| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | 7th ProZ.com Translation Contest: announcement of winners! Thread poster: RominaZ
|
|---|
RominaZ 
Argentina
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Entries will be visible to the owners | Jul 10, 2008 |
Hi All,
All participants who submitted an entry to the contest will have access to it and will be able to export the entry to their portfolio.
I'll let you know.
Romina
| | | | | But was it an improvement? | Jul 10, 2008 |
You are driving your point home, folks, but what I'd really appreciate is feedback on whether or not you agree that the latest approach was an improvement over the previous.
unadiluna wrote:
I wrote all of this to tell you that if Yuri, Angio, Liliana, Paola and others claim that we are far from the excellence in translating originally hoped for, there is truth behind our words.
No one denies that, in fact, you don't have to tell us. Romina and I were translators.
| | | |
Paola Dentifrigi wrote:
I agree with unadiluna's point.
I wish I could analyze the RO>IT test the same way she did.
The trouble is it does not sound Italian at all
For those who read Italian, to name but a few weird sentences:
nonostante possiedo solo l’educazione ricevuta in casa
fallire ancora uno dei sogni della mia vita
me lo nutre e me lo giustifica in tutta la sua puerilità.
siccome da piccolo avevo l’unico desiderio di raccontare al mondo come si gioca il foot-ball.
I'll stop here. It's more than enough. No one qualified, sorry.
Paola
Again, I agree with Paola. She has pointed out some sentences. I had marked grammar mistakes only. Let me show you some of the most evident ones (now we can, as the contest is over). Most of these mistakes are to be found in the entry that ended up winning the contest. I want to point out again that all my corrections were ONE BY ONE disagreed to. How come? I don't know. Who did it? I don't know, maybe somebody of the Staff can look into that. Will you, please?
Here we go:
1) "lei sa"
Every Italian mother tongue would know that "Lei" would be written with the capital L, it's like Usted (Ud.) in Spanish.
I marked the mistake. Misteriously the correction got this response:
Peer reviews: +0 agrees, +1 disagrees
2) "cosi come"
It's "così" with the accent on the "i"...
I marked the mistake. Misteriously the correction got this response:
Peer reviews: +0 agrees, +1 disagrees
3)"non passerà mai per la mente prendersi gioco"
In Italian we say "passare per la mente DI + verb".
I marked the mistake. Misteriously the correction got this response:
Peer reviews: +0 agrees, +1 disagrees
4)" che lei"
Ditto, as on point 1
I marked the mistake: "La forma di cortesia Lei va sempre con la L MAIUSCOLA". Misteriously the correction got this response:
Other: Peer reviews: +0 agrees, +1 disagrees
5) "cosi affascinata"
Ditto, as on point 2 (plus the feminine ending "affascinatA" was mistakingly used here, whereas the protagonist of the story is actually a man).
I marked the mistake: "così si scrive con l'accento sulla I".
Misteriously the correction got this response:
Peer reviews: +0 agrees, +1 disagrees
6)"qualora lei"
Ditto, as on point 1
I marked the mistake : " Lei con la L maiuscola".
Misteriously the correction got this response:
Peer reviews: +0 agrees, +1 disagrees
7) "Lei non sentirà mai più parlandosi di me".
Is this even ITALIAN?
I marked the mistake. Misteriously the correction got this response:
Peer reviews: +0 agrees, +1 disagrees
8) Another entry had a whole series of mistakes:
"anche se non possiedo più dell’educazione ricevuta a casa, non sono più all’età che mi permetta di lasciarmi sfuggire un’altro sogno della mia vita".
I don't even want to point out in how many ways this sentence is WRONG, but let me just point out one basic grammar mistake: "un altro" is normally written without the apostrophe, because the masculine article UN followed by a word beginning by vowel does NOT want the apostrophe (only for the feminine form), any 4th grader would know this.
Oh yes, also these corrections were disagreed to.... very, very weird, isn't it?
Shall I go on? I could.
Can you understand my frustration? I hope you do.
I just want to launch this message to the person who put all those disagrees to my corrections: "you're playing dirty, pal. I'm going to keep an eye on the future contests and if I see again these little tricks, I'm going to alert (again) the organizers and the peers of this community of this unacceptable foul play".
I really hope to see more clarity and fair play in the future.
