site that is “blatantly satirical”? If there is, and to obviate the need for me to scan about a million web pages, can you send me a link to it (a personal email is fine)?
Thanks for joining in... but I hope we can stick to the current topic. Thanks!
| | | | | Tell us why you SHOULD. Convince me! I'm listening! | Jun 28, 2006 |
You keep saying that no one is giving you a reason why they do NOT want ProZ to collect and store information on them, although it won't be used for anything (presumably) if the freelancer chooses not to display it.
Let's turn the tables. Why is ProZ so intent upon obtaining this information?
Why would any organization which pays for data storage and bandwidth consumed want to increase the amount of data it is storing, and the amount of bandwidth consumed, only to obta... See more You keep saying that no one is giving you a reason why they do NOT want ProZ to collect and store information on them, although it won't be used for anything (presumably) if the freelancer chooses not to display it.
Let's turn the tables. Why is ProZ so intent upon obtaining this information?
Why would any organization which pays for data storage and bandwidth consumed want to increase the amount of data it is storing, and the amount of bandwidth consumed, only to obtain information that will never be displayed to anyone, unless there is a reason? I'm sure I'll be chastised again for doubting ProZ's motives, but the question must be asked.
The only logical reason is that there will be some use for that data in the future. Okay, so what could be done with feedback on translators?
One possibility would be to provide a service that gave out ratings on translators. Now, this would not necessarily involve giving out the precise information on which the ratings were based, but an organization that held feedback information on translators could say, "We have consulted our records, and Translator X receives a rating of ABC from us." These days, with so many government contracts flying around just in the US (I can't speak for other countries' markets), this demand probably exists already. Who would be in a position to gather such data on a large enough scale other than an organization like ProZ, with contacts with so many translators and outsourcers? Perhaps the national translators' associations. I can't think of anyone else.
That is just one example. Yes, repositories of information exist publicly on many people in other areas of their lives, such as credit reports. But again, credit reports are based on legitimate facts such as payment of amount $X on date Y. You're talking about subjective opinions on translators' capabilities and work -- in 200 words or less, yet!
The reason I am an "outie", so to speak on this issue is simple. You don't need this information. I am not willing to provide it or allow you to collect it. Therefore it should not be collected by you.
I cannot understand for the life of me why this has become an issue. You can certainly provide this service to those who want to use it, thereby obtaining their data with their consent. No one is trying to stop you from doing that.
I'll give some more "unsolicited business advice" here while I'm at it, since you've expressed your appreciation so eloquently already for my hints. My suggestion is that ProZ send out a mass mailing to all its members in their preferred language, announcing the new feature and explaining clearly that data will be collected on freelancers and that such data will be stored. Each and every current member should be duly informed of this and give his consent before any feedback data is collected or stored concerning him. The Membership Agreement and Privacy statements should be modified to include this consent so that future members furnish their consent when signing up.
If you Google words and phrases like "opinions on individuals" and "public", you'll find many references to Internet use policies by major organizations forbidding the storage or transmission of such information. Those organizaitons are not forbidding such activity purely out of a sense of higher purpose; I'm sure they have been adequately advised that it is in their interest to state that they do not condone such activities by their users.
ProZ may feel that individual translators are powerless, and that may well be so in terms of hiring one's own attorney to communicate with the company about the storage of data on one individual. But I might remind you of one particular individual of whom you, living in New York, may have heard: Elliot Spitzer. Just the sort of issue he would take up and run with, especially in an election year, if someone wanted to make a fuss about it.
Am I saying that to threaten? Nothing of the sort. Believe it or not, even folks who "never have anything good to say about the site" (as you characterize me) would not like to see someone get into needless legal hot water on something like this.
It's not good for freelancers.
It's not good for ProZ.
And most importantly, no one has as yet advanced a valid reason why ProZ should be collecting data that it supposedly will never display or share.
Give us a clear, to-the-point answer as to why the site wants this data, and I'm sure you could win many of the "outies" over. Because right now, it sounds like we have something you want, but you're not willing to say why. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Thanks, Heike! | Jun 28, 2006 |
Heike Behl, Ph.D. wrote:
Hi Henry,
I support the out/out option for all the reasons named above:
-privacy
-relationship with clients
-principle.
Noted. Thanks!
I also sensed a bit resistence on your part to look at and discuss the issues involved openly and to acknowledge that all concerns are justified. That's why the "conspiracy theory" was voiced: If we can opt not to show the data, why is it still being collected? What's the hidden agenda?
Particularly when personal data is concerned, transparency should be an underlying principle, and all questions regarding the purpose should be answered immediately and openly.
If I have avoided some issues, it was only because I was addressing others. Also, please understand that sometimes a question makes presumptions, and I need to clarify in order to prevent a response from being misleading.
I hope you will agree that we have a clean track record as a company. We haven't make a practice of pulling fast ones... and sometimes I wish that would be recalled more frequently at the times we release new features!
| | | | Susana Galilea
United States
Local time: 19:56
English to Spanish
+ ...
Henry wrote:
I hope you will agree that we have a clean track record as a company. We haven't make a practice of pulling fast ones... and sometimes I wish that would be recalled more frequently at the times we release new features!
