| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | What is the reason for not enabling WWA, since it is only possible to make positive entries? Thread poster: Astrid Elke Witte
|
|---|
| The situation now is not, perhaps, what it was then | Oct 8, 2006 |
Astrid Elke Johnson wrote:
As for registering with Proz, evidently the system is primarily intended for Prozian colleagues who outsource work to one another from time to time, and also the agencies that are registered with Proz already.
I feel that much of the resistance to WWA is to do with how it was announced at the time, and the response to initial objections. I have seen others refer to it as a "fiasco" and if you look here http://www.proz.com/topic/49940 , you'll see (if you have the time) that it could be argued there is an element of truth in that.
If you approach the subject today with no knowledge of the background, it all seems fairly reasonable, and it seems possible (again, entirely reasonably) that in due course there may be some link with WWA and the premium jobs feature and its purpose, to my mind at least, is becoming clearer (I say reasonably, because certainly if I were thinking of applying a sort order to freelancers that the site proposes to premium jobs posters, I might be inclined to use the WWA, amongst other things).
But at the time, its function was perceived as not at all clear, it was originally proposed to impose "penalties" (related to the BB) for those who opted out, the wording on the profile for those opting out was viewed as being fairly negative, the discussion about confidentiality became fairly heated, and generally, I think it's fair to say that an initially negative atmosphere was generated in some quarters about the WWA feature.
Note for Henry and/or mods - I'm not trying to re-open any of these debates, I'm just trying to explain to Astrid why there is a certain negativity around WWA. While I have opted out, mainly because I frankly cannot be bothered to ask my clients, most of whom are not on here, to post any feedback, I remain on the fence, neither for nor against.
| | | | Vito Smolej
Germany
Local time: 11:32
Member (2004)
English to Slovenian
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Fear of WWA entries the other side of the coin | Oct 9, 2006 |
This is orthogonal to the question Astrid had, but it's the same subject, so may I ... I have no proof, but just an inkling, that there's agencies and agencies: some are glad to provide their names and experience. And some - it's just a gut feeling - prefer not to talk loud but rather want to keep the cards to their chests.
To avoid bad blood because of negative opinion? Have to mention that, but it would come as a big humble pie to me and I am critical of myself first before the o... See more This is orthogonal to the question Astrid had, but it's the same subject, so may I ... I have no proof, but just an inkling, that there's agencies and agencies: some are glad to provide their names and experience. And some - it's just a gut feeling - prefer not to talk loud but rather want to keep the cards to their chests.
To avoid bad blood because of negative opinion? Have to mention that, but it would come as a big humble pie to me and I am critical of myself first before the others get their turn...
To avoid showing who they frequent with? Afraid to come out (*) ? Or ... to avoid the possibility somebody starts cutting corners?
regards
Vito
* like in AA sessions (g):
"Im XY and Vito has worked for me. "
"Hi, XY!"
[Edited at 2006-10-09 12:46] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Kirill Semenov 
Ukraine
Local time: 12:32
Member (2004)
English to Russian
+ ...
The main reason is the fear itself.
Many people are afraid to get any negative response or to lose their clients, that's why the fear.
I'm ready to accept any feedback, both positive and negative, so I support the feature and use it.
In the thread, some colleagues tried to substitute the word "fear" with milder terms, but it also may be the fear to use the word "fear".
The common argument looks like: "Me personally, I fear nothing, I'm good and... See more The main reason is the fear itself.
Many people are afraid to get any negative response or to lose their clients, that's why the fear.
I'm ready to accept any feedback, both positive and negative, so I support the feature and use it.
In the thread, some colleagues tried to substitute the word "fear" with milder terms, but it also may be the fear to use the word "fear".
The common argument looks like: "Me personally, I fear nothing, I'm good and well-established enough to not be afraid of any negative records, BUT..." (dozens of reasons why the feature is bad without trying to see its good side).
I think that if you feel you're good, you should not be afraid of any feedback.
[Edited at 2006-10-10 06:33] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Answering to Kirill | Oct 9, 2006 |
Kirill Semenov wrote:
The reasons are the fear itself.
