Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3] >
Plus features: Announcing Blue Board “category ratings” (and more)
Thread poster: Henry Dotterer
Erik Freitag
Erik Freitag  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 21:55
Member (2006)
Dutch to German
+ ...
Faulty logic Dec 24, 2016

Henry,

I've said that in the other thread as well, but here goes. In my opinion, the explanatory text is a bit illogical here:

Henry Dotterer wrote:

- This outsourcer has reasonable payment terms.*

* This category is provided for rating on characteristics like time until payment is made, whether or not payment fees are taken out in a way that was not agreed in advance, etc. This field is not intended to be used to rate outsourcers on payment amounts. There is no category for that, since it is assumed that payment amount will have been previously agreed to, to the satisfaction of both parties.
(my emphasis)

I believe that it should be assumed that payment terms have been agreed in advance. Taking out payment fees in a way that was not agreed in advance should instead be reflected by bad marks in the category "This outsourcer adheres to agreed upon terms."

My 2 cents.


 
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 21:55
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
@Eric Dec 25, 2016

Erik Freitag wrote:
Henry Dotterer wrote:
- This outsourcer has reasonable payment terms.*
* This category is provided for rating on characteristics like time until payment is made, whether or not payment fees are taken out in a way that was not agreed in advance, etc.

I believe that it should be assumed that payment terms have been agreed in advance.


That is true, but some things are often taken for granted, i.e. they are not discussed nor specifically agreed to, because both parties assume that there is a "standard" way of doing things that need not be discussed in detail. And when differences of opinion occur [afterwards], the agency's idea of what "standard practice" is can be unreasonable in the eyes of the translator.

So I think this option is distinct from "This outsourcer adheres to agreed upon terms." Perhaps we can think about having the wording changed to "This outsourcer has reasonable payment practices".


 
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 21:55
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
No, first revamp the community rates feature Dec 25, 2016

Mirko Mainardi wrote:
However, ProZ does have a list of "community rates" per language pair (whether you find them reliable/acceptable or not...), so why not use it to make this an objective parameter and create at least a basic distinction between clients/agencies that offer abysmal/low rates (below "standard community rates") and those who offer "so-so"/average/good rates?


Robert Forstag wrote:
A further refinement of this idea could be a statement such as:
"On a scale of 1 to 5, where do this agency's rates fall in terms of the community rates for your language pair?"
The term "community rates" could be hyperlinked to the appropriate ProZ.com page supplying said information.


Although I can see the point in linking the rates comment to a universal standard (and by "universal standard" I don't imply rate acceptability but simply data reliability), I would have some concerns/objections in that regard.

1. The community rates are always going to be much higher than the usual rates in some markets, and always lower than the usual rates in other markets. The current implementation of "community rates" assumes that any given translator charges the same rate to all clients for all text types in all subject fields and, importantly, in all markets. But it would be unfair to clients from low-rate markets to be evaluated against these artificially high rates standard (from their point of view), and it would give an overly favourable opinion about clients from typically high-rate markets.

In a certain market, 14c per word might be on the low end, 16c a word about average, and 18c per word on the high end. If the community rate is 10c per word, then there would be no way to distinguish the low-paying client (that pays 40% more than the community rate) from the average paying client (who pays a mere 15% more than the low-paying client). In another market, 4c per word may be on the low end, 5c per word about average, and 6-7c per word on the high end. If the community rate is 10c per word, then even a very high paying client would look bad, and would actually look not much better than a very low paying client.

2. One reason why it may be considered acceptable to post to the Blue Board despite NDAs is the fact that most statements are very general. If a rates comment is pegged to a known standard, however, then translators who provide this sort of information would actually be giving more specific information about their relationship with the client that they may realise.

3. Rates payed by agencies tend to depend [at least in part] on the specifics of each project. Aspects like "considering quality in the way they manage projects", "having straightforward on-boarding and documentation/contracting processes", "adhering to agreed upon terms" and "having reasonable payment terms" do not. These latter things will tend to be true for an agency regardless of language combination, subject field, end-client, or even specific project. So while those things may be useful information for all translators, a rates comment would only be useful if the Blue Board user happens to be offered a project with similar specifications than that which the evaluator got.

4. For a similar reason, I would probably never rate an agency in this regard, because it might unintentionally send the wrong message to colleagues. Here's what I mean: suppose I get 12c per word from an agency, and I give them a 4/5 rating for "reasonable rates". If a couple of colleagues get 5c per word from them (due to the fact that they work on other projects than I do), it would send the message that I consider 5c per word to be worth a 4/5 rating (because translators do sometimes talk to each other).


 
Andrea Halbritter
Andrea Halbritter  Identity Verified
France
Local time: 21:55
French to German
+ ...
Possible for "normal" members Dec 25, 2016

Do I understand it right that as a "normal" member I am not able to give those detailled rankings?

 
José Henrique Lamensdorf
José Henrique Lamensdorf  Identity Verified
Brazil
Local time: 17:55
English to Portuguese
+ ...
In memoriam
This is one GREAT step forward Dec 25, 2016

I have been advocating this shift for years, so I am glad that Proz has finally decided to move from the all-subjective LWA.

