Reposted from Translation Tribulations
Monday, January 09, 2012
Since The Great Moderator Purge at ProZ a few years ago, things have continued to get curiouser and curiouser, and The Translation Workplace has evolved into more of a Translation Workhouse, or as some colleagues from former Iron Curtain regions who have the historical background to comment authoritatively might put it, a gulag. One from which, thankfully, most serious translators in the major language pairs have escaped to a better life. After being gagged there for several years and dealing with other nonsense, I stopped being a paying member of the site in 2011. The experience of this German colleague provides further confirmation that I made the right decision. For years, there have been rumors, some quite plausible, others less so, of corruption in the Blue Board ratings, and for some, access to this data remains one of the few justifications for membership. But if the ratings themselves are skewed by arbitrary actions… let her story, posted on another translators’ forum and reposted here with permission, speak for itself:
I know I don’t need to tell you how bad ProZ is for the industry, and I don’t want to turn this into a discussion about that site, but if you need a little story to convince others to stop supporting ProZ with their money, here’s a funny one from today.
A while ago I did one project for an agency that turned out to be a typical broker. Absolutely no QA, low rates (earlier, they were looking for a 50K legal translation within 2 days for 0.09 USD/word – without adding any value to the project themselves), and so on. The project was small enough for me to use as a test to determine if I wanted to continue working with this guy. After all, he had 30 5-star ratings on the Blue Board.
But as it turned out, my initial feeling was correct: he sent me three emails way before the deadline asking me when I would deliver, but when it came to paying me with equal speed after timely delivery, the excuses and bossy behavior began. He said I should be happy about getting paid after 30 days because that is supposedly “GREAT” in our industry, and he declared that he was under no obligation to pay me when I wanted to be paid, etc.
So, long story short, I went to ProZ to leave a negative rating. My review included all necessary information and described my experience. I didn’t mention any names, nor did I use foul language or similar.
First attempt: my review got censored and deleted without any explanation. I sent a support request and asked what was going on. Got a reply that told me to resubmit my review.
Second attempt: I resubmitted my review, and removed the word “arrogant” from it, just to be sure. It got censored and deleted again, without any explanation.
Third attempt: I simply selected one star and added “Not recommended.” to the comment field. It got censored and deleted again. This time, I received an email telling me that I was not allowed to add any comments and should only indicate my WWA rating.
Fourth attempt: I simply gave a 1-star rating and added no further explanation. [This was finally let through.]
WTF?? If you see a bad rating, don’t you want to know why the rating is so bad? Leaving a bad rating without any explanation makes the translator look bitter and vengeful. And why are comments allowed for the good ratings then?
Anyway, I’m happy I don’t waste my money on Proz, and I’ll cheer for everyone who stops paying for their membership. If you want to share this story with paying members, feel free to do so.
Posted by Kevin Lossner at 11:16 PM
Ruh roh. Bad ProZ! Thank you so much for sharing this, Kevin. I hadn’t heard this story.
Kevin Lossner said…
It’s a new one, Jill. Just discussed yesterday on a private board. But it’s not the first of its kind I’ve heard. As one person on Twitter put it, “I’d love to be shocked, but…”
After much umming and ahhing, I finally renewed my ProZ membership for the year last week. Shame this didn’t come up beforehand – I might have made a different decision.
Kevin Lossner said…
@Anonymous: I do believe there is a refund policy at PrAdZ for cancellations….
Thanks, I shall bear that in mind!
Thanks for this info. I renewed my membership a few weeks ago, and hesitated a lot at the time.
Your post has confirmed my doubts and I have just submitted a support request to get a refund.
I hope they won’t try to stop me or claim a refund is impossible.
Could you please mention where this was first posted? I’d like to take a look at that blog.
Thanks Kevin for posting this.
The BlueBoard has indeed been one of the main reasons why I am a paying member but if it is not fair, why pay for it? Then other groups like Zalungspraxis on Yahoo in Germany or Payment Practices would be sufficient, wouldn’t they?
I am asking myself whether there are other negative issues that members could report about not connected with the BlueBoard?
@Neli & Anonymous:
The one good thing about Proz is that the cancellation seems to work smoothly. I cancelled my membership a few months into the then current term and got a refund (for the remaining months) without much trouble. Let’s hope they won’t change that!