As one of the supporters of the WWA feature, I see no other reasons. People are afraid to get any negative response, that's why the fear.
I'm ready to accept any feedback, both positive and negative, so I support the feature and use it.
In the thread, some colleagues tried to substitute the word "fear" with milder terms, but the fact, again, shows their fear to use the word "fear".
The general argument looks like: "Me personally, I fear nothing, ha-ha, I'm too great and too well-established to be afraid of any bad records, BUT..." .
My answer is: if you feel you are good, fear not and don't be afraid of anything.
[Edited at 2006-10-09 12:56]
Dear Kirill:
I have kept silence because the “megaforum” on the WWA was locked by Henry, who asked all participants to keep silence until he had an opportunity to develop the ideas presented on that forum and incorporate them into a revised version of the concept. In fact, this thread might be a violation of the rule that opening a new forum on the subject of a locked thread is not allowed. However, this thread has been open for quite a while and no objection was raised. I am not raising one, either.
You and I were active participants of the locked forum and made our opposing positions clear. Henry identified the people opposing the WWA (rather a subset of them, the “out-outers”, in the terminology developed in that forum) as the “over my dead body” group, a term I had used on the forum to make abundantly clear my opposition. (Henry and I remembered that and laughed about it when we met in Buenos Aires and discussed the subject in person.)
Probably, you and I should have kept quiet, but you chose to post a rather insulting message, one that I would call even defamatory: You put into question the professional ability of those “fearing” the WWA. These people are recognizable by reference to the megaforum. I am forced to respond. I will try to avoid doing it in kind, but I am not sure whether I will be able to do it kindly. Let’s the reader be the judge.
First, I do not personally know any professional, of any profession, be then doctors, dentists, lawyers, plumbers, hairdressers, etc., who would accept a private corporation publishing comments from their customers, particularly when the vetting is limited only to not using insulting term, a review of the form, not of the subject of the comment. In a private email to Henry, I stated that I might reconsider my opposition, if a peers’ committee reviews the truthfulness of the postings, as it is done in all professional organizations for reviewing complains against their members. I also mentioned in my email to Henry that those bodies are not-for-profit, often licensing organizations where there are no apparent conflicts of interest. The results are kept confidential until the review is completed, and the review itself comports to due process, including a potential appeal to the court system.
As to “fear” about the professional quality of those opposing the WWA, I can only answer for myself. To this respect, just in the last two weeks, I have received:
1. An unsolicited email, excerpts of which I copy below, from a PM to whom I had recently sent my translations:
\ Hi Luis,
The reviewer was very please with your translation. Please find next his comments:
I review/edit a lot of translations that other colleagues send me. Most of the times, I end up with an awful headache because of poor translations. It is good to see a very good translation like the one I worked on today. I do not consider myself an authority, but please congratulate the translator on my behalf.
I thank you for such quality work,
2. A request to translate, out of my native language, because the project was for an important new client, and the agency wanted that I did it given my expertise. I accepted only after the agency authorized me to send, at no additional cost to the agency, the translation to a colleague for editing, something that I consider essential for translations out of the native language. My request was to address any potential confidentiality issue.
3. An email from an agency-client to which I had sent a rather nasty letter demanding payment, saying that they would send the check immediately and hope that I would keep translating for them because the quality of my translations.
So, you see Kirill, I have no doubts regarding the quality of my translations, but a system of comments, such as the WWA, does not guarantee fairness (no due process). I will participate in it only “over my dead body”.
Furthermore, a truly established translator will likely have many end-clients. To receive any marketing benefits from the new system, he or she will have to disclose to all competitors the identity of those end-clients, or, if the option is open, present them as “anonymous” commentators, diluting any positive effect that the WWA might have.
In addition, the system provides the opportunity of “linking” the Blue Board with the WWA (“If you give me a high rating on my board, I will give you a high rating on yours.”) In short, it may dilute the value that the Blue Board may have for freelancers.