My posts on this matter were to defend the use of objective - hence factual, easy to prove - inputs from translators on outsourcers. So here are my comments on the criteria as stated so far.

Henry Dotterer wrote:

In response to member requests, it is now possible for those making Blue Board entries to rate outsourcers, on a scale from 1 to 5, in specific areas. The areas are:

- This outsourcer is easy/enjoyable to work with.


Who cares? This is supposed to be WORK! It is not expected to be easy or enjoyable.
I think it would be more relevant for WORK, if stated as:
This client communicates clearly and effectively their needs and requirements.
We know that many don't, and this may cause all kinds of trouble that leads a translator to think twice before working for them again.

Henry Dotterer wrote:
- This outsourcer considers quality in the way they manage projects.

According to the rather ancient, however definitely present, Total Quality concepts, it is up to the end-client to set the quality level, and the outsourcer is in charge of ensuring it is delivered.
I think it would make more sense to state:
This client makes reasonable and thoughtful demands.
Low graders would be those that demand excessive volume coupled with an abusively short turnaround, often associated with low rates and absurdly extended payment terms.

Henry Dotterer wrote:
- This outsourcer has straightforward on-boarding and documentation/contracting processes.

This is a highly subjective thing to state. There is a popular translators management system (named P..net) that can vary sharply from one to another outsourcer in terms of setting up the bureaucracy it involves. Some outsourcers adopt a nice and sensible NDA, however they require having received it signed via snail-mail before any assignment.
So I'd prefer rating this as:
This outsourcer's administrative procedures are reasonable and adequate.

Henry Dotterer wrote:
- This outsourcer adheres to agreed upon terms.

This is okay, however possibly subject to mincing words.
I'd suggest:
This outsourcer adheres to everything that was mutually agreed.
Some outsourcers (I won't name names here) at times overlook, for instance, the translator's "best rate" - as emphatically requested - being strictly for COD payment, and later claim that "it is our firm policy to never pay anything before 60 days after month-end".

Henry Dotterer wrote:
- This outsourcer has reasonable payment terms.

This is overwhelmingly subjective.
Taking it strictly, "payment term" being the length of time between the delivery of services and the actual payment, what would be reasonable?
For a translator in Switzerland, where interest rates may be negative, it's merely a matter of cash flow.
In the Euro zone, the standard seems to be 30 days, though two peninsulas (Iberia and Italia) typically tend to extent it far beyond that.
In the USA, the APR (yes, annual) is about 15%. So in these major markets the financial cost a translator should add is marginal.
Yet when the translator is in Brazil, Argentina, and a list of other countries where MONTHLY interest rates are higher than than the US-APR (annual!), it makes a lot of difference.
Hence what's reasonable for one in this criteria may be irrational for another.

Now if "payment terms" is expected to encompass RATES, it becomes meaningless. Imagine translators working on the same language pair, located in New York, Delhi, Dusseldorf, Buenos Aires, Sydney, and Rio de Janeiro. There is no one-size-fits-all to this.

My point is that the outsourcer should HAVE nothing of the sort. One of their reasons to exist is to scout the entire global market on behalf of the end-client, in order to be able to advise on the best quality-price-time option for each request they receive, based on the input they have secured - either actively or passively - worldwide.
This would also cover abusive discount demands on fuzzy matches, unsound requirements on software (e.g. a specific CAT tool when none is useful or viable), on top of the above.
So I'd cover this point with:
This outsourcer is reasonable to negotiate with, aiming at a sustainable business relationship.

My 2¢.


 
Tom in London
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 20:55
Member (2008)
Italian to English
We need to have earlier entries deleted when we update them using the new system Dec 26, 2016

Linguistic quibbles first. Some of the wording is unclear and breaks the rules of correct English, e.g.:

1. I have no idea what "on-boarding" means, and I doubt that my clients would understand it either.
2. "This outsourcer adheres to agreed upon terms" is not good English. "This outsourcer complies with previously agreed terms" might be better. Or some other option.
3. When making a new BB entry I am presented with the following text: "Please select the country that
... See more
Linguistic quibbles first. Some of the wording is unclear and breaks the rules of correct English, e.g.:

1. I have no idea what "on-boarding" means, and I doubt that my clients would understand it either.
2. "This outsourcer adheres to agreed upon terms" is not good English. "This outsourcer complies with previously agreed terms" might be better. Or some other option.
3. When making a new BB entry I am presented with the following text: "Please select the country that the outsourcer's main office is located". I'm sorry, but that means nothing in English. Corrected version: "Please select the country in which the outsourcer's main office is located".

My main comment:

As requested I have updated a few of my previous BB entries, but in each case my previous entry of several years ago has not been deleted. For instance: several years ago I liked one particular outsourcer but in more recent years I just got tired of their greatly deteriorated payment practices and gave up on them. My new BB entry reflects this but my older, favourable entry is still visible, which is surely very confusing. The same applies to the other BB entries I updated today. Here's one example:

Screen Shot

BY THE WAY - in this BB entry I notice that my Kudoz/Browniz are showing as not having increased since 2015. That's wrong.