Kevin Lossner said…
@Jorge: This did not come from a blog. It is from the business forum on Stridonium, which is a private forum for professionals, which is totally off the Google indexes, etc. This platform was created several years ago in response to the endless security breaches and lack of professional standards at ProZ. It’s small and a bit Anglophilic, but I am very comfortable there. The atmosphere is a bit like the stacks at my old college library: quiet, friendly, collegial. No endless flood of silly newbie questions asking how to write an invoice with VAT or use basic Trados functions.
Sandrine Pouchain said…
Thanks for sharing this Kevin. I admit I am very surprised to see that Proz could behave this way. That’s good to share such experiences that show Proz real behaviour. This site is not as reliable as I thought…
Charlie Bavington said…
I think the main surprise here for me is that you were still paying Proz up to 2011
(I missed that blog post on account of being on my hols in August.)
Sadly, however, the bare truth is that those running any website have ultimate control over what content it has (and those inspired to set up ‘community’ websites do seem to be cut from similar cloth, also sadly). Presumably there was more discussion on the site you’ve taken it from, but I am a little surprised, given the sort of members it has, that she didn’t make more effort to establish why the comments were removed, but the rating itself was allowed to stand (if that had gone, you’d have a proper conspiracy on your hands!). I do know they are a bit twitchy about what you can say about companies in some countries (Italy, for one).
Paula R. said…
Good one Kevin.
Kevin Lossner said…
Paula, I presume you’ve read the original post and know that I don’t deserve the credit for blowing the whistle on this one. I admire the patience she showed in trying to post the rating and let others know how the agency had treated her.
@Charlie: make more effort? How so? How far can she or should she go? Send a spy to Argentina? Sleep with Jared and hope for revealing pillow talk? I fear thingZ move in mysterious ways at Ze TranZlatorZ ParadiZe, and we may never know. Besides, AFAIK it’s against Ze RuleZ to ask
Charlie Bavington said…
Just ask, maybe? Once would be enough – as I’m sure you know, you either get quoted a rule or (but don’t hold your breath) get given a reason.
Since I feel sure that had such a question been asked, then the response, of no matter what kind, would also have been reported, I surmise she didn’t ask (I believe only pulic questioning of decisionz is against ze rulez). If she had, then there either would have been no mystery, or a proper intriguing mystery. As it is, I feel like somone who has video taped a detective story and missed the last 15 minutes
Charlie Bavington said…
More effort? Merely by asking, which I believe is allowed as long its done privately and actionz are not questioned in the forumz. She obviously didn’t ask, because any answer would either solve the mystery (I wouldn’t hold my breath for that) or provide more anti-proz ammunition (quote rulez) and/or make the mystery deeper (refuse to answer) and would have been quoted too, I feel sure.
As it stands, it just looks like the usual rubbish site moderation/admin. There’s a surprise. In essence old chap, at this stage in the tale, I’m not sure why corruption is the conclusion, rather than just cluelessness. Unless there’s something we’ve not been told….
Where’s my tin foil hat?
(PS: this may be basically a duplicate post, in which case delete it or select the one prefer. If any!)
Kevin Lossner said…
Charlie, I’ll let the original poster answer your concerns publicly or privately as she sees fit. As for “corruption“, it takes many forms as you know, a number of them being possibly relevant to Ze Zite. And even should the idiocy to be observed there prove to be in earnest with no intention to deceive, I do think the definition of “the process of decay; putrefaction” applies rather well when one considers the trend of the past five years or so. Or do you see it differently?
@Charlie: Believe me, I’ve had my share of support requests, including this time.
As Kevin indicated in his quote, I sent in a support request right after the first removal of my review. I got a standard response claiming that I had posted defamatory and personal remarks in my comment. This is why I removed the word “arrogant” from my review, as this is the only word in there that some people may consider “personal” (even though it’s equally subjective as “friendly”, and all those reviews talking about “friendly PMs” are accepted without hesitation). Nothing else in my review (imho) was personal or defamatory. I mentioned “low rates”, “no LQA” and the general lack of quality that’s also illustrated by numerous mistakes on the agency’s website. And even my opinion of the PM was based on his rude e-mails in which he first called me unprofessional and then even went on to make fun of me.