Thanks
| | |
|
|
|
patyjs
Mexico
Local time: 17:04
Spanish to English
+ ...
| I really want to say yes, it's an improvement... | Jul 11, 2008 |
but when Yuri says he scored a whopping 2.04 in the qualifying round I have to ask, "How can that be!" I don't speak a word of Russian so I can't comment on the entries but I can only imagine a very poor translation from a non-native speaker receiving a score like this. How on earth are people voting? If my math is correct (?) it would take 25 voters giving a total of 51 points to get an average of 2.04. This seems bizarre to say the least.
The Spanish to English isn't nearly so... See more but when Yuri says he scored a whopping 2.04 in the qualifying round I have to ask, "How can that be!" I don't speak a word of Russian so I can't comment on the entries but I can only imagine a very poor translation from a non-native speaker receiving a score like this. How on earth are people voting? If my math is correct (?) it would take 25 voters giving a total of 51 points to get an average of 2.04. This seems bizarre to say the least.
The Spanish to English isn't nearly so controversial...on the whole the finalists deserved to be there. I voted with 4s and 5s for my favorites (about 8 or 9 of the 30+ entries), used 3s and 4s for those I thought were good efforts, and 2s and 3s, with the odd 1 perhaps, for entries with a large number of errors and poorly written (obviously non-native speakers). This seemed fair to me. However, if someone deliberately rates the good entries with 1s this affects the outcome drastically:
A, B, C, D and E are entries from translators p, q, r, s and t respectively. Translators cannot vote for their own entries (X). All except translator t give 4 points each to the other entries. Translator t is a meany and only gives 1 point.
A B C D E
p X 4 4 4 4
q 4 X 4 4 4
r 4 4 X 4 4
s 4 4 4 X 4
t 1 1 1 1 X
TOTAL 13 13 13 13 16
See who wins! Perhaps we need to limit voting to non-contestants. Radical, I know, but I don't see how else this can be avoided.
For me the most important part of the contest is the (delicious ) chance to see how others work and get some constructive feedback. (I remember getting so much more from class discussions generated by a translation exercise than from actually doing the translation.) The likes/dislikes provided neither the quality nor quantity of feedback I had hoped for. It turned into little more than a nit-picking session. And the disagrees that Liliana writes about were probably put there by the entrant him/herself. This was something we wanted, after all: the chance to defend our choices. What's needed, I believe, is a more open way of showing likes and dislikes that isn't restricted by the rubrics grammar, syntax, mistranslation etc. as suggested already.
As I said in another post, it became proof-reading for a lot of voters. The point of a contest like this is to choose the overall best, not see how many errors we can find. It's a completely different approach. We're supposed to be actively looking for the good stuff, the inspired and insightful.
I have more... but it's after midnight and my eyes are closing...
[Edited at 2008-07-11 05:34] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Henry D wrote:
But was it an improvement?
You are driving your point home, folks, but what I'd really appreciate is feedback on whether or not you agree that the latest approach was an improvement over the previous.
Huge improvement. I have already been emphasizing it.
But the problem is still in the voting, or, rather, voters.
| | | | patyjs
Mexico
Local time: 17:04
Spanish to English
+ ...
| My apologies for the table in my previous post. | Jul 11, 2008 |
When I made the table it was beautifully spaced and aligned but the spacing seems to have disappeared. I hope it is still fathomable.
Romina says that we will all have access to our entries and be able to export them into our portfolios but will we be shown the score? I was logged on for most of the day when the finalists were announced but never saw any scores. After taking the time to vote (for every single entry) I'm disappointed that we can't see the results, even if the entr... See more When I made the table it was beautifully spaced and aligned but the spacing seems to have disappeared. I hope it is still fathomable.
Romina says that we will all have access to our entries and be able to export them into our portfolios but will we be shown the score? I was logged on for most of the day when the finalists were announced but never saw any scores. After taking the time to vote (for every single entry) I'm disappointed that we can't see the results, even if the entries remain anonymous. Being able to see the scores and how many people voted for each entry would help a lot in evaluating how the new system worked. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
RominaZ
Argentina
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Non-finalist entries visible to their owners | Jul 11, 2008 |
Hi All,
All contest participants who submitted entries can now see their own entry in the corresponding language pair. These entries can be exported to the portfolio section of the profiles by clicking on the "add to portfolio" button.
