| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | Tightening up restrictions on job posters, to match those placed on job bidders Thread poster: writeaway
|
|---|
Andrea Pinto (X) 
Local time: 12:15
writeaway wrote:
I feel this has to be introduced because it's ridiculous to post jobs without this information.
Exactly, that's what I meant by adding some kind of field/subject box when a job is posted.
writeaway wrote:
And that's not up to the job moderators-the job posters should be shown the same sort of automatic messages and blocks as those shown to bidders.
Yes, you're right.
writeaway wrote:
All that depends on the Proz policy makers and their paid staff. Job moderators aren't the ones to complain to.
My point exactly! My question before was how these things work and whom to approach. Should we (us translators) suggest this to the Proz policy makers?
writeaway wrote:
Also agree with Heinrich's suggestion. The main thing though is for something be done to make it or any other measure a requirement.
Absolutely.
[Edited at 2007-04-21 21:09]
| | | | lexical
Spain
Local time: 12:15
Portuguese to English
| This is just another example... | Apr 21, 2007 |
...of how the paying members of this site are ignored by the site owners (the other one that comes to mind is the ongoing dissatisfaction with Kudoz).
As people have pointed out, this is not the first time by any means that this issue has been raised, but I can't recall a single response from site staff. The same applies to the frequent complaints about Kudoz and the total silence from site staff in reaction to suggestions for improving it.
I exonerate the moderators co... See more ...of how the paying members of this site are ignored by the site owners (the other one that comes to mind is the ongoing dissatisfaction with Kudoz).
As people have pointed out, this is not the first time by any means that this issue has been raised, but I can't recall a single response from site staff. The same applies to the frequent complaints about Kudoz and the total silence from site staff in reaction to suggestions for improving it.
I exonerate the moderators completely - they do a wonderful job for no reward whatever. The problem lies higher up, with a perverse refusal to accept that the professionals on the ground may know better and to try to accommodate our concerns.
If this goads site staff into replying, then good, it's meant to. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | I think the moderators here misunderstood my previous post | Apr 22, 2007 |
Ralf Lemster wrote:
I'm afraid you're advocating putting pressure on the wrong people.
No, I am not *advocating* anything, and I did not invite anyone to *put pressure* on anyone. Sorry if you interpreted it that way. I was simply trying to direct site users to the appropriate resources. In fact, every time someone comes to the forum with a problem they are having with the site, their threads get closed with a message from the moderator asking the person to use the resources in place to contact site staff instead of posting in the forum, often telling them politely that their complaints will not be heard unless they use the proper resources. I was simply inviting site users to do so, and I am pretty sure that if I hadn't done that, a moderator would have said more or less the same thing. By *overwhelming*, I didn't mean pressuring, what I meant was that, since people on this site feel ignored (see, for example, lexical's post above), too few of us express their dissatisfaction and moderators and site staff don't feel the necessity to change things. By *overwhelming* moderators, who as you have said, "do not have direct control over development resources", moderators would need to ask for help. This would probably lead to moderators asking site staff to put means in place so job postings are satisfactory from the translator's point of view while staff and moderators will not have to deal with each case separately. I don't see who else could help us fix this, since 1) most moderators are also translators and therefore can feel the effects of this problem much better than site staff who are too busy handling this site to translate, and therefore are not impacted by the problem, and 2) site staff has the habit of not addressing the concerns brought up in the forum, so we never get any solutions to the problems we have to deal with as users - there is really no use trying to talk to site staff, pressure or no pressure, and you know this, because you often try to bridge the communication gap between users and staff, with more or less success, which I'm sure we all appreciate all the same.
Ralf Lemster wrote:
You are, of course, not aware of those jobs where moderators ask outsourcers to add more details. (Yes, this does happen, but we don't go and post in the forum about it...)
I did not know about this, but was guessing it was the case, since staff would not have put that infamous link at the bottom of job postings had they not wished for moderators to monitor this. I also appreciate this, but, with all due respect, I think this is really not an efficient method. This is, in fact, just putting more weight on moderators' shoulders when they already have enough to deal with. The problem is that, currently, the job posting form is posted even if this crucial detail is not included. In other words, job posters are allowed to not include the subject and a bunch more information. If there was no way to post jobs without filling in a minimum of information, translators would be happy and moderators would be happy because they would not have to spend all that time policing job posters. Everybody would be happy. So, I agree that moderators work hard to help it, but it is not sufficient. Moderators are not in control - site staff is. However, if we all just let it go, this problem will keep on nagging both translators and moderators. There is only one "authority" who can fix this - and it is not you or users.