So, when my review was deleted the second time (without the word “arrogant” in it), I sent in a very long support request in which I detailed my experience with the agency and explained each and every segment of my comment. I then asked how else I should describe these negative aspects of that agency. How else should I say “low rates” or “no LQA” if not with these words? The word “censorship” was also part of my support request, just in case you’re wondering.
Yet again, I received a standard reply telling me that a moderator had removed my review because of personal or defamatory comments.
When I submitted it the third time (with just “Not recommended. Period.” in the comment), I received an automatic email notification telling me that my review was rejected for personal comments and I should only indicate my LWA rating. At that point, I was 100% sure that they were making fun of me because this is not the first time that I had a lengthy and endless discussion with Support trying to make them tell me explicit rules that I supposedly violated (last time that happened was the reason I cancelled my membership – similar to this time, they were unable to cite specific rules that I was said to have violated).
So, since there was a long translation waiting on my desk, I didn’t feel like sending in another support request. And since good ole Dotty is not my type, a little quickie with that guy isn’t an option either.
Hope that clears things up a bit for ya!
Kevin Lossner said…
Well, Charlie, since Simone has ruled out other means of persuasion with King Henry & the court, it looks like she’s gone about as far as one can reasonably expect for “more effort”. It’s always good to get the facts rather than make assumptions. And there are plenty of facts to go around with regard to that site, from people I believe we both know and respect. There are clear commercial interests at stake here which have very little to do with the real interests of translators or translation buyers, and if you point your sharp mind in that direction, I think you’ll be quite a bit closer to the mark with whatever path of reason you choose.
Marie-Hélène Hayles said…
Just thought I’d clarify a point made by Charlie – “I do know they are a bit twitchy about what you can say about companies in some countries (Italy, for one)”. To be fair to Proz, that’s actually to protect the person posting the review. Italy has a bizarre law whereby you could be successfully sued for defamation *even if what you say is demonstrably true*. I know of at least one colleague who was threatened with a lawsuit by an Italian agency if she didn’t remove her BB comments. For this reason, it was recommended that you provide a simple rating with no comment at all.
Of course, this has nothing to do with Simone’s experience, which is pretty depressing, really.
Kevin Lossner said…
Gez Marie-Hélène Hayles, that sounds like a law made for Mr. Bunga-Bunga… but then the Swiss aren’t much better. They believe in suppressing the truth if it might hurt business. No wonder most of the tinpot tyrants on Earth hide their stolen money there.
Charlie Bavington said…
No, Kevin, I think it’s fair to say I see things similarly to you. As I believe I’ve said in various places, I think it’s a shame the overall quality of everything on there has declined over the years (an inevitable corollary of growing numbers, IMHO), and at the same time, I respect (if not agree with) Henry’s decision to focus on maximising revenue. “Decay” would indeed be a reasonable one-word description.
I suppose the question hinges on the extent to which one thinks he is entitled to protect his income stream. I wonder whether, if he started the site again knowing what he knows now, the BB would exist at all? At what point does protecting his revenue become corruption? I would say that in a business context, this requires some kind of active intervention from the other party, such as a gentle reminder by a corporate member as to how much they pay the site (this kind of thing has been discussed before). I personally wouldn’t describe unilateral overzealous interpretation of posting rulez as “corruption” myself, it seems too strong a word, but I would not go so far as to say anyone was wrong to do so, if that is how they see it.
It is nonetheless entirely unacceptable that the “support” team only responded on autopilot and made no effort to, for example, suggest an appropriate rewording that would be OK for the BB.
(Still, I have myself been asked to edit posts which have in fact been deleted, so their incompetence is not in doubt.)
And I certainly apologise for the phrasing I used before, since clearly Simone went to some efforts! It all sprang from the number of times the words “but why?” sprang to mind as I read through it – Simone’s obviously done her best; my “but whys?” would now need to be directed at the zite, but that is impossible. Which does indeed leave us just with our interpretation based on what we know or think we do. For me, to get a full picture, that would include knowing what country was involved and the membership status of the agency, but even the incomplete picture leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth.
And the sad truth seems to be that in general on there, while positive subjective opinions are OK, negative subjective opinions are not. See also the utterly pointless WWA nonsense. Or indeed the forums.