Which is the reason why so many of us continue to support the site with our dues...and the reason so many of us are puzzled at this stalemate/"tell me once again why you won't play" saga. The way this situation was approached is not consistent with the openness and transparency I have always appreciated in this site, I regret to say.
Susana
[Edited at 2006-06-28 23:43]
| | | |
- I personally do not like this marketing method, just as I do not like testimonials. I know it is a common practice and may be wonderful for others, but I do not like it, I do not need it, I find it irrelevant, meaningless and not serious. Call it a matter of principle, or better a matter of personal taste; in any case, it is my choice. This is not the way I have been doing my business for 17 years and I have no intention to start doing it now. For these reasons, I do not want to have anything ... See more - I personally do not like this marketing method, just as I do not like testimonials. I know it is a common practice and may be wonderful for others, but I do not like it, I do not need it, I find it irrelevant, meaningless and not serious. Call it a matter of principle, or better a matter of personal taste; in any case, it is my choice. This is not the way I have been doing my business for 17 years and I have no intention to start doing it now. For these reasons, I do not want to have anything to do with it, whether displayed or not displayed.
- For the same reason, I do not want my clients being asked to send to Proz.com information about my relationships with them – again, whether displayed or not. “I” can provide references when “I” am asked for by a potential interesting client – and only when absolutely necessary, because I do not like to bother my regular clients, who are very busy people and have better things to do than answering stupid questionnaires about me. I do not want Proz.com – or any one else – to do this or otherwise to be in any way a kind of collector/provider of unsolicited feedback on me.
- As others have pointed out, feedback about translators may rely on rather subjective determinations, unlike payment practices which are easily and readily substantiated by objective evidence – comparing a translator feedback collection system with the outsourcer Blue Board or other payment practice lists is just childish and unfair. For this reason, collecting and storing this kind of feedback information – again, whether displayed or not – is potentially dangerous for the reputation of many people, because you never know in what hands this information may end up.
- And by the way, I must confess that this insisting and not very clear interest on the part of Proz in collecting information – even on people who do not want to display it – has made me feel a bit uncomfortable.
Regards,
Cristóbal ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Henry, I'll try to give you my reasons (besides what I've already written) by quoting your questions and answering them:
[quote]Henry wrote:
1. You are concerned about privacy / security / libel.[quote]
Mostly libel. And what can I do about it? Go to court and spend a fortune (I don't have) trying to solve this case? Me, the translator who cannot afford it and hasn't got a lawyer, against agency X who has got one and can afford it?
You may find I'm overreacting a bit and giving you an example that is unlikely to occur, but it never occured to me by accepting a 25,000 proofreading job from Agency XXX that the guy would never pay me and that a debt collecting agency is not capable of collecting my debt even if they are going to keep half of what is due to me. I trusted this translation agency as I always do and I'm waiting for my payment since October 2004.
[quote]2. You do not want your relationship with you clients to be affected in any way by a new ProZ.com feature.[quote]
I don't think my relationship with them would be affected, specially because I would never ask for their feedback. I am actually quite shy to do it. It would be as if I asked them "come on, tell me what do you think of me!" I'm just not like that. Once (not long ago) Agency XXX asked me for 2 referees and I only had 1. It was hard for me to ask a regular client to be my referee but in the end he said OK and even forwarded me his reply to that agency. I can't imagine myself asking him this time "please, could you leave some feedback in my proz profile?", specially because I know already what he thinks of me and my work and I don't want to bother him again.
[quote]I consider these two arguments valid. What I would like to know is, are these the main reasons?[quote]
No, of course not. There are so many reasons which were pointed out throughout this thread.
[quote]Or is it simply that you don't want to be bothered with unsolicitied feedback?[quote]
Also, and that's where libel comes in, for instance.
I also think that many people can misuse the system. For instance: An individual has got 20 friends at proz.com and he/she asks for their positive feedback. It's wonderful to have 20 positive feedbacks and one or two negative ones that are those agencies to which he/she did a bad job. Proz.com doesn't know how many friends he/she has got in the site. Proz.com doesn't know if he/she really did a job for them or not (even agencies, not just individual outsourcers). There can be a lie. Which feedback would you choose to vet in this case? Then, another individual is hard working, doesn't have any friends at proz.com and did once a bad job for an agency that rates him/her negatively. Too bad! Poor man/woman! Then, another one is a really bad translator and if he opted by making the feedback only visible to him no one would never know about him/her.
So, I think the system just won't work. Whereas with the BB we, a community of translators who go through the same experiences every day, share an opinion with each other about a certain agency so that a case like the one I described above won't happen again (in this specific case I was at least happy to see that this agency was banned from posting any job at proz.com), I wonder what an agency could tell about a translator.
I also think that an agency/outsourcer's rating is too subjective, as it was written throught the thread. We state our LWA on payment grounds, mostly, or sometimes we state our happiness to work with agency XXX because people in there are very friendly and understand you when you have a doubt, a problem, etc. while others don't. I wonder what agencies' comments would be along with a negative rating, for instance.
Is it more clear now for you, Henry?
