| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | 5 dumb things you can do when somebody contacts you directly through Proz.com to offer a job Thread poster: Bernhard Sulzer
|
|---|
| The rule refers to Blue Board records specifically, not feedback entries | May 9, 2012 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
I don't understand the purpose of the rule (which vaguely and unhelpfully refers to the removal of "certain contact details" rather than specific entries). In general, I see entries from as long ago as 2003-2004. So I join in the call for clarity as to what the rule means, and its underlying purpose.
To me, the rule that would make sense in that everything stays in place unless the original poster requests removal.
If the rule instead means that such-and-such agency can contact proz.com and request removal of a rating/entry that it doesn't like, then this indeed (as Christine points out) defeats the purpose of the Blue Board.
Given that this issue has arisen in the wake of my having a number of entries rejected on the grounds that they were "not in line with the rules" (even though they were similar to many other entries from other freelancers which have recently been accepted) and having been told in response to my request for clarification as to what constitutes appropriate "negative" entries that "comments need to reflect only willingness to work for an outsourcer" (a nonsensical explanation that would reduce comments to a mere reflection of the numerical ratings along the lines of "1 - I really don't think I want to work for this outsourcer again"), I think the time has arrived for some transparent guidelines as to the functioning of the BB.
Hello Robert,
The rule Enrique cited refers to contact information on a Blue Board record (requested by the outsourcer about whom the record was created), not feedback entries or replies made on a given record. Site rules governing the Blue Board are at http://www.proz.com/?sp=siterules&mode=show&category=blue_board_bb_blueboard and in addition there is the termination policy, at http://www.proz.com/termination_policy . These are the policies site staff follow and enforce when it comes to the Blue Board.
So, basically, an outsourcer may request that certain contact information on their Blue Board record be removed. An example that springs to mind would be a freelancer-outsourcer who requests a phone number be removed from their record to avoid receiving calls at home from other freelancers offering their services. Site staff consider these requests on a case-by-case basis. This does not mean that the information will be removed. Care is taken to keep records accurate and the Blue Board useful.
The kind of feedback entry rejection you mention may depend greatly on the content of the comment. For example, defamatory comments or personal attacks are not permitted, so a feedback entry-- or response to a feedback entry-- containing that sort of comment would be rejected. If you feel this has been applied unfairly in your case, or you feel other visible feedback entries have not been held to the same standard, please let me know (please message me the specifics, rather than posting them here).
Jared
| | | | | Thanks Bernhard | May 9, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Just to be clear as well: what I was referring to in my post was not the removal of one particular entry of a translator on an outsourcer's blueboard page per outsourcer request by Proz.com but the removal of the outsourcer's identity from BB altogether, at the earliest possible within 6 months of the outsourcer's last outsourcing activity.
The outsourcer I was referring to above was listed on the BB for many years under several names and on different BB pages but has now been completely removed from the BB. It was not removed six months after its last outsourcing activity (note that outsourcing activity only means posting jobs on Proz.com), I know removal would have been possible many years ago per Proz.com rules (because the outsourcer had been banned for years from posting jobs on Proz.com and thus had no outsourcing activity (= job posting activity) on Proz.com although it did continue to recruit translators directly), but I believe the outsourcer must have made the request to be removed from the Blue Board very recently, and that's why Proz.com removed it, according to their rules.
Removal seems to happen when the outsourcer becomes aware of that possibility and then requests it. There might be other reasons to remove an outsourcer as Christine noted above.
B
I believe I have found an open support request from you on the matter, correct? Let me have a look and make sure this gets looked into.
Jared
| | | | Robert Forstag 
United States
Local time: 11:58
Spanish to English
+ ...
Thanks for the clarification re the removal of specific content. If such alteration does not result in the removal of the entire record it seems fair enough to me.
However Bernhard has implied that entire records are removed. You seem to have unambiguously assured that this is not the case. If this is so, then I'm satisfied with your reply.
You wrote:
The kind of feedback entry rejection you mention may depend greatly on the content of the comment. For exa... See more Thanks for the clarification re the removal of specific content. If such alteration does not result in the removal of the entire record it seems fair enough to me.