Hence, that the BB is of limited use is not at issue. I cannot surely be the only one who could grade agencies but does not, simply to avoid the kind of hoo-hah Simone got embroiled in (be it with proz or the agencies)?
Kevin Lossner said…
@Charlie: I think the meaning of her “but why’s” is clear to all of us now. It’s just another way we protest unjust action, if only to shout it to the empty sky. She certainly did do all that could be expected of her.
Of course Henry is free to focus on whatever legal thing he cares to, but if in doing so, he misrepresents what he’s about or others mistake the proposition on offer, we are just as entitled to call attention to relevant details should we care to. If the Italians, the Swiss or any others have a problem with that, they can, as my father used to put it so nicely, “take a long walk off a short pier”.
Somewhere in all the various repostings and discussions of this case, someone asked me about trustworthy alternatives to the ProZ Blue Board. For the German-speaking world, I can heartily endorse the Zahlungspraxis Yahoogroups list. The gent who runs it is (or was?) the BDÜ member site webmaster and runs the list by strict ethical standards, quickly clamping down on anonymous libels and the like. It’s a good source of information. When I was fighting that sleazebag in Zurich, it was a great source of information. The Payment Practices site offers good info for a modest fee (far less than PrAdZ membership. I trust it far more than the Blue Board.
Update: my first support request to get a refund was closed yesterday with the answer “Please attend the Meeting clients a ProZ.com webinar”… I re-opened it and told them that I disagreed with the ethics of their website and that it had not got me any client since I started working.
This was finally accepted and I should get my refund within 2 days (hopefully)!
@Kevin: yes, the Zahlungspraxis group is still managed by the BDÜ webmaster and it is indeed a very reliable and good source.
And Payment Practices is also very good and the fee is small. ATA members even get a discount on the annual fee.
I had always thought the BB to be a reliable and good source. Now I have to ask myself, how many negative ratings might have been deleted that we do not know of? Anyway, this issue leaves me with a slightly bad feeling…
Kevin Lossner said…
Hard to say, Tatjana. Most of the trouble I hear about isn’t really ProZ fault as I see it. It’s agencies blackmailing/threatening translators over a bad rating that has been allowed, or in some cases translators unjustly threatening with a bad rating. This sort of enters new territory for me. But… in the light of other things I know a lot more about, it fits a pattern. And I have noticed that old posts of mine criticizing various ProZ advertisers have quietly disappeared in the old Argentinian tradition. So I might agree with Charlie that this is just another way for the SiteStaff to keep the bread on King Henry’s banquet table buttered.
I’m sure I missed something, whatever happened with “that sleazebag in Zurich” – is there a link with the low-down?
Good to hear that one can at least still leave the site.
@Charlie: I agree, I think the BB wouldn’t exist if Dotty were to reopen the site. I remember a discussion in the forums about a year ago, in which several people called for an extension of the BB. They suggested including some additional fields like “what are the agency’s standard payment terms” or “price range of rates”. This would be extremely helpful for translators – but probably damaging for many agencies. Needless to say that these suggestions have been ignored. I’ve often found positive BB ratings saying things like “payment on time” or “good rates”, but when I got in touch with the agency, it turned out their standard terms were 60 days and their desired rates were far away from two-digit word prices, etc. So, even without all the trouble above, I still don’t trust the BB.
By the way, the agency in question was from the US. I don’t think I can see their status, can I? I just know that the PM (who seems to be running this agency on his own) is not a paying proz member. And to be honest, he claims some pretty bold things in his CV that don’t fit his low rates at all. I would never worry about lawsuits from these kinds of people, but it’s not the first time that proz has ruled in favor of the low-quality agency.
In that other case that eventually made me leave proz, an agency had indeed threatened to sue me. The hilarious part was that they accused me of ruining their good reputation and spreading lies about their bad quality after they had sent a sample full of errors via mass mail to a public translator listing themselves. No NDA or client protection or similar. I had a good laugh and never heard from them again, but proz bowed down (I assume the agency also threatened them) and removed all my related forum postings even after any mentions of the agency’s name had been removed (so there was no violation of forum rules – I then had a lengthy discussion asking them why other forum posts are allowed to explicitly mention names and why my posting wasn’t even allowed without any references. They were unable to explain their own behavior/rules and instead put me on permanent moderation.) Ah, what a funny site it is!