In between, I am really appreciating your efforts to understand us and to hear (read) us and I thank you for that.
Best regards,
Ivana
| | |
|
|
|
Bentext
Germany
Local time: 02:56
Member (2003)
English to German
+ ...
Dear Henry,
Thank you for your constructive approach ; I really appreciate that you take our concerns serious.
First, I thought that the new feature was a good thing. After thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that I don't want that a commercially oriented Website keeps data on my relations with any clients that is out of my control.
Also, I did not want to contribute to the implementation of another objective-looking but in fact purely subjective f... See more Dear Henry,
Thank you for your constructive approach ; I really appreciate that you take our concerns serious.
First, I thought that the new feature was a good thing. After thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that I don't want that a commercially oriented Website keeps data on my relations with any clients that is out of my control.
Also, I did not want to contribute to the implementation of another objective-looking but in fact purely subjective feature what can be used for differenciation between the members of the site. I'm a paying member for about 3,5 years now and I still can't understand why my placement in any search results depends on my willingness to offer cost-free work to other colleagues by answering Kudoz questions.
I was convinced that I could get rid of the new feature by toggling the feedback option on my profile. I was really upset when I noticed that it was still displayed on the visitor's view and found that very misleading. Another problem with the full thing was that nobody asked me before the implementation of the new function. Like with the forced profile format change, I would have preferred to be asked before you make the change. BTW, I still feel that I have no full control over my profile as long as the site links refer to a profile format that has been imposed without my consent ; but that's another story.
Your question was :
Are there other specific reasons why you need to be able to prevent others from making WWA entries that only you should see?
Yes. Maybe one day you'll decide to sell that data to outsourcers like you sell the access to blue board entries to paying and not paying members. It seems to me that your plans to offer a feedback entry option somewhere else on the site point in that direction. Could you please give more details about your plans for that new feature? By calling the evaluation WWA, I guess you've already found a nice way to do it legally.
I pay for being a member of this site and don't want that you take advantage of my data for any other purposes than serving me. If I do not agree with the publishing of the data, I wonder why you want to sacrifice resources in order to collect and store it. You have not explained that until now ; is it really surprising for you that I believe you could play your own game with that information?
Regards,
Stéphane ▲ Collapse
| | | | PRen (X)
Local time: 20:56
French to English
+ ...
Susana Galilea wrote: Lesley Clarke wrote:
I absolutely do not understand why Proz should collect data on me that only I would see. My clients are perfectly capable of communicating with me directly.
Neither do I. I am opposed to Proz.com taking a mediator role in this respect, no matter what shape or form. I have chosen to pay for a service with my dues, which allows me to have an online presence. This serves as a display, or business card in Sarah's words, that allows clients to contact me. All transactions from that point on should be between me and my client. But it seems to me this has already been expressed at length, and we can only repeat ourselves at this point. Thanks for keeping the channel open, at any rate. Susana
Exactly. Henry, are you being deliberately obtuse? You keep pressing the naysayers for reasons, which, in my my view, have been more than eloquently expressed by Sarah, Susana, Terry and Dylan, et al. Exactly what are you not understanding? Admittedtly, I am a non-paying member, so my opinion may account for bupkus, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why you would want to collect "opinions" on members who have no interest in seeing that. Why would you want to do that? Why would you not simply jettison any unsolicited "feedback"?
Paula
| | | | Sormane Gomes
United States
Local time: 20:56
Portuguese to English
+ ...
| Here's my reason. | Jun 29, 2006 |
Henry wrote:
I have gone through all the posts from you, the out/out team, and these are these reasons I see so far:
1. You are concerned about privacy / security / libel.
2. You do not want your relationship with you clients to be affected in any way by a new ProZ.com feature.
I consider these two arguments valid. What I would like to know is, are these the main reasons? Are there other specific reasons why you need to be able to prevent others from making WWA entries that only you should see?
Or, is it not so much either of the above, but rather an issue of principles? Do you simply not buy into the WWA approach? Or is it simply that you don't want to be bothered with unsolicited feedback?
Now, obviously many other points were raised in this thread, and many other complaints were made regarding the new system. But what I hope we can address specifically right now is the need to opt out of receiving WWA entries. I hope those who would like to discuss other issues can simply stand by for now.
I hope to hear from as many of you in the out/out camp as possible. Thanks in advance!
Henry, what else do you want to hear? A great number of us do NOT want this new feature in any shape or form, period. And as for the reasons you ask, they have been already posted here at length, including why people don't want ProZ to collect and store information on them.
I do not want this feature because I don't want ProZ to control, have access to or share ANY information between me and my clients. I want ProZ to showcase my services, find me a client, and I will take it from there.
It seems to me that you are just trying to gather the opposing arguments in order to eliminate specific complaints instead of simply going the simplest route. The route we're all asking you to take. To wit: Why don’t you just provide this feature to the ones who want it and leave those who do not want it out of it...ENTIRELY?
I’m sorry, but your insistence only makes me think that you have more than an opportunity for translators to expand their business in mind.
Sormane F. Gomes
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » New at ProZ.com: Outsourcer "willingness to work again" feedback for translators | 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 » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