Thanks.
Romina
| | | | | My SP>EN entry could have been a finalist... Finalist 6 was better than 1-5... "Rate the raters!" | Jul 14, 2008 |
There were many strong contestants this time around, and I appreciate all the work the administrators are doing to improve the contest rules. Below I would like to give some specific examples about the 7th Spanish-to-English contest to show that there may be problems where possibly "strong" entries apparently having no obvious, serious tagged errors were disqualified (or qualified but received very low final ratings), while entries clearly having these sorts of errors made it to the finals (and ... See more There were many strong contestants this time around, and I appreciate all the work the administrators are doing to improve the contest rules. Below I would like to give some specific examples about the 7th Spanish-to-English contest to show that there may be problems where possibly "strong" entries apparently having no obvious, serious tagged errors were disqualified (or qualified but received very low final ratings), while entries clearly having these sorts of errors made it to the finals (and often got higher ratings than entries with good writing and fewer errors) - and show how some of the suggested improvements could help avoid problems like this in the future. I also add a new suggestion (suggestion (6) - "Rate the raters" - towards the end of this post, in bold), which is something most successful social-software sites have ended up doing.
Judging by the relatively low number of 'Dislike' tags my SP>EN entry got (it only got one, if I recall correctly, plus possibly a second one just before the end of the qualification phase), I believe my entry in this pair was "as strong as" (or "stronger than") some of the other finalists (all of which had 'Dislike' tags for things which were clearly errors: omissions, mistranslations, grammar, punctuation).
I was rather surprised when my entry in the SP>EN contest didn't make it to the finals.
I think things like this can happen for three main reasons:
(1) only the (invisible) ratings count, while the (visible) tags don't count (leading to a lack of transparency in the voting system);
(2) the reference or reason which the voter can provide along with a tag is not published (making it difficult for the other voters to "learn" from a tag or discuss it);
(3) the names of voters are not published, and there are no other incentives/disincentives to encourage/discourage "good"/"bad" voting behavior (leading to a lack of accountability in the voting system).
A voter or several voters gave my SP>EN entry a low rating - but they apparently couldn't be bothered to point out any specific phrases they had problems with. (This brings up another idea regarding contest rules: would it be helpful to display a voter's tags and ratings for a specific entry together? It might be interesting to see that Voter X gave an entry a low rating but didn't give it any 'Dislike' tags. Remember that in previous contests, the 'vote to disqualify' - similar to a low rating now - and the 'reason(s) for disqualifying' were displayed together.) Meanwhile there were specific phrases which were clearly errors in other entries that went on to become finalists, and which were tagged as such - but the explanations accompanying these tags were never displayed, and ratings (not tags) were used to determine the finalists, so the tags (and their accompanying references, which apparently go into some kind of "black hole," never to be seen or used by anyone) had no real effect.
If voters found problems with my SP>EN entry, they should have also posted 'Dislike' tags about specific passages. If you dislike an entry enough to give it a low rating, then you should also take the time to mark a few passages with 'Dislike' tags to back up the low rating you're giving. I don't think it's fair to just give a low rating and not give any 'Dislike' tags - this is just an opening for abuse of the voting system, allowing an unscrupulous contestant to vote against any competing entries perceived as "threatening." In Kudoz, when you 'disagree' with an answer, you have to say 'why.' But in the Contests you don't have to - so evidently all it takes to knock a "strong" entry out of the finals is a few anonymous voters giving it a low rating (as patyjs has pointed out with her helpful table earlier in this thread). There's currently no rule requiring voters to say 'why' they gave an entry a low rating, so there's no disincentive to discourage giving a "strong" entry a low rating.
Up until contest #6 there was a rule aimed at discouraging this sort of unscrupulous or uninformed voting behavior: if you voted to disqualify an entry, and that entry went on to win, then you would be blocked from voting during the qualification phase in future contests. That was a useful rule but it has apparently been eliminated. So an unscrupulous voter could now theoretically attempt to disqualify all their "threatening" competitors simply by giving them a low rating - with impunity. And as the table from patyjs shows, it doesn't take many unscrupulous voters (possibly as few as one) to drag down an entry's average rating and disrupt the voting this way.