Ralf Lemster wrote:
Let me get this straight - you would like to "overwhelm" volunteer moderators, so we no longer have time to check non-payment complaints, for example?
Let me turn this question around. The ratio of non-payment complaints per user who looks at job postings regularly is very low. I appreciate your help with non-payment complaints, but I don't think that other problems should be disregarded in favor of issues most of us very seldom have. I had one non-payment issue since I've been using the site, but have gotten angry at dozens of job postings with insufficient information, and I am sure my experience is representative of most of us here. Non-payment issues require human assistance - it is somethig that will never be automated since that is impossible. Moderators' time will always be required to work on these issues. But a simple mandatory field in a form can very easily be automated and therefore would spare time for moderators. Moderators would only gain more time to handle important issues like non-payment complaints if this issue were definitively fixed.
Uldis Liepkalns wrote:
We are aware of the problem and we are doing what we can to improve the situation.
The problem is, as pointed out by Ralf, is that you can't improve the situation since you don't code the page and can't change anything so it becomes impossible to post if not enough info is filled in. Once again, only site staff can change this.
Uldis Liepkalns wrote:
please do not intentionally make life harder for us
Doesn't having to deal with each job posting with insufficient information separately already make life harder for you?
Uldis Liepkalns wrote:
However, please also note that jobs posted by outsourcers matching definite BB record marks' level does not require vetting- we do look at all posted jobs, but it takes time- there are not so few jobs posted on ProZ.com daily.
Exacty. Why do you have to take all that time to vet jobs when you shouldn't have to? If the job posting form were developed in a way that makes certain information mandatory, all you would have to deal with is the free text part and all modifying of job postings with insufficient info would be gone - sparing you a lot of time as moderator.
In fact, I consider that moderators are more or less in the same shoes as we are - they have to deal with unproductive things just like site users. If site staff cared more than they do now, I am sure being a moderator wouldn't be half the pain it is now. This is also why I don't understand why moderators tend to be so defensive even when they are not attacked... After all, we all walk in the same shoes since it seems that staff doesn't help moderators more than they help users with issues such as this one.
[Edited at 2007-04-22 01:43]
| | | | | Lots of info is required from posters - both automatically and by mods during vetting | Apr 22, 2007 |
Viktoria Gimbe wrote:
If the job posting form were developed in a way that makes certain information mandatory, all you would have to deal with is the free text part and all modifying of job postings with insufficient info would be gone - sparing you a lot of time as moderator.
It sounds as though you have never posted a job here, Viktoria. Lots of info is required in the form... and when shortcuts are taken in spite of those requirements, moderators tend to be on the case.
Of course no system can be perfect and it is true that some posters do not provide enough information for quoters to make informed decisions. But then, how well a job is specified is one of the things some members take into consideration when deciding whether or not to quote.
It is not possible to require an excerpt; sometimes it is not available, and other times it is available but can not be disclosed publicly. Any other specific suggestions for improving the posting form will be considered!
| | |
|
|
|
Heinrich Pesch
Finland
Local time: 13:15
Member (2003)
Finnish to German
+ ...
| So we should react ourselves | Apr 22, 2007 |
Every time we see such a posting we should contact the poster, tell him, that we would have bid on the job, but because the posting was lacking could not do so.
Cheers
Heinrich
| | | | Ralf Lemster
Germany
Local time: 12:15
English to German
+ ...
| Can we include the current recommendation into job posting rule 1.9? | Apr 22, 2007 |
Thanks for responding, Henry.
Lots of info is required in the form... and when shortcuts are taken in spite of those requirements, moderators tend to be on the case.
Very much so.
Looking at contact details, for example, we follow up whenever something is missing (or appears to be inconsistent). Regarding job description, however, there is a certain loophole: there are various suggestions on the job posting form, but there is no requirement in the rules.
May I therefore suggest amending job posting rule 1.9, to read as follows (changes shown in italics):
All required information must be supplied.
Details marked as mandatory on the job posting form must be provided. Job postings with incomplete details may be removed by ProZ.com staff members or moderators.
This would give us some leeway with those who negligently omit vital information; for those who simply don't know could add information explicitly pointing out that the details are unknown at that stage.
I guess we would still not capture 100%, but our job would be made easier.