However Bernhard has implied that entire records are removed. You seem to have unambiguously assured that this is not the case. If this is so, then I'm satisfied with your reply.
You wrote:
The kind of feedback entry rejection you mention may depend greatly on the content of the comment. For example, defamatory comments or personal attacks are not permitted, so a feedback entry-- or response to a feedback entry-- containing that sort of comment would be rejected. If you feel this has been applied unfairly in your case, or you feel other visible feedback entries have not been held to the same standard, please let me know (please message me the specifics, rather than posting them here).
****
I attempted to address the issue last week, received the feedback I described in the previous post (i.e., a negative entry basically has to say nothing more than "I don't want to work with this outsourcer again"). I subsequently indicated how dissatisfied I was with this reply in my evaluation of the way the request was dealt with.
So this exchange I had with this staff re this support request, and the feedback I provided, should be in your system (TKT#311054), and available for your review. I think I've laid everything out pretty clearly there, but if you need further clarification, please let me know.
[Edited at 2012-05-09 17:03 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Bernhard Sulzer
United States
Local time: 11:58
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | outsourcer relisted | May 9, 2012 |
Jared wrote:
I believe I have found an open support request from you on the matter, correct? Let me have a look and make sure this gets looked into.
Jared
Thanks for getting back to my support request from yesterday in which I had brought it to Proz.com's attention that the outsourcer to whom I am also referring here in my forum post had completely disappeared from the BB:
From my support request:
"One of the worst companies (non-payers) with a long negative record on blueboard has now disappeared from blueboard:
http://www.proz.com/blueboard.php/XXXX?viewPage=entry&action=make_entry
Please let me know why that is. ..."
I had received the following reply then:
"Please note that as Blue Board rules state http://www.proz.com/siterules/blue_board_bb_blueboard/10#10 , Blue Board records remain in place for at least six months following any form of outsourcing activity. The outsourcer http://www.proz.com/blueboard.php/XXXX did not have outsourcer activity on ProZ.com from 200X that is why the Blue Board record has been hidden. However, the company has been blocked by ProZ.com to prevent further activity on ProZ.com."
This I then followed up, also yesterday, with:
"Here is an idea then, maybe it's already in place. Let me know, please.
To prevent translators from falling for unprofessional outsourcers that are not listed on blueboard and/or have no record yet or anymore, translators should be warned to be very cautious when accepting work from outsourcers (companies or individuals) without a blueboard record and/or outsourcers that haven't been rated yet (new ones, especially).
This would also prevent complaints made to you by translators about such companies or individuals."
End of support request quotes
As I was convinced that outsourcers can indeed be completely removed from the BB, I followed this up with this forum post today.
As you promised above, Jared, you looked into my support request, and as is now evident, the outsourcer is now again listed on the Blue Board.
I also appreciate your comments that legitimate records should not be removed, whether the outsourcer is banned or not, whether outsourcing activity is currently ongoing or not, since maintaining current, accurate records is part of what makes the Blue Board reliable.
The question remains: why was the outsourcer removed?
Thank you.
Bernhard
[Edited at 2012-05-09 18:30 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
neilmac
Spain
Local time: 17:58
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Call a a spade a digging implement | May 9, 2012 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
Given that this issue has arisen in the wake of my having a number of entries rejected on the grounds that they were "not in line with the rules" (even though they were similar to many other entries from other freelancers which have recently been accepted) and having been told in response to my request for clarification as to what constitutes appropriate "negative" entries that "comments need to reflect only willingness to work for an outsourcer" (a nonsensical explanation that would reduce comments to a mere reflection of the numerical ratings along the lines of "1 - I really don't think I want to work for this outsourcer again"), I think the time has arrived for some transparent guidelines as to the functioning of the BB.
[Edited at 2012-05-09 15:48 GMT]
I often wonder what is the point if we are unable to give an honest and blunt opinion of outsourcers, or indeed anything else. Surely one should be allowed a degree of vehemence or humorous invective? Sometimes a mild "slap on the wrist" is not enough.