There were many other reasons stated on the magaforum for the opposition, Kirill. You are aware of that. Your representation that the opposition to the WWA is based on the “fear itself” as you called your post, is a gross misrepresentation, again, a potentially defamatory statement.
In the end, the WWA is just a marketing tool that may work well for some and not so well for others. As I understand it, ProZ’s management has decided, at least for the time being, to make it an optional feature.
Go ahead, Kirill, use it, if it works for you. Let those who don’t like or see no use for it in their marketing plans to opt out. Stop offending people gratuitously.
Sincerely,
Luis
[Edited at 2006-10-09 16:29]
[Edited at 2006-10-09 16:40]
| | |
|
|
|
Kirill Semenov
Ukraine
Local time: 12:32
Member (2004)
English to Russian
+ ...
| Insulting? Defamatory? Offending? | Oct 9, 2006 |
Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
Probably, you and I should have kept quiet, but you chose to post a rather insulting message, one that I would call even defamatory: You put into question the professional ability of those “fearing” the WWA.
It's OK, if my message was (see the subject), I'm sure the moderators or the staff will intervene. For a while, I just think that I called a spade a spade, and you may interpret the feature in any way you like or want. It works for me, and it will work for me even if I meet an outsourcer who is not satisfied with my work. I'm not afraid of it. And I see no reason why you should be afraid of it. Discussing any speculative case is probably interesting, but for a while I see no any *real* case of an outsourcer wanting to provide a negative feedback to a ProZ member. Even if there is the case, I see no reasons why such an outsourcer cannot do it.
Again, I don't think I was insulting or offending or stated anything defamatory to anyone. Keep your tongue, please. Sir.
| | | |
Kirill Semenov wrote: Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
Probably, you and I should have kept quiet, but you chose to post a rather insulting message, one that I would call even defamatory: You put into question the professional ability of those “fearing” the WWA. It's OK, if my message was (see the subject), I'm sure the moderators or the staff will intervene. For a while, I just think that I called a spade a spade, and you may interpret the feature in any way you like or want. It works for me, and it will work for me even if I meet an outsourcer who is not satisfied with my work. I'm not afraid of it. And I see no reason why you should be afraid of it. Discussing any speculative case is probably interesting, but for a while I see no any *real* case of an outsourcer wanting to provide a negative feedback to a ProZ member. Even if there is the case, I see no reasons why such an outsourcer cannot do it. Again, I don't think I was insulting or offending or stated anything defamatory to anyone. Keep your tongue, please. Sir.
Kirill,
As I said, you are again, defaming people with your post and your insistence in doing so. Please be aware of what you do.
I will not keep my tongue while being insulted.
| | | | Kirill Semenov
Ukraine
Local time: 12:32
Member (2004)
English to Russian
+ ...
| You may call it like this | Oct 9, 2006 |
Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
As I said, you are again, defaming people with your post and your insistence in doing so. Please be aware of what you do.
I will not keep my tongue while being insulted.
In fact, you may treat even my "Sir" as an insult. Let the moderators be our judges. I see nothing offending or insulting in calling the fear "the fear". All the arguments against the WWA I've seen so far mean "I don't want it because someone may write something bad about me". This is the core of it, and that's why I insistently call the approach "the fear" or "cowardice".
| | | |
Kirill Semenov wrote: Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
As I said, you are again, defaming people with your post and your insistence in doing so. Please be aware of what you do.
I will not keep my tongue while being insulted. In fact, you may treat even my "Sir" as an insult. Let the moderators be our judges. I see nothing offending or insulting in calling the fear "the fear". All the arguments against the WWA I've seen so far mean "I don't want it because someone may write something bad about me". This is the core of it, and that's why I insistently call the approach "the fear" or "cowardice".
I have already sent an email to Henry regarding your insults. If calling "cowardice" to a reasoned position is not an insult ...
I don't believe you are a person to whom I will waste my time debating, if the only thing your mind can produce are insults.
| | |
|
|
|
| Men with beards :-) | Oct 9, 2006 |
Kirill Semenov wrote:
The reasons are the fear itself.