Best regards, Ralf
| | | | writeaway
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Specific suggestion:create a compulsory "job description" field | Apr 22, 2007 |
Henry wrote:
It is not possible to require an excerpt; sometimes it is not available, and other times it is available but can not be disclosed publicly. Any other specific suggestions for improving the posting form will be considered!
Hi Henry!
My specific suggestion is to make it compulsory for job posters to fill in a field entitled 'job description' or something similiar. If they don't fill it in, their job posting will be blocked from being posted-until they do fill it in. There are lots of such automatic blocks used already. For instance on Kudoz-if all the required fields (confidence level, answer box, etc) aren't filled it, we get a message saying our answer is incomplete and we can't post until we complete it.
Why can't this sort of automatic system be used for job posting? It won't involve any extra work for moderators (or anyone else) and should solve the problem.
| | | | Ralf Lemster
Germany
Local time: 12:15
English to German
+ ...
| Already a required field | Apr 22, 2007 |
Hi again,
This mechanism exists already.
My specific suggestion is to make it compulsory for job posters to fill in a field entitled 'job description' or something similiar.
May I suggest to take a look at the job posting form? Title and Details of the job/project are already required when completing the job posting form. Info texts are provided to assist job posters:
Title
Tips on writing a good summary
This field should contain a brief, one-line summary of the job. It should include the key points about the job that distinguish it from other jobs, and be as specific as possible.
A good example: Auto manual, 20k words, TRADOS
A BAD example: Spanish > English Translation
Details of the job / project
Discuss:
- Subject of text
- Source materials
- Helpful references
- Desktop publishing
- Project timeline
The problem is that some job posters do not take a moment to complete these fields in a meaningful way. When the same happens regarding contact details, for example, Jobs moderators refer to job posting rule 1.9 - right now, we can inquire about job details (and do so), but we cannot enforce it. Hence my suggestion to amend the rule.
Best regards,
Ralf
| | |
|
|
|
writeaway
French to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Then it seems that requiring job posters to show a few lines of the doc would be the best solution | Apr 22, 2007 |
Ralf Lemster wrote: Hi again, This mechanism exists already.
My specific suggestion is to make it compulsory for job posters to fill in a field entitled 'job description' or something similiar.
The problem is that some job posters do not take a moment to complete these fields in a meaningful way. When the same happens regarding contact details, for example, Jobs moderators refer to job posting rule 1.9 - right now, we can inquire about job details (and do so), but we cannot enforce it. Hence my suggestion to amend the rule. Best regards, Ralf
If job posters don't bother filling in the fields in 'a meaningful way', then I'd agree with those who say a bit of the text should be shown. That way the job poster would only have to copy/paste and potential job bidders would be able to see if they should bother bidding.
If a sample of the text isn't 'available', doesn't that automatically imply it's just a 'potential job' in any case?
| | | | | The problem with the existing compulsory field | Apr 22, 2007 |
Ralf Lemster wrote:
Details of the job/project are already required when completing the job posting form.
The problem is that some job posters do not take a moment to complete these fields in a meaningful way.
This is exactly what most of us are having a problem with. Filling in the field is compulsory, but the content of the field is free text and it is left up to the job poster how much or how little info they type into that field. This is like buying a box of cereal on which there may or may not be an indication of sugar content. Also, since nobody attracts job posters' attention on this matter, they take it for granted that this is up to them, and more and more job posters hence don't include the information (this is like having 12 brands of cereal with no indication of sugar content to choose from), not because they want to intentionally play with our nerves, but most of the time rather because they don't think it is necessary (job posters often base their postings on what else already appears on the site, so they build their postings on an already incorrect foundation). I will not get into psychology of the masses here, but I am sure you understand what I mean. There should be a separate field for the subject matter which would be compulsory and would be made up of the same drop-down list as the one used for KudoZ questions, with the exception of an "Other" option, which would then open up a second compulsory field to enter free text. It would be compulsory to fill in a subject either way in the "Other" field and it would be forbidden to just type in the word Other. This would be much like the KudoZ form, as posted by writeaway above. Of course, the "Other" field should have enough room (maybe 150 characters) to allow job posters to explain in a meaningful sentence what the subject is. After all, if their job didn't fit into any of the other subjects in the drop-down list, it must be particular enough to require a brief explanation.