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 11:58
Spanish to English
+ ...
| What is the point of allowing comments? | May 9, 2012 |
neilmac wrote: Robert Forstag wrote:
Given that this issue has arisen in the wake of my having a number of entries rejected on the grounds that they were "not in line with the rules" (even though they were similar to many other entries from other freelancers which have recently been accepted) and having been told in response to my request for clarification as to what constitutes appropriate "negative" entries that "comments need to reflect only willingness to work for an outsourcer" (a nonsensical explanation that would reduce comments to a mere reflection of the numerical ratings along the lines of "1 - I really don't think I want to work for this outsourcer again"), I think the time has arrived for some transparent guidelines as to the functioning of the BB.
[Edited at 2012-05-09 15:48 GMT] I often wonder what is the point if we are unable to give an honest and blunt opinion of outsourcers, or indeed anything else. Surely one should be allowed a degree of vehemence or humorous invective? Sometimes a mild "slap on the wrist" is not enough.
As Neilmac suggests, the whole idea of allowing a comment to accompany (in the present context) a negative rating is to explain why one does not want to work with a particular outsourcer again. It seems that whether such comments are allowed depends on who happens to be doing the vetting at any given moment. And (as I mentioned in my previous post here), I was essentially told, when I asked for an explanation of why several of my previous entries had been disallowed, that the only acceptable comment accompaying a negative rating was one reflecting the rating itself (i.e., "I really don't want to work for this outsourcer again."). Unbelievable!
I'd love to see this issue clarified here for all to see, and in a way that is truly responsive.
If any explanation of why one doesn't want to work for a particular outsourcer is considered "defamatory," then I don't see the point in allowing comments at all. There could then be a tacit agreement that anyone wanting further details could contact the commenter via e-mail.
With the pervasive censorship on the BB, maybe such a system would indeed be best. It would at least have the virtue of eliminating the unctuous and fawning statements that are so ubiquitous in the directory.
[Edited at 2012-05-10 02:22 GMT]
| | | | Bernhard Sulzer
United States
Local time: 11:58
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | comments with BB rating | May 9, 2012 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
... As Neilmac suggests, the whole idea of allowing a comment to accompany (in the present context) a negative rating is to explain why one does not want to work with a particular outsourcer again. It seems that whether such comments are allowed depends on who happens to be doing the vetting at any given moment. And (as I mentioned in my previous post here), I was essentially told, when I asked for an explanation of why several of my previous entries had been disallowed, that the only acceptable comment accompaying a negative rating was one reflecting the rating itself (i.e., "I really don't want to work for this outsourcer again."). Unbelievable!
I'd love to see this issue clarified here for all to see, and in a way that is truly responsive.
If any explanation of why one doesn't want to work for a particular outsourcer is considered "defamatory," then I don't see the point in allowing comments at all. There could then be a tacit agreement that anyone wanting further details could contact the commenter via e-mail. ...
I have not rated many of the companies on BB. Only once did I give an outsourcer a negative rating of "1", accompanied by my comment about how frustratingly long it took to get paid, and that I got paid only after many discussions with the outsourcer.
My comments are still there, as I entered them, and nobody has approached me about changing them.
As long as comments reflect one's true experience and contain no bad language, there shouldn't be any reason to have them removed or changed.
Hopefully staff will elaborate further.
PS: I also believe it's essential that comments accompany good or bad ratings so that translators can determine what exactly it is that's good or bad about an outsourcer.
B
[Edited at 2012-05-10 00:18 GMT]
| | | | | On the scope of comments and the concept of "censorship" | May 10, 2012 |
Robert Forstag wrote: neilmac wrote: Robert Forstag wrote:
Given that this issue has arisen in the wake of my having a number of entries rejected on the grounds that they were "not in line with the rules" (even though they were similar to many other entries from other freelancers which have recently been accepted) and having been told in response to my request for clarification as to what constitutes appropriate "negative" entries that "comments need to reflect only willingness to work for an outsourcer" (a nonsensical explanation that would reduce comments to a mere reflection of the numerical ratings along the lines of "1 - I really don't think I want to work for this outsourcer again"), I think the time has arrived for some transparent guidelines as to the functioning of the BB.