[Edited at 2016-12-26 13:12 GMT]
Collapse


 
Robert Forstag
Robert Forstag  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 16:55
Spanish to English
+ ...
@Tom Dec 26, 2016

But the entry in your new rating and sub-ratings consists of nothing but "5s", which reflect no dissatisfaction 'tall....

In agreement with your linguistic quibbles. A site for language professionals can surely be expected to pay more heed to such matters. These kinds of irritating problems show up all over the place here, and should be cleaned up.


 
Tom in London
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 20:55
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Yes and no Dec 26, 2016

Robert Forstag wrote:

But the entry in your new rating and sub-ratings consists of nothing but "5s", which reflect no dissatisfaction 'tall....



In that particular entry, yes; but not in the others I changed.


 
James Greenfield
James Greenfield  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 20:55
Member (2013)
French to English
+ ...
On-boarding Dec 27, 2016

@ Tom

I think on-boarding is meant to mean the process for registering with an agency. It does sound odd though outside the context of air travel. Registration would surely be better.



[Edited at 2016-12-27 17:14 GMT]


 
Tom in London
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 20:55
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Terrible Dec 27, 2016

James Greenfield wrote:

@ Tom

I think on-boarding is meant to mean the process for registering with an agency. It does sound odd though outside the context of air travel. Registration would surely be better.



[Edited at 2016-12-27 17:14 GMT]


Thanks James. I had no idea that it meant "registration". And anyway, in air travel, it's "boarding", not "on-boarding". None of my clients would have the slightest idea what "on-boarding" means. After some research I have discovered that there is in fact a term "onboarding" (not hyphenated), but it does not mean registration. It describes the process of welcoming new employees and giving them initial training and has nothing to do with the relationship between a freelancer and their clients. It appears to be American English.

[Edited at 2016-12-27 19:41 GMT]


 
Mirko Mainardi
Mirko Mainardi  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 21:55
Member
English to Italian
[OT] - Onboarding Dec 27, 2016

You can easily find a definition, such as "The action or process of integrating a new employee into an organization or familiarizing a new customer or client with one's products or services" - http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/onboarding

Although this is probabl
... See more
You can easily find a definition, such as "The action or process of integrating a new employee into an organization or familiarizing a new customer or client with one's products or services" - http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/onboarding

Although this is probably more interesting: http://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/words-were-watching-onboarding
It says, among other things: "In the old days, the word orientation did this job just fine. But today we don't just want new employees to get their bearings and be able to find their way around the building (ideas implied in the literal meanings of orient), but to be on board—to be ready and able to move onward with the company wherever it may be headed."
Collapse


 
Tom in London
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 20:55
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Whatever it is Dec 27, 2016

Mirko Mainardi wrote:

You can easily find a definition, such as "The action or process of integrating a new employee into an organization or familiarizing a new customer or client with one's products or services" - http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/onboarding

Although this is probably more interesting: http://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/words-were-watching-onboarding
It says, among other things: "In the old days, the word orientation did this job just fine. But today we don't just want new employees to get their bearings and be able to find their way around the building (ideas implied in the literal meanings of orient), but to be on board—to be ready and able to move onward with the company wherever it may be headed."


Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the way in which I build a working relationship with my clients. And whilst I know many Americans think there is a verb "to orient", in my world it's "to orientate". The Orient is the Far East.

[Edited at 2016-12-27 19:51 GMT]


 
Mirko Mainardi
Mirko Mainardi  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 21:55
Member
English to Italian
Indeed... Dec 27, 2016

Tom in London wrote:

Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the way in which I build a working relationship with my clients.


Guess it goes to show the sad state a good part of the industry is in...
There definitely are "clients" that treat you as an employee and expect you to adapt and comply with all of their "documentation/contracting processes" (and contents)...


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 16:55
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Onboarding Dec 27, 2016

Hi folks,

Most LSPs distinguish between freelancers that have been "approved", and those who have been put into their databases as candidates, but are not yet fully "in". Usually there are several steps involved in going from the un-approved to the approved status, including verifying some data, having an NDA signed, confirming that a person can be paid, possibly granting access to an online system, and so on. Some companies refer to this as "onboarding".

What would be
... See more
Hi folks,

Most LSPs distinguish between freelancers that have been "approved", and those who have been put into their databases as candidates, but are not yet fully "in". Usually there are several steps involved in going from the un-approved to the approved status, including verifying some data, having an NDA signed, confirming that a person can be paid, possibly granting access to an online system, and so on. Some companies refer to this as "onboarding".

What would be a better word? It is a more comprehensive concept than orientation or even vetting. It is doing everything necessary so that a freelancer is available to project managers for work assignments.

Henry
Collapse


 
Tom in London
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 20:55
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Why Dec 29, 2016

I still don't understand why (as in the example I posted earlier) my Kudoz/Browniz are showing as not having increased since 2015.

 
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 »

Plus features: Announcing Blue Board “category ratings” (and more)






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 »
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! »