Really Wild Cat said…
Thing is that if a major agency can lead ATA to change their guidelines (my assumption, but my guess is as good as yours) – then why could another agency not have BB ratings removed?
Kevin Lossner said…
@RW: not sure of the specific matter to which you refer here, but one of the problems with the ATA and some other organizations is that they allow corporate members, who may end up dominating the agenda. This is why the German organizations such as the BDÜ reject such memberships and focus their efforts on supporting individuals who provide language services.
oh, NOW it’s getting interesting. The guy has just responded to my (comment-free) rating and claims it was a bad translation and that he had complained about it – needless to say, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Do you think it’s my turn now to threaten proz with a libel suite?
Kevin Lossner said…
How about a suite of libel suits, Simone? With matching neckties? And PrAdZ has let his comment through? Who is this joker?
Before threatening anyone, I might simply point out politely to the SS (site staff) that he cannot produce any mail to document such a complaint, whereas you (presumably) have the entire exchange archived. And don’t forget to post about him on Zahlungspraxis and elsewhere. Jill Sommer mentioned another good payment practices list on her blog yesterday when she mentioned this discussion. I’d put a note there as well about the miscreant.
Oh, right, I almost forgot about Zahlungspraxis. He doesn’t have an entry there yet but he certainly will in a few minutes. Thanks!
Charlie Bavington said…
And there’s the whole crux of the problem. Too often, these disputes ultimately come down to “he said/she said”, with neither party usually in a position to back their position up with evidence from a independent third party. Assuming that computer forensics are not called in!
And it comes to taking a default position of believing freelancers or agencies, proz usually sides with the agency. If it hasn’t been already, I’ll wager your entry will be removed now because of the claim of a quality issue. Bit of a surprise that your agency was so slow to realise this is how it works. Get rated 1; call “quality issues” no mtter how long after the event; rating removed. Easy peasy. That’s the impression I get, anyway.
See also this thread on that very website:
where roughly the same thing was said.
Well, we shall see. I’m equally curious, but I have the gut feeling that you’ll be right in the end.
I’ve been requested to submit a copy of our e-mail communication (with the e-mail headers as evidence). I’ve done that and so far, I can already proof that the agency never complained and that they are lying about having complained to me about lack of quality. Proz says they have requested the agency to submit evidence of their claims. I’m quite curious to see those..
(Until both parties have responded, Proz has hidden the rating from public visibility.)
Since the circumstances (no NDA or anything) allow it, I’ve actually contacted the end-client and asked them if I could see the final German version or if there were indeed any quality complaints. I don’t normally approach end-clients like that but I hate it when people are not satisfied, especially when I’m not even informed about it. Not sure if I will get a response from them.. but I’ll keep you updated.
Kevin Lossner said…
Saw an interesting comment here on Ze Zite in response to something Charlie B. wrote. It does look like PrAdZ finds ways to keep the Blue Board safe for certain miscreants, though I must say I have seen necessary action taken at times in the past. However, since the SS (Site Staff) took over from the moderators, the job vetting and management of issues has been far less professional.
@Simone: I think this is certainly one of those times when contacting the end customer is justified. When you have your evidence in hand I would use it to nail this outsourcer’s coffin shut. He’s already dug himself a nice grave, though the Translators’ Workhouse may be pleased to keep him around as a zombie
Really Wild Cat said…
@ Kevin: the part about unpaid tests in the ATA’s guidelines was removed “not so long ago… and I think I know which corporate member (think the Big Apple) pushed for a change in this matter.
Kevin Lossner said…
@RWC: REALLY? I used to quote that a lot. Well, I’ll have to tell Mr. Melby and others that my respect for the ATA just dropped a bit. A further sign that the corporates belong in a different organization. I think I may drop my plans for the conference in San Diego this year and just visit family there instead.
Let’s call an apple an apple, rotten or not. I presume you mean our imperfect spamming friends at TransPerfect? The masters of the super duper rush job cattle call to all translators for 500,000 words overnight. Quality guaranteed, of course Hey, ProZ isn’t the only reason we need lists like this one!