[Edited at 2012-05-09 15:48 GMT] I often wonder what is the point if we are unable to give an honest and blunt opinion of outsourcers, or indeed anything else. Surely one should be allowed a degree of vehemence or humorous invective? Sometimes a mild "slap on the wrist" is not enough. As Neilmac suggests, the whole idea of allowing a comment to accompany (in the present context) a negative rating is to explain why one does not want to work with a particular outsourcer again. It seems that whether such comments are allowed depends on who happens to be doing the vetting at any given moment. And (as I mentioned in my previous post here), I was essentially told, when I asked for an explanation of why several of my previous entries had been disallowed, that the only acceptable comment accompaying a negative rating was one reflecting the rating itself (i.e., "I really don't want to work for this outsourcer again."). Unbelievable! I'd love to see this issue clarified here for all to see, and in a way that is truly responsive. If any explanation of why one doesn't want to work for a particular outsourcer is considered "defamatory," then I don't see the point in allowing comments at all. There could then be a tacit agreement that anyone wanting further details could contact the commenter via e-mail. With the pervasive censorship on the BB, maybe such a system would indeed be best. It would at least have the virtue of eliminating the unctuous and fawning statements that are so ubiquitous in the directory. [Edited at 2012-05-09 22:43 GMT]
Hi Robert,
I would disagree with the accuracy of the statement "It seems that whether such comments are allowed depends on who happens to be doing the vetting at any given moment." And the concept of "pervasive censorship" or simply "censorship" on the BB (or anywhere else on the site) may need to be addressed here as well.
A simplistic example of an LWA entry comment which would not be allowed and one that would, both assuming the Likelihood of Working Again (LWA) with the outsourcer was a 1 rating and that non-payment is involved:
Jack is a crook! Avoid these guys like the plague, I'm going to start legal action against them
vs.
Two unpaid invoices overdue as of March 2012, poor work experience with PMs
That first example would not be allowed on the Blue Board for the same reason I would not allow anyone to say something similar about the participants in this thread, here in the forums. The site has clear rules regarding this, and they are rules which have been developed over time, with experience, and with a clear purpose: to keep ProZ.com a productive, results-oriented place. There are plenty of places on the web where one may liberally attack others with the degree of humor, vehemence or vulgarity they see fit. ProZ.com is not one of those places. It is, simply put, not a "free speech zone". This is clearly outlined in http://www.proz.com/siterules/general/2#2 .
That said, everyone here is human, and unfortunately that includes site staff. Mistakes can be made, and if they are what is important is detecting them and preventing them in the future. I will have a look at your support requests and previous LWA entries, Robert, and make sure everything is in order there.
Jared
| | |
|
|
|
inkweaver
Germany
Local time: 17:58
French to German
+ ...
| Reliability of the BB | May 10, 2012 |
I used to find the BB very valuable and believed it to be fairly reliable.
However, my opinion has changed since a certain outsourcer who had collected an impressive number of negative ratings had nearly all of them removed and has now an equally impressive number of 5s.
I wonder why...
I think that, in order for the BB to remain reliable, negative entries should remain in place (even if they are about payment issues that are finally resolved) since surel... See more I used to find the BB very valuable and believed it to be fairly reliable.
However, my opinion has changed since a certain outsourcer who had collected an impressive number of negative ratings had nearly all of them removed and has now an equally impressive number of 5s.
I wonder why...
I think that, in order for the BB to remain reliable, negative entries should remain in place (even if they are about payment issues that are finally resolved) since surely they weren't given without good reason. Removing these entries in retrospect means that a translator trying to gather information on a particular outsourcer only sees part of the picture and may not know what they are letting themselves in for.
[Edited at 2012-05-10 04:11 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Heinrich Pesch
Finland
Local time: 18:58
Member (2003)
Finnish to German
+ ...
| Proz used to be a site for freelancers | May 10, 2012 |
but nowadays it seems to be more concerned with attracting outsourcers and serving them.
| | | | | No one can force you to change a negative entry to a positive one (or vice versa) | May 10, 2012 |
inkweaver wrote:
I think that, in order for the BB to remain reliable, negative entries should remain in place (even if they are about payment issues that are finally resolved) since surely they weren't given without good reason. Removing these entries in retrospect means that a translator trying to gather information on a particular outsourcer only sees part of the picture and may not know what they are letting themselves in for.