As one of the supporters of the WWA feature, I see no other reasons. People are afraid to get any negative response, that's why the fear.
Suppose that Astrid had asked "why do some people have beards?".
And imagine that I had replied "well, I don't have a beard myself, but I can tell you that the reasons are....."
You might well wonder "well, what in the name of Satan's Trousers does Charlie know about why people have beards, he hasn't even got one."
You are a supporter of WWA, all fine and dandy and bully for you. I do think it's a bit presumptious, though, of you to speculate as to why others don't like WWA, as it would be for me to speculate as to why some people grow a beard.
Especially if, to carry my analogy a step further, I was to suggest that the reason that people grow beards is because they are pig ugly (which is, IMHO, roughly the equivalent of what you are doing by bandying around terms like "fear" and cowardice").
You support WWA, therefore I would suggest that you are perhaps not in a position to fully understand why other people may not support it, and therefore I would politely suggest that Astrid's question was not intended for you.
[Edited at 2006-10-09 23:00]
| | | |
Kirill Semenov wrote:
The reasons are the fear itself.
In the thread, some colleagues tried to substitute the word "fear" with milder terms, but the fact, again, shows their fear to use the word "fear".
The general argument looks like: "Me personally, I fear nothing, ha-ha, I'm too great and too well-established to be afraid of any bad records, BUT..." .
My answer is: if you feel you are good, fear not and don't be afraid of anything.
Yes, your insinuations are insulting, certainly not for a particular person, but for the whole category of people that are contrary to this feature, me comprised, and it is not the first time that this happens. I really wonder whether a moderator will intervene here.
It's only due to my rather limited English that I am not able to be as articulated as I would like to be, but there are a lot of reasons why one does not like this feature, not only personal ones; they have been discussed ad nauseam earlier this year and you should remember them as well as I do.
I don't understand why people who are contrary have to justify themselves again and again. We are free to use it or not, aren't we? You are satisfied with it, aren't you? We don't prejudice your use of it by not using it ourselves, do we? So why bother about our supposed reasons? We don't about yours.
[Bearbeitet am 2006-10-09 18:01]
[Bearbeitet am 2006-10-09 18:42]
| | | | | On fear… or lack thereof | Oct 9, 2006 |
Let me venture a hypothesis: many of the people who objected to the WWA in the mega-thread opposed to it precisely because we didn’t want anyone to jump to the conclusions that some of you have drawn: that we are AFRAID of it. We simply don’t like it. We simply don’t want it. Above all, we don’t want it IMPOSED on us. The WWA was presented as a marketing tool * for us*. If that’s the case, no one can force us or put pressure on us to accept a marketing tool that we consider inappropr... See more Let me venture a hypothesis: many of the people who objected to the WWA in the mega-thread opposed to it precisely because we didn’t want anyone to jump to the conclusions that some of you have drawn: that we are AFRAID of it. We simply don’t like it. We simply don’t want it. Above all, we don’t want it IMPOSED on us. The WWA was presented as a marketing tool * for us*. If that’s the case, no one can force us or put pressure on us to accept a marketing tool that we consider inappropriate, dull and unfair. If it is designed for us, then it’s up to us to decide whether to use it or not, and you can draw lots for a hundred trips to Edinburgh, that’s not going to change it.
