| Pagina's in het onderwerp: < [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 De persoon die dit onderwerp heeft geplaatst: Enrique Cavalitto
|
|---|
Terry Thatcher Waltz, Ph.D. wrote: Henry wrote: Terry Thatcher Waltz, Ph.D. wrote:
Okay, "final post" style -- very short and succinct:
Will ProZ continue to erode the privileges of those paying members who choose to protect their personal information?
Will ProZ provide features or rankings or exposure on the site on a preferential basis in the future based solely on the decision of whether or not one opts to protect one's personal information? Are your questions really questions, or are they intended only as arguments? They are so rooted in falsehood that I can not even answer. It would be like me asking you, "Will you or will you not continue to go bowling with your neighbor on Tuesdays? Just give me a yes or no answer." Please don't ridicule us when we ask legitimate questions, Henry. I can certainly tell you whether or not I'll go bowling with my neighbor on Tuesdays; why won't you answer our questions straight up? (BTW, I wouldn't go bowling; I'm a lousy bowler.  ) What the out-outs want to see is ProZ providing equal treatment to those who choose to exercise their right to protect personal information. Plain and simple. Not reduced privileges, not being lowered in rankings. Just equal treatment. No discrimination now, no discrimination later. [Edited at 2006-07-05 20:31]
So, what about it? We are indeed asking quite seriously!
| | | | | Perfect English | Jul 6, 2006 |
Maya Busqué wrote:
And this gut feeling of mine, which was there all way through: A marketing tool for translators? Really? Is that all? Is it just a marketing tool? Isn’t it clearly an outsourcer-oriented feature? And not even a fair one…Was the Blue Board conceived as a “marketing tool for outsourcers”? And if it’s just a marketing tool, why is there such a big pressure on us, why can’t we simply say NO, clear and loud? Why do we have to justify ourselves ad nauseam?
Maybe it's because my English is not up to scratch, and I'm missing important nuances. But I can't help this bad, bitter taste in my mouth.
Good luck.
Maya
[Editado a las 2006-07-05 23:28]
Your English is perfect, Maya. Couldn't have said it better myself.
This is my final posting in this thread. I'm becoming redundant.
Jennifer
| | | | | How's your reading? | Jul 6, 2006 |
Jackie Bowman wrote:
To restate, and to do so without jokes for those who find humour confusing: What’s the point of this change? Who gains? And how? And please spare me the soft-shoe shuffle. I’m much too old.
Honestly, I thought those questions were rhetorical. With respect, Jackie, I am forced to wonder: Having written off my series of posts as a dramatic device, did you also fail to read it?
If you really care to know the answers to the questions you now pose, see in particular the initial announcement:
* http://www.proz.com/post/367572#367572
these two posts:
* http://www.proz.com/post/374246#374246
* http://www.proz.com/post/374356#374356
and the commentary of others throughout the thread.
On the very first page, for example, Walter Landesman wrote: "I insist it is a good feature for those who choose to use it. And I certainly will."
Many people asked for this. Hundreds of people are now using it. You can opt out. To paraphrase, "Use and let use!"
| | | | | Survey results? | Jul 6, 2006 |
I have been here since page 2 with several posts, but lately didn't follow thoroughly this thread like I did before, although I continued to read it.
So maybe I did actually miss the communication of the result of the survey that has been proposed? If yes, could somebody please enlighten me? If not, why didn't we get it? It could be interesting, though.
Thanks.
| | |
|
|
|
Konstantin Kisin 
Verenigd Koninkrijk
Local time: 15:48
Russisch naar Engels
+ ...
Jackie Bowman wrote:
Dear K, since we are told that this thread is coming to a close, let me impart something to you before we all join the Choir Eternal and are lost in the ether—where our words, like these that I write, will for ever* be dust …
The mature humorist knows that there is no meaning to jokes with no purpose. The mature writer strives to express her argument in a manner that is immediately understandable. I sought to meet both aims. I was making a point. You didn’t understand it. One of us failed. Doubtless it was me.
I believe that one of our colleagues saw fit, in an effort to underpin his argument and perhaps in a moment of madness, to quote Mr. Tolstoy. The mature reader of Tolstoy appreciates the master’s relentless efforts to understand the moral complexities of what we do. He is not to be invoked lightly.
And Mr. Blair? Well, quite rightly, we are not allowed politics on this site. So I cannot (but would, overwhelmingly, in another context) contest your assertion and its implications.