Sandra Mouton said…
Aaah, I do enjoy a bout of ProZ-bashing! But I enjoy playing devil’s advocate and the occasional polemic without which life would be so boring. So, here we go:
– ProZ.com is useful to find clients for those of us who aren’t veteran translators Mox’s Calvo-style like some of you guys. And, yes, you can find your clients there without being a total mug, you only have to ignore the low-end sweatshop agencies.
– ProZ.com is useful to meet new colleagues and make friends when you move to a new city/country.
– the BB, while it isn’t perfect (what is?) is one of the useful tools available to weed out non-payers.
I could go on and on but I don’t like to do people’s advertising for them without being paid.
So, ProZ.com isn’t a democracy with a foolproof constitution and the attached Supreme Court to guarantee the people’s right to peaceful protest? Don’t tell me it’s big news for you.
So, a thirty 5 stars rating doesn’t guarantee that all will go smoothly? Again, it’s hardly a scoop.
Simone , yousaid yourself that you took on this small project as a test of the agency. Well, it looks like a very effective procedure to me. You have your answer. Because, ultimately, as the Sieur Bavington rightly said, it’s a he said/she said issue and only you know what happened. And it’s good: you devised a test and you got a relevant, usable answer.
Apparently several veteran translators among you (and I mean it in the sense “experienced”) decided that you no longer needed or wanted to have anything to do with ProZ. So don’t. Just please, try and hide a little of your contempt for the annoying newbies and not-so-newbies who dare to insist that it works quite well for them.
I realise that this post is too long and that most of you will have concluded long ago that I am ripe for the looney bin but, a final remark, just because I like being offensive in the comments section of the blogs I like and find interesting:
“the definition of “the process of decay; putrefaction” applies rather well when one considers the trend of the past five years or so”
Doesn’t this smell a wee bit of “I remember when it was all fields here” or “the meat used to be so much tastier”?
End of rant
I find it a little worrying that an entire conspiracy theory is being based off the experience of a single translator. We have only heard one side of the story at that. If the original comment that our mystery German colleague posted contained the word “arrogant”, I wonder what other potentially abusive language it contained that ProZ would not risk allowing to be published.
Personally I have a whole different set of concerns about the Blue Board – as some people have pointed out, ultimately it is a “your word against ours” system, and ProZ certainly aren’t going to arbitrate in disputes, what are they supposed to do, investigate every single one?!
But it is not just that, it is the lack of objectivity of the BB that personally bothers me far more than some alleged censorship. NO translator is going to shoot themselves in the foot by criticising a current customer. So as a result, most BB entries are either generic, fawning praise of the outsourcer (“responsive PMs”, “prompt payment”, “Very happy to work with them again. Oh, PLEASE can I work with you again?!”), or they are the comments of embittered translators who have had a bad experience and now feel the need to vent their anger, and have no problem burning their bridges by posting criticism. There is very little middle ground there as a result, and that is one of my main problems with the system.
As it is though, it is WAY better than nothing, and generally, using a bit of common sense and discernment, the BB has helped me and many other translators take many a prudent decision regarding whom to work for and whom not. Or is anyone seriously suggesting that there are NO negative comments published along with negative ratings? That’s simply not true…
P.S. I do not work for ProZ, I am not even a paying member any more as I have moved on from being a freelancer. I have no vested interest in ProZ, I just think this whole discussion is rather overblown.
Each to their own. I’m all in favour of choice and if people think ProZ is worth using, they should use it.
My objection to ProZ is how it is presented as “ProZ or nothing”. It’s like the Trabant in East Germany: it’s wonderful! Much better than walking! Everyone should have one! When ProZ’ benefits are listed, it’s seldom with any acknowledgement that similar things, but often better, are available elsewhere.
“- ProZ.com is useful to find clients…”
The first step towards finding clients is for people to market themselves properly to potential customers. Giving them the idea that this isn’t necessary because work is on offer online for the taking is counterproductive.
“- ProZ.com is useful to meet new colleagues and make friends when you move to a new city/country.”
There are numerous other sites for translators where you can meet colleagues. Some of them predate ProZ.
“- the BB, while it isn’t perfect (what is?) is one of the useful tools available to weed out non-payers.”
There are other sites where you can obtain information on customers’ payment record. Some of these have two notable advantages: one, they are run by translators, for translators; and two, they are private, which goes a long way to avoiding libel issues.