To put it bluntly: I suspect that one or more of the 7th SP>EN contest voters may not have been sufficiently competent (or honest) to fairly judge my SP>EN entry and so they gave it a low rating, but they couldn't (or wouldn't) back up their low rating with any actual 'Dislike' tags. I'm not trying to attack the other entries, and I am of course not saying that all voters acted this way, but as the table from patyjs shows, the presence of just one unscrupulous or uninformed voter may be enough to prevent a entry having no major, tagged errors from making it to the finals - while other entries having major, tagged errors involving mistranslations, omissions, grammar, or punctuation do make it to the finals.
And when I say "punctuation," for example, I'm not talking about minor quibbles over a comma versus a semi-colon: I'm talking about the fact that the winner of the 7th SP>EN contest put quotation marks in the wrong place - quoting a phrase which should not have been quoted, and not quoting the phrase which should have been quoted - effectively putting Javier Marías's words into Guillermo Cabrera Infante's mouth and vice versa, and muddling the main point of the essay. As a careful translator, I use external resources such as Google to check stuff like this if the source text isn't clear. Imagine if you were translating an important legal, scientific, government or business document and you attributed the wrong quote to someone - I think the client would be very upset! It's embarrassing for proz.com that the 7th SP>EN winner got an important quote wrong like this - and it was easily avoidable as well, as it took only a few seconds to check this on Google, and the error was tagged during the qualification phase. What's the original author of this piece going to think if he comes to proz.com and sees that our contest winner couldn't figure out where to put the quotation marks for one of the key phrases in his essay? (You can look at the the Notes on the 7th SP>EN contest page for further explanation about this obvious error - and some of the other obvious errors - in the finalists.)
I was quite aware of which entries from my fellow contestants were "strong" enough to be serious contenders, and I carefully and conscientiously did three things on each of these entries: (a) I gave a 'Dislike' tag and a reference for any phrase which was clearly problematic; (b) I gave a 'Like' tag for any phrase which was clearly well-translated; and (c) I gave an overall rating of 4 (out of 5) to the entry itself (so there would be no appearance that I might somehow be trying to knock a competing "strong" entry out of the running - in the spirit of the rule from earlier contests saying that if you voted to disqualify an entry which later went on to win, then you would be blocked from voting in future qualifying rounds).
Now I wonder whether all the other voters were so conscientious and careful with my 7th SP>EN entry: one or more voters evidently "disliked" it enough to give it a low enough rating to knock it out of the finals, but they didn't back up their "dislikes" with any actual 'Dislike' tags about any particular phrases.
If I recall correctly, my 7th SP>EN entry got only one 'Dislike' tag: someone said that "rencor" shouldn't be translated as "feelings of bitterness." But this kind of "error" is much less serious than errors tagged in the other final entries: getting the Cabrera quote wrong (mentioned above); leaving out the first "but" in a key phrase involving "sino...pero..." (the winner and finalists 2, 3, 4, and 7 committed this rather serious error of omission); mistranslating "por" as "for" when the author obviously meant "because of" (the winner committed this very basic error, which is addressed in many books and on many websites dealing with the difference between "por" and "para")... or getting a phrase totally backwards by mistranslating "la pena {y} la indignación, que de un día para otro pueden verse sustituidas por la euforia y la santificación" as "the shame and indignation which so quickly take the place of euphoria and hero-worship" (finalist 5); clumsily translating "analogía del resultado inicial de todo partido" as "always starting from scratch, every match an analogy" (finalist 5); or committing a subtle but serious grammatical error involving a dangling participle ("the curse contained in football is also the salvation...when plunged," finalist 6). In fact, to get to the finalist with the fewest major errors (as well as some very nice phrasing, in my opinion), you have to go all the way down to rokain's entry, which was finalist 6! (You can check the Notes on the 7th SP>EN contest page for further info on most of these errors.)
So all but one of the seven SP>EN finalists had various types of fairly obvious, fairly serious, tagged errors involving mistranslations, omissions, grammar or punctuation - while my entry, which didn't get tagged for any obvious errors like this (and which in my opinion had several rather well-turned phrases as well), didn't even make it to the finals; and the first finalist that was free of major errors and well-written was arguably finalist 6 (by rokain).