[Edited at 2012-05-10 04:11 GMT]
Hello inkweaver,
When an LWA entry is made which has a non-payment report attached to it, and that non-payment issue is resolved, it is removed to allow the person who made the entry to make an entry which reflects the current situation. If the entry was a 1 rating, there may be no reason for the translator to change that rating, but a comment which reflects an unpaid invoice which has actually been paid would be inaccurate. In most cases, in the example above, the entry is re-entered, and the comment may be changed from, say, "Unpaid invoice from February 2012" to "3 months late in payment according to agreed terms". There is no obligation to change a negative rating to a positive one, unless the translator so decides. Coercion on the part of either the outsourcer or the translator is not allowed (an outsourcer may not pressure you to change a rating in exchange for payment, etc.). If you see this happening, report it!
It should be pointed out that, while agencies with habitual and ongoing problems with payment practices exist, they are not a majority, even though they may get a lot more press than a good agency. I have seen agencies with poor performance change hands or come under new management and turn things around. In general, outsourcers who are contacted regarding non-payment issues reported on the Blue Board are genuinely interested in resolving the issues promptly.
Jared
| | | | | ProZ.com has always been centered around the freelance language professional | May 10, 2012 |
Heinrich Pesch wrote:
but nowadays it seems to be more concerned with attracting outsourcers and serving them.
What makes you say this, Heinrich? The ProZ.com site team are concerned about attracting good outsourcers and serving them, since a good number of ProZ.com members pay to, among other things, meet clients here. Some outsourcers also pay for membership at ProZ.com. But your comment sounds to me as if freelancers have been left to the side, which is far from true. The overwhelming majority of site members are freelance translators, interpreters, or other language professionals, and those are the people the site team are working for.
Jared
| | |
|
|
|
| Benchmarking for the Blue Board | May 10, 2012 |
I'd like to take the chance to restate and old post of mine:
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/178033-standardize_blue_board_comments-page3.html#1635227
The details of the proposal are at http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/178033-standardize_blue_board_comments-page2.html#1564118 , previously on the same thread.
Proz being the leader doesn't necessarily cause it to outperform all its alikes in each and every possible tidbit. Some underdogs at times have bright ideas. So go there, have a coffee, and develop a Proz way of doing it.
This should significantly improve the BB, because such questions are based on facts, and not a 256-chars "personal opinion" on the experience had with an outsourcer. The PM there might be a lovely, personable individual, however this may fail to compensate for their firm's despicable rates. On the other hand, the PM may be rather brisk, yet they always pay on the dot without ever having to be reminded. The choice will be up to the reader, making the information more valuable. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 11:58
Spanish to English
+ ...
Thank you for your reply, and I appreciate your attempting to address the issues raised here in a forthright way.
I do have to say that I believe that my rejected entries closely resemble the example of an "acceptable" entry that you've supplied.
I think that Jose's suggestion has merit. In addition, some time ago, I suggested that a "testimonials" section be created on outsourcers' profiles, and that this could be a place where freelancers could post laudatory commen... See more Thank you for your reply, and I appreciate your attempting to address the issues raised here in a forthright way.
I do have to say that I believe that my rejected entries closely resemble the example of an "acceptable" entry that you've supplied.
I think that Jose's suggestion has merit. In addition, some time ago, I suggested that a "testimonials" section be created on outsourcers' profiles, and that this could be a place where freelancers could post laudatory comments. This would help eliminate the fawning inanity of so many of the "positive" entries on the BB. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Cetacea
Switzerland
Local time: 17:58
English to German
+ ...
| Just wondering... | May 10, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
3. Think that because somebody has a consistent rating of "5" on the Blue Board means they'll pay a good price for professional work.
If a consistent rating of "5" doesn't mean anything, and if
neilmac wrote:
we are unable to give an honest and blunt opinion of outsourcers, or indeed anything else.
then what's the point of the BB?
| | | | | 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 » 5 dumb things you can do when somebody contacts you directly through Proz.com to offer a job | 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 » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