I could go on. However, I think it’s important to note that ProZ gains huge advertising exposure by putting most of its content in the public view. So, in the same way that people discuss TV programmes, it gets discussed, including critically (as, in all fairness, does Kevin L.’s blog).
@Sandra: I don’t find your comment offensive at all.
I fully see your point, since I was a paying member for a little more than a year myself before I canceled my membership for various reasons (some of which I explained above). For beginners (especially those without other credentials like a membership in professional associations or similar – I was in that category myself) it may indeed appear as if proz was the only option to get started. And it can be scary to quit proz when you’re not sure yet if you will find enough other clients.
Would I tell newcomers to avoid proz at all cost? No. This would be unfair since I haven’t done that myself. What I do recommend, however, is to really think about what you need and why you think you need proz.
Sign up for a month or two, take advantage of Group Buys to get all the software you need, browse the directory to gather all addresses of agencies you need, check the BB for whoever you want to check out. But after one or two months, ask yourself if you really need proz. If you do feel that you need a paid membership, this might be a sign that you need to improve your business. Proz doesn’t offer many additional benefits compared to the basic (unpaid) membership. However, the fact is that with your money you support practices by proz and their sweatshop agencies that are putting the whole industry at risk.
So, this whole argument isn’t so much about the arrogance of experienced translators towards paying members (I’m sorry if you feel that way – that’s not intended on my part) but more about the Sisyphus feeling that some of us have: people try to educate others about the dangers of sweatshop agencies and the low rates promoted by proz only to see a busload of new members sign up and throw their money at proz. This can be quite frustrating and may explain why our arguments may sound too harsh.
You are right in that I used this project as a test and got away without losing money (just a lot of valuable time due to proz’ reaction). It raises the question though: if I’m not allowed to tell others about my experience, then what is the Blue Board good for? Why are people paying to have something like the Blue Board then?
(By the way, if you want to get in touch with other translators, there are already many of them on Google+, Twitter, Xing etc. – just search for “translator” and look around.)
@Mark: Your argument is flawed. You’re saying that no translator would be stupid enough to criticize their current clients. Well, if there’s reason for criticism and unhappiness, why are these translators still working for those clients then? Now THAT would indeed be stupid.
And the reason why we’re seeing so many generic positive reviews but hardly any criticism – well, it seems you can read about this reason right here in this blog post.
Kevin: Our translation tests are also unpaid, and there’s absolutely no way that we’re going to pay people to translate standardized test pieces that are not in the slightest bit related to current projects. So I’m fully in agreement with the change in the ATA’s policy, as it brings the ATA into line with reality at the premium end of the market.
Nevertheless, I hope very much that we can meet up again in San Diego this year (though I presume you’ll also be at the BDÜ conference in Berlin).
Kevin Lossner said…
Robin, you and I both know that the “value proposition” offered by F&B is not quite the same as your average linguistic chop shop asking for freebies. I really have a hard time picturing you and your partner engaged in a cattle call to “fill your database”. The wisdom of a policy is in its selective exceptions.
Berlin’s always a safe bet with me; we’ll see about San Diego.
So, for those of you who are still following this topic and waiting for the outcome:
My negative 1-star review has been made visible again and the agency’s response has been deleted after proz has reviewed the evidence I submitted.
They haven’t said anything at all about why my original comment was deleted or whether I would be allowed to edit it now that evidence has been submitted. But when I click on my review, there is no “Edit/Delete” option (which normally appears when you leave a review), so I take it, I’m still not allowed to add any explanation to my rating.
Take it as you will..
(The end client hasn’t said anything about the translation’s quality yet; I’ve only been informed that my query has been forwarded to the appropriate people. But since the agency apparently wasn’t able to submit evidence of their “BAD quality” claims to proz, I don’t expect any serious complaints from the end client.)
I blowed proz-zozz on December 2011, without any regrets, after having understood that they didn’t really want check & remove shenanigans, trolls and liars, but rather their hunters (like me hit by some ban )
coming to BB, I never relied on them when positive, but rather when negative, as clearly, a <=3/5 means that this outsourcer is a pain in the neck (mainly a bad or no-payer)
this is why I still have BB next to PP in my Firefox Favorites and as far as prozzoz let me see it for free, I’m happy