But I reckon it is not a marketing tool for us, but for *outsourcers*; more precisely, a tool to market proz’s services to outsourcers and to convince them to *pay* for proz’s services. Currently, only positive feedback can be entered. Just wait and see… and those of us who have clients and customers not coming from Proz.com, why on Earth would we want them to register to the site? So that they can browse the site and find people offering laughable rates? So that they can browse the jobs section and come to the idea that they are silly to pay us decent rates while most outsourcers are just offering peanuts? That’s incredible…
Proz.com for Employers. In my opinion that was (and is) the main idea behind the WWA, no matter how they tried to convince us with this “marketing tool for us” argument. The site is no longer “the Translators’ Workplace” but rather is (or soon will be) “the Translators and Outsourcers go-between”. OK, if that’s the case, why not SAY IT in the first place. You can’t serve two kings, as this site is aiming to…
I could go on for ages, but I won’t. I’ve decided to hide my real name, to hide my picture, and to stop participating, the WWA saga being only one of the reasons that forced me to. There’s also deleted posts and locked threads. Lack of dialogue. “The incident” in the Spanish community (an embarrassing one indeed, and sorry, but a locked-self-disappearing-no-comments-allowed explanation wasn’t good enough). The fact that my posts started being vetted, for no reason, with no justification. There are so many reasons that I could write a short story. Valuable members and users have left. Others are leaving while I write this. Granted, new members and users (and especially new agencies and outsourcers) will register, I have no doubt. But “la avaricia rompe el saco” (as we say in Spanish…)
I very much doubt that this post will appear on your screens, but let’s see. I should stay silent, but this is way too much. I simply cannot “shut up” or “mind my business” (as a very polite moderator of yours would say) while this show goes on. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Kirill Semenov
Ukraine
Local time: 12:32
Member (2004)
English to Russian
+ ...
| The word "fear" is in the title of the thread | Oct 9, 2006 |
Christel Zipfel wrote:
Yes, your insinuations are insulting, certainly not for a particular person, but for the whole category of people that are contrary to this feature
I stated my opinion about the feature, in the past and in this thread. The word "fear" is in the title of the thread, so I see no reasons to call it "insulting" or "insinuations" or "offending". Yes, I support the feature, but this is not a reason to call my position "insulting" or "offending". I was not attacking anyone - and, moreover, anyone in particular. I was discussing the feature and the general attitude.
My apologies if you feel offended personally, but, again, as Luis, you are free to complain to moderators, or to the staff, or to Henry.
| | |
|
|
|
Astrid Elke Witte
Germany
Local time: 11:32
Member (2002)
German to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Sorry I raised the topic... | Oct 9, 2006 |
I did not know that the old thread had been locked, or the topic banned.
I was recently invited, along with everyone else, to try out the new quick profile page, and to complete my profile for the benefit of outsourcers. Winning a trip to Edinburgh is a bit late for me, as I have already paid up all my own expenses, so this was not my motive for agreeing to fill in everything that was missing. I did the easy bit and uploaded my C.V. I have yet to write a sample translation. Then I t... See more I did not know that the old thread had been locked, or the topic banned.
I was recently invited, along with everyone else, to try out the new quick profile page, and to complete my profile for the benefit of outsourcers. Winning a trip to Edinburgh is a bit late for me, as I have already paid up all my own expenses, so this was not my motive for agreeing to fill in everything that was missing. I did the easy bit and uploaded my C.V. I have yet to write a sample translation. Then I turned to the WWA feature, which I had never at any time disabled. I invited one or two people to write up a comment for me. Incidentally, no-one has done so yet.
Next, I thought that the best thing to do with this feature was to get it used a little bit, so that we can all see how it works. It is not possible to see how it works if nobody uses it, or nobody has any entries. I compiled a list of about six very nice, friendly colleagues with whom I have worked in the past, who have provided me with high-quality translations, and visited each of their profiles in turn in order to enter my compliment. Five out of the six of them had the WWA disabled. I found this disappointing, and I also cannot see why people should not want to supplement their profile with a nice "compliments corner". So I was very sad that I could not enter my compliments, and that these nice colleagues seemed afraid to enable the feature. Therefore I decided to enquire why.
In my personal opinion, it is very much along the same lines as the Project History feature, which is also grossly under-used. I have some entries in that already, and my profile is better with these entries than without them.
However, my apologies if I have stirred up strong negative feelings about this harmless, innocent feature again. Anyhow, I do not recall any strong objections being made to the Project History feature, although only a minority do use it. The ones who use it benefit, in my opinion.
Astrid ▲ Collapse
| | | | Uldis Liepkalns
Latvia
Local time: 12:32
Member (2003)
English to Latvian
+ ...
| No topic on professional issues on ProZ is banned | Oct 9, 2006 |
Dear Astrid, you have nothing to apologise for, the megathread was closed not because the issue was banned, but because the thread lost it's constructivity- it developed into two opposing fractions calling each other names.