After (a) winning the 6th SP>EN contest and then seeing my almost totally untagged entry for the 7th SP>EN contest not even make it to the finals (while entries with these serious, tagged errors did), (b) seeing finalist 6 for the SP>EN with fewer errors than (and phrasing arguably as good as if not better than) the preceding five finalists, and (c) reading some of the other comments on this thread (particularly about the entries into Italian), I believe that more transparency and accountability are needed to ensure fair and accurate voting.
If we can't figure out a voting system that fairly and accurately evaluates the translations, then qualified contestants and voters might start losing interest in the contests. Why should I waste my time working on making my entry as "strong" as possible if it could just get shot down and disappear with no reason given at all by anonymous voters who engage in "drive-by ratings" without having the courage or courtesy to back up their low ratings with a few specific 'Dislike' tags - while entries with major, tagged errors make it to the finals?
More transparency and accountability during the voting process will help improve this situation. Seven suggestions might be:
(1) Require the voter to provide some specific 'Dislike' tags if they give a low rating to an entry.
(2) Require the voter to provide a reason or reference along with each 'Dislike' tag (as is currently done in Kudoz).
(3) Publish the reason or reference which the the voter provided along with the 'Dislike' or 'Like' tag (so the other voters can learn from the tag and discuss it).
(4) Don't use hidden information (ratings) to determine winners while discarding publicized information (tags and references/reasons).
(5) Publish (during the voting) whether a voter is or isn't also a contestant. This could serve as a sort of compromise between people who would like to see each contest judged by an independent panel of judges (non-contestants) and people who want the current "contestant-judged" system. Given the number of language pairs (especially the language pairs which have only a few contestants), it could be very hard to find judges for all these pairs - so requiring an independent judge or judges for each language pair would probably drastically shrink the number of language pairs in the contests. I am a great believer in the social-software concept of "distributed moderation" - where the participants and contributors in a website (such as slashdot.org, or Kuro5hin.org) moderate themselves in a decentralized fashion, based on a well-chosen set of rules (which often includes some "meta-moderation" mechanism for "rating the raters"). If having independent (non-contestant) judges does prove to be impractical (due to the difficulty of finding judges for all pairs, or due to the issues of impartiality which would also inevitably arise), then simply displaying whether a voter is or isn't a contestant would at least give each pair the possibility of having a few impartial judges, without limiting the number of pairs to only those pairs where judges could be found. In addition, labeling each voter as a contestant or non-contestant might spontaneously attract a new class of participant: people who don't want to show their talent as contestants and prefer to show their talent as judges. (Judges could also have the option of being named or anonymous - but if they opt to be anonymous, they should be assigned a permanent voter id, to enable suggestion (6) below.)
(6) Rate the raters. This is what most successful social-software networks actually do. Currently, we're formally rating only the contestants (actually, only the entries), and now, after the voting, lots of us are trying to informally rate the raters (actually, only the ratings - since all raters are currently anonymous and "identityless") - by complaining about the voting here in the forum! Give the voters an identity (either a permanent id number for anonymous voters, or their actual proz.com login name for non-anonymous voters), and let's formally rate the raters - as part of the actual voting process. A wealth of experience in social software and distributed moderation (with meta-moderation and "karma") shows that this is the only way to ensure that the group survives and serves its purpose (voting up good translations). We already have a weak version of meta-moderation (where voters can 'Agree' or 'Disagree' with a 'Like' or 'Dislike' tag), but meta-moderation only works when it not only rates the rating but also rates the rater - so that over time, it affects the rater's "karma" (reputation in the community as a rater). The task of voting individual text entries up or down is well-researched in the field of social software at this point, so examining the experience of sites which have been successfully doing this for a long time would be a big help and avoid us having to re-invent the wheel. Sites like slashdot.org or Kuro5hin.org would be good references, as well as some of the writings by Clay Shirky and others on the topics of "distributed moderation," "meta-moderation," and "reputation systems" or "karma" (this last term is actually specific to slashdot.org - other sites use more general terms such as "reputation systems"). Once we look at these other social-software sites, we'll see that our growing pains are normal and we'll get some ready-made recipes for fixing them!
(7) Publish the names of the voters - or, if that's too much, allow the voter to choose whether to be anonymous or named, with the intended consequence that anonymous tags (whether they're 'Like'/'Dislike' tags - or 'Agree'/'Disagree' tags) might end up being taken somewhat less seriously by the other voters than non-anonymous tags.