To restate, and to do so without jokes for those who find humour confusing: What’s the point of this change? Who gains? And how? And please spare me the soft-shoe shuffle. I’m much too old.
Hi Jackie,
The purpose of your jokes is quite clear - to caricature and to entertain (yourself primarily but you do a decent job of cracking me up as well ).
I do not find your humour confusing - I do, in fact, rather enjoy it for what it is: humour. However, in this case you don't appear to have made any attempt whatsoever to deal with the arguments presented by *any* of the many sides to this debate choosing, instead, to pick a less-than-constructive comment as the object meriting your more-than-eloquent agreement.
I understand that as someone who has made the decision not to become a paying member of this site you are likely to be sceptical about its policy. In fact, given your stated aims and your profile (which, as you know, I love btw) you're unlikely to find any benefit in Proz.com membership other than the ability to post your wonderful posts without vetting or delay...However, I might have thought that you could overcome your scepticism and find plenty of things to caricature and viciously dissect among the *factual* points made in this thread. In other words, I am not questioning your writing skills - it is your reading that appears a little on the "soft" side
To restate: the point of this change is to give some translators a new marketing tool. Those who make use of it are likely to gain from it. The mechanism for such gains is obvious - feedback from existing clients is a significant source of new business for many translators. Having such feedback available in abundance on your business card helps.
As for Mr. Blair (Tolstoy is not my forte), I would be delighted to receive your overwhelming contestation of my assertion and its implications by e-mail...I really would!
Best,
Konstantin
| | | |
I'm asking you here to remove your personal attack (against site's rules). Thank you.
Giovanni
[Edited at 2006-07-06 11:20]
| | | | | Responses to Terry. | Jul 6, 2006 |
[quote]Terry Thatcher Waltz, Ph.D. wrote:
Terry Thatcher Waltz, Ph.D. wrote: Henry wrote: Terry Thatcher Waltz, Ph.D. wrote:
Okay, "final post" style -- very short and succinct:
Will ProZ continue to erode the privileges of those paying members who choose to protect their personal information?
Will ProZ provide features or rankings or exposure on the site on a preferential basis in the future based solely on the decision of whether or not one opts to protect one's personal information? Are your questions really questions, or are they intended only as arguments? They are so rooted in falsehood that I can not even answer. It would be like me asking you, "Will you or will you not continue to go bowling with your neighbor on Tuesdays? Just give me a yes or no answer." Please don't ridicule us when we ask legitimate questions, Henry. I can certainly tell you whether or not I'll go bowling with my neighbor on Tuesdays; why won't you answer our questions straight up? (BTW, I wouldn't go bowling; I'm a lousy bowler. ) What the out-outs want to see is ProZ providing equal treatment to those who choose to exercise their right to protect personal information. Plain and simple. Not reduced privileges, not being lowered in rankings. Just equal treatment. No discrimination now, no discrimination later. So, what about it? We are indeed asking quite seriously!
For the first question, my answer is that we have not and will not "erode the privileges of those paying members". For the second, I'll rewrite the question as it might have reasonably been asked, in light of the things I have already explained in this thread.
My version: Will preferential features or rankings or exposure be available to those who choose options 1 or 2, as compared to those who choose option 3?
In response to this question, I would reiterate our philosophy of offering choice to site users. To the extent that clients choose to work with those who show and/or accept entries, vs. those who do not, the effect may indeed be that more opportunities are available to those who participate in WWA. But at this point, without a lot of WWA experience to draw from, it would be very hard to say whether or not this will happen. Certainly, it is too soon to speculate on what features would make sense (beyond what was said in the initial post.)
I hope this is acceptable as an answer for now, Terry, and that we can bring this thread to a close. As I said, there will be further discussions.
| | | | | Do you mean my "gadfly" comment? | Jul 6, 2006 |
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
I'm asking you here to remove your personal attack (against site's rules).
If you mean my description of your role vis-a-vis this topic as that of a "gadfly", it was not intended as a personal attack, but a description of your chosen role in the debate as I saw it. I used the word "gadfly" as it is defined in Wikipedia, ie. '"Gadfly' is a term for people who upset the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions, or attempts to stimulate innovation by proving an irritant." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadfly_(social) If you read that, you will see some people have been proud to call themselves gadflies.
Anyway, if I was wrong about this as your intended role in the discussion, I apologize, and will edit my post straightaway in any case. (Note: I changed "acting as a gadfly on this matter" to "commenting on this matter".)