Astrid Elke Johnson wrote:
I did not know that the old thread had been locked, or the topic banned.
On another note I partially agree with both Luis and Kirill and from me I can add that I do not fear any bad entries (my WWA is enabled), but I (and I know other colleagues who also do) fear my good clients being stolen from me by dishonest competitors, if my clients' names will be publicly visible. There IS a competition even in my language pairs and I wouldn't like my best clients to bombed by offers like "I can do for you all Uldis does, only twice cheaper... Sadly, it has happened before and not only to me, the competition is not always honest.
Therefore I fully support WWA feature, but I'd also like to see an option of anonymous entries (by anonymous I mean author's name not visible to public, only to ProZ Staff), and as well I support an option not to show WWA option on on their profiles by members who don't want to.
Uldis
[Rediģēts plkst. 2006-10-09 19:08]
| | | |
[quote]Uldis Liepkalns wrote:
Dear Astrid, you have nothing to apologise for, the megathread was closed not because the issue was banned, but because the thread lost it's constructivity- it developed into two opposing fractions calling each other names.
Astrid Elke Johnson wrote:
I did not know that the old thread had been locked, or the topic banned.
On another note I partially agree with both Luis and Kirill and from me I can add that I do not fear any bad entries (my WWA is enabled), but I (and I know other colleagues who also do) fear my good clients being stolen from me by dishonest competitors, if my clients' names will be publicly visible. There IS a competition even in my language pairs and I wouldn't like my best clients to bombed by offers like "I can do for you all Uldis does, only twice cheaper... Sadly, it has happened before and not only to me, the competition is not always honest.
Therefore I fully support WWA feature, but I'd also like to see an option of anonymous entries (by anonymous I mean author's name not visible to public, only to ProZ Staff), and as well I support an option not to show WWA option on on their profiles by members who don't want to.
Uldis
ēts plkst. 2006-10-09 19:08]
Hi Uldis,
I was referring to Rule 6:
6. When a topic has been locked, discussion may not be resumed. Discussions contained in threads locked or hidden by ProZ.com staff members or moderators should not be resumed. Posts made within such threads may not be edited once a topic has been locked.
However, as I stated in my post, this thread has not been objected by management. Thus, it can be interpreted that management did not object to the reopening of the discussion. You are a moderator and, thus, your participation can be construed as confirming that. I welcome it. I would be the last one attempting to close a thread, when it is not strictly necessary.
I have no objection as to Astrid’s question. It was a legitimate one, particularly, if she did not participate in the original “megathread.” I do consider somehow unfortunate the name she gave to her thread: “It assumes facts not on the record,” it would have been my objection, namely, that there is "fear.” “Why people do not use the WWA feature,” would have been more appropriate, however. Yet, speaking loosely, there are concerns as to the feature, not necessarily a harmless feature, if no precautions are taking: You voiced some of those concerns.
However, Kirill’s comments were beyond the pale. The characterization of "cowardice” to the opposition to the WWA is insulting, and certainly a violation of Rule 5:
5. Speculating on others' opinions is not allowed. Commenting on others' opinions without authorization ('Jenny seems to think...'), is not allowed.
I do consider Kirill’s unretracted statements as potentially libelous. That no person in particular was mentioned only expand the number of potential plaintiffs, potentially, to all that opined on the megathread and stated their opposition to the WWA. I am researching the issue further to determine which is the appropriate course of action, if any, to take.
As to the WWA, specifically, as long as the participation in it is voluntary, I have no objection. As a marketing tool, it might be very helpful to many. For those of us, who secure our clients elsewhere, it is not relevant. If we can opt out, it is OK by me.
Best,
Luis
[Edited at 2006-10-09 21:13]
[Edited at 2006-10-09 21:20]
| | | | | 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 » What is the reason for not enabling WWA, since it is only possible to make positive entries? | 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 