(Of course, names of voters wouldn't need to be displayed during the contest - they could remain hidden until the contest is over. During the contest, each voter within a given language pair could be assigned a temporary id number - so that we could observe that voter's voting behavior across all entries in the pair, without knowing who they actually are just yet. Then, once the contest is over, reveal the actual name associated with each temporary voter number - the same way we now reveal the name associated with each contest entry. But there's still one hitch: since a voter would not be allowed to vote on their own entry, it still might be possible to deduce who the voter is if they vote on every entry except one - then we could deduce that that is their entry. On the one hand, this might actually be a good thing - it could be useful to see if a particular voter has given low ratings to all other entries. On the other hand, we could make it impossible to deduce voters' identities in this way if we actually allowed voters to vote on their own entry - which might not cause any more harm than the way we currently allow them to vote against all the other entries. Again, think back to Kudoz, where an Answerer has to provide a Confidence Level from 1 to 5 for their own Answer - which functions somewhat like a rating, as it is added to the other voters' ratings and helps determine the display order for the list of Answers. In addition, if contestants could vote on their own entry, then we might also see a lot more 'Like' tags and have some more interesting discussions. Currently there seems to be some reluctance to give 'Like' tags, and maybe the person most inclined to give a 'Like' tag would be the actual contestant, which would give them a chance to say why they translated a particular phrase a certain way - "tooting their own horn" and also possibly leading to more interesting discussions about the entries overall.)
I appreciate how hard the site administrators and programmers have been working to listen to feedback and improve the contest voting system. And I think that we are seeing more and more really good entries from contestants. As we move on, I think that more transparency and accountability in the voting (based on mechanisms already being used successfully by other social-software sites) will encourage "good" voting behavior and discourage "bad" voting behavior - which should help ensure that voting results truly reflect the best entries while generating more interest in the contests.
[Edited at 2008-07-14 04:47] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | TYPO in last post - fixed here: | Jul 15, 2008 |
TYPO!
Scott Alexander wrote:
...leaving out the first "but" in a key phrase involving "sino...pero..." (the winner and finalists 2, 3, 4, and 7 committed this rather serious error of omission)...
SHOULD BE:
Scott Alexander wrote:
...leaving out the first "but" in a key phrase involving "pero...sino..." (the winner and finalists 2, 3, 4, and 7 committed this rather serious error of omission)...
| | | |
lots of time on your hands, Scott?
[Edited at 2008-07-15 11:36]
| | |
|
|
|
| I know, very long | Jul 15, 2008 |
I just kind of typed it all up fast - it would have taken even more time to shorten it.
I hope somebody manages to wade through at least some of it.
| | | | | Thanks - we will review carefully | Jul 16, 2008 |
Scott Alexander wrote:
I just kind of typed it all up fast - it would have taken even more time to shorten it.
I hope somebody manages to wade through at least some of it.
Hi Scott. Thank you very much for this post. We will review it carefully.
| | | | Cristiana Coblis
Romania
Local time: 02:04
Member (2004)
English to Romanian
+ ...
| I believe this edition was a clear improvement | Jul 17, 2008 |
The new qualification and voting system is very good. It may require some fine tuning regarding the classification of errors, but it worked very well where there was a sufficiently high number of voters. The system does not work as well where there is a small number of voters and I think it is very good that we have a minimum number of votes necessary to declare a winner - this should probably be maintained. The only answer is to vote ... See more The new qualification and voting system is very good. It may require some fine tuning regarding the classification of errors, but it worked very well where there was a sufficiently high number of voters. The system does not work as well where there is a small number of voters and I think it is very good that we have a minimum number of votes necessary to declare a winner - this should probably be maintained. The only answer is to vote
A suggestion for future contests would be to restrict participation to native target language(s), i.e. translators should submit entries translated in their native language. Or, at least a non-native translator should be allowed to submit a text in a non-native language only in cooperation with a native reviser. After all, voters are allowed to vote only on native target language texts and in their working language pairs. Admittedly, this will bring down the number of entries in many language combinations (such as Romanian, where the community is small), but it should raise the overall quality.
[Editat la 2008-07-17 10:19] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » 7th ProZ.com Translation Contest: announcement of winners! | 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 » |
| | 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 