But know that I did not mean "gadfly", as defined by wordnet ("pest: a persistently annoying person".) I like gadflies (the contentious type) and I like you - even if we never, ever seem to agree on anything related to the site.
| | |
|
|
|
Henry wrote:
But know that I did not mean "gadfly", as defined by wordnet ("pest: a persistently annoying person".) I like gadflies (the contentious type) and I like you - even if we never, ever seem to agree on anything related to the site.
thanks for clarifying the matter and editing your post. I appreciate it.
Giovanni
| | | | | Jackie Bowman rocks! | Jul 6, 2006 |
(Before they close the door....) I just wanted to add, from non-paying member to non-paying member or, as you cleverly said it, from "observer" to "observer": brilliantly said!! ( http://www.proz.com/topic/49940?start=705&float= ), even if it is taken as a mere display of wit.
On the other hand, Henry, you commented at some po... See more (Before they close the door....) I just wanted to add, from non-paying member to non-paying member or, as you cleverly said it, from "observer" to "observer": brilliantly said!! ( http://www.proz.com/topic/49940?start=705&float= ), even if it is taken as a mere display of wit.
On the other hand, Henry, you commented at some point ( http://www.proz.com/topic/49940?start=555&float= ) that "[y]our focus must be on meeting the needs of our members, first and foremost".
I assume you mean "members" as "paying members". I also assume you are aware that non-paying members (plain users?) are potential paying members (read customers) of Proz.com. Just a minor observation, although I know you are supportive of all of us, as this site's existence proves.
Hasta la próxima... ▲ Collapse
| | | | | At the risk of sounding repetitive... | Jul 6, 2006 |
Before this thread is closed, I'd really appreciate it if one of the staff could address the quality assurance issues I raised in my previous post (linked to save space).
On another, lighter note: Will you marry me, Jackie Bowman?
Yours,
HH
| | | | cmwilliams (X)
Verenigd Koninkrijk
Local time: 15:48
Frans naar Engels
+ ...
Charlie Bavington wrote:
If the WWA is truly purely intended as a "marketing tool" to benefit the individual translator, I'm afraid that I really don't see that individuals should be penalised or restricted in some way for not participating in that any more than for not contributing to kudoz, not posting to forums, not bidding for jobs, having an empty profile or not doing anything else on this site that may be said to have a "marketing" effect inasmuch as it makes others aware of who you are.
This is just what I've been thinking. If this 'feature' is intended to help translators with their marketing, why impose it in this way? What else will we be forced to accept in the future?
I haven't been able to follow this thread as closely as I would have liked these past few days, but like Elizabeth Rudin, I am disappointed and disillusioned at the way this has been handled.
| | |
|
|
|
| Wrapping up... | Jul 6, 2006 |
Thanks, everyone for your participation in this thread. The WWA system is better for it, and the options that should have been available from the beginning are now available.
I regret that this process was frustrating for some, even frightening in a few cases. For this I take responsibility and apologize. I would have liked for the thread to be played out faster and with less friction, but then it seems to me that this may come with the territory. Usually, there is not much preceden... See more Thanks, everyone for your participation in this thread. The WWA system is better for it, and the options that should have been available from the beginning are now available.
I regret that this process was frustrating for some, even frightening in a few cases. For this I take responsibility and apologize. I would have liked for the thread to be played out faster and with less friction, but then it seems to me that this may come with the territory. Usually, there is not much precedent for the new things we do here, and often, passions are expressed for and against. Can you imagine, for example, that there was stern resistance when the idea of enabling powwows was presented?
I am not writing off the criticisms presented here, which are valid. But in retrospect, ironically, this thread was dominated by those who are not interested in using WWA. This was due, no doubt, to my errors. Those opposed felt "forced" to be involved, due to my personal failure to anticipate the existence and needs of the out/outers.
For that, again, I apologize.
Now, a request. The option now exists to be out/out entirely. I would ask that those who will not be using the system at all--the out/outs--be considerate of those who wish to use and improve WWA. Feel free to contribute in future discussions, but please also realize that there are those who want to focus on the mechanics now, and be respectful of that process.
On that note, some final issues have been raised, such as the question of translator protection. These are the topics we'll focus on in additional threads.
Thanks, everyone for your participation, and thanks always, to you, our members, for... my job. I'm hoping to keep it, and with that in mind, I'll be working hard to maintain, and in some cases, to regain, your trust! ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pagina's in het onderwerp: < [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 | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | 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 