I understand that it is most often the job poster who doesn't enter enough information, but if they are allowed to do so, then many translators waste their time quoting on a job they are not qualified for or otherwise are not interested in. In many cases, had the translator known the parameters of a job, they would not have quoted, and as you probably know, Ralf, when you want to make sure to land a job, you take your sweet time putting that quote together. It's already frustrating enough to wait for job quote replies that never arrive (this would be a subject for another thread), wasting our already scarce time on quotes in vain is extremely unproductive. I am sure you understand...
| | | | Uldis Liepkalns
Latvia
Local time: 13:15
Member (2003)
English to Latvian
+ ...
| I sure agree to this suggestion | Apr 22, 2007 |
good and well defined idea.
Uldis
Viktoria Gimbe wrote:
There should be a separate field for the subject matter which would be compulsory and would be made up of the same drop-down list as the one used for KudoZ questions, with the exception of an "Other" option, which would then open up a second compulsory field to enter free text. It would be compulsory to fill in a subject either way in the "Other" field and it would be forbidden to just type in the word Other
[Rediģēts plkst. 2007-04-22 21:37]
| | | | | Making field/subject area mandatory sounds good | Apr 23, 2007 |
OK, Viktoria, that sounds like it is worth a try. I'll have our guys add a drop-down menu like the one used for KudoZ so that subject area must be selected or entered. I'll instruct them to make sure that this information is also included in display of the job posting (of course), and in the email notifications that go out as well.
Thanks!
| | |
|
|
|
| Thank you all for the smile on my face! | Apr 23, 2007 |
Now, this is a fabulous thread. Perhaps a few comments were a little stronger than necessary, but I only wish life usually worked this well! Observe:
1. Someone called attention to a problem.
2. Some people agreed.
3. Moderators explained more fully how the system works, and the reasons why the problem exists.
4. People made suggestions.
5. Suggestions were discussed and modified.
6. Site staff came in and accepted the suggestion, promising to implement... See more Now, this is a fabulous thread. Perhaps a few comments were a little stronger than necessary, but I only wish life usually worked this well! Observe:
1. Someone called attention to a problem.
2. Some people agreed.
3. Moderators explained more fully how the system works, and the reasons why the problem exists.
4. People made suggestions.
5. Suggestions were discussed and modified.
6. Site staff came in and accepted the suggestion, promising to implement it.
Isn't it great? I'm going to bed with a smile on my face tonight. Thank you, everybody.
Jane ▲ Collapse
| | | |
I second Jane's post.
I have strong opinions and I am sure I am known as a loud person here. However, when I complain, I am only seeking to have staff and moderators prove me wrong. I said earlier that staff wasn't responsive to problems brought up by users - and this time, they decided to prove me wrong, which is refreshing. In the end, it's not about who's right and who's wrong - it's about fixing a problem many of us have when the solution is within the reach of site staff. And ... See more I second Jane's post.
I have strong opinions and I am sure I am known as a loud person here. However, when I complain, I am only seeking to have staff and moderators prove me wrong. I said earlier that staff wasn't responsive to problems brought up by users - and this time, they decided to prove me wrong, which is refreshing. In the end, it's not about who's right and who's wrong - it's about fixing a problem many of us have when the solution is within the reach of site staff. And this time, they did just that, for which I'm thankful. It's a good start.
I always say that change always seems difficult before we actually go ahead and change. But most of the time, once the change is behind us, we realize that it was much easier than we thought and wonder why we didn't do it earlier. I hope this exercise helped staff and moderators realize that often, the problems brought up here can be addressed and fixed in a simple way. I also hope we will all reap the benefits of today's change to the job posting form. I am in fact convinced that it will not only make the form more translator-friendly, but will also help moderators with the monitoring of job posts. It will also put an end to posts complaining about this problem - yay!
Special thanks to Ralf for trying to find a solution, which by the way was another interesting alternative - I still like the final solution better, but thanks for the effort.
 ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ralf Lemster
Germany
Local time: 12:15
English to German
+ ...
| Please consider a rule change, too | Apr 23, 2007 |
Thanks, Henry.
OK, Viktoria, that sounds like it is worth a try. I'll have our guys add a drop-down menu like the one used for KudoZ so that subject area must be selected or entered. I'll instruct them to make sure that this information is also included in display of the job posting (of course), and in the email notifications that go out as well.
Don't forget to add an Unknown/Not applicable option for potential jobs.
Also, I would still suggest to amend job posting rule 1.9, thus permitting Jobs moderators to follow up where details other than contact details are missing.
Best regards,
Ralf
| | | | | 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 » Tightening up restrictions on job posters, to match those placed on job bidders | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
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 
