| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12] > | Should the "P" symbol be for internal eyes only? Thread poster: Paul Cohen
|
|---|
Uldis Liepkalns 
Latvia
Local time: 18:04
Member (2003)
English to Latvian
+ ...
| To diffuse a little | Mar 14, 2009 |
Kevin Lossner wrote:
No system is perfect of course, and I take a rather jaded view of many formal qualifications, including my own, which I acquired mostly so I could tease some of my German colleagues about them.
Q: How can you know your corresondent is German?
A:- his name starts with Dipl. eng.
Q: how can you know your corresondent is Austrian?
A: His wifes name starts with it too.
Uldis
As to my serious arguments- they are in the parallel thread
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom:_translator_coop/130078-p_symbol_who_makes_the_decision_about_competence-page2.html#1079630 - we cannot post the same in two threads, you know.
U.
| | | |
Henry D wrote:
I'll also have the team add some more FAQs in that area based on any new questions that have come up in this thread.
Thanks for the new FAQs. They make the situation much more complex day by they.
Frankly speaking they do not help me to understand the following thing:
So called Proz.com Certified Pro page says that:
The ProZ.com Certified PRO program is a new initiative of the ProZ.com community, the purpose of which is to identify qualified translators and translation companies working in various language pairs, and provide them with the option of networking and collaborating in an environment consisting entirely of screened professionals.
How can you classify the rest of the community here?
Or who are they?
[Edited at 2009-03-14 22:53 GMT]
| | | | | Some positive ideas | Mar 14, 2009 |
From the beginning of this topic I did not write anything constructive.
In order to be fair I will suggest the ways which will be more fair for everyone here (The existing program is not fair and turns as a blame or inadequacy for those who are not accepted or applied in the said program, so it creates inequality in opportunities)
In which way I don't object to such programs:
1- Different qualification classes
Such program contains more letters-not on... See more From the beginning of this topic I did not write anything constructive.
In order to be fair I will suggest the ways which will be more fair for everyone here (The existing program is not fair and turns as a blame or inadequacy for those who are not accepted or applied in the said program, so it creates inequality in opportunities)
In which way I don't object to such programs:
1- Different qualification classes
Such program contains more letters-not only P but A, B, C, D, etc
And the people will be screened in comply with their: Years of Experience, Diploma Grades (in Diploma such as 4.5, 5, B+ etc or if the translator holds Ph.D than he/she will be above all BAs), Points of Internationally Called Examinations (official academic language tests), Reference Letters (Original) from clients or academic institutions or persons, Sample translations (site may conclude an agreement with an academic institution and get service from them for rating the sample translations)
I can suggest the following system for evaluation of the above mentioned data:
minimum years of experience 3: and 4 points for it.
maximum years of experience 30: and 40 points for it. (that means if a person has 35 years experience he may only get 40 points not more)
minimum diploma grade: BA (C, or 3.00) and 4 points for it
maximum diploma grade: Ph.D. and 40 points for it
So we may continue this list as per the criteria
So according to the results of that evaluation site may put some letters to its users such as A for those who have the highest points and E for those who have the lowest points
Such system will boost all members to develop themselves and will be more objective I think.
But now it does not make sense IMHO. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Aniello Scognamiglio (X)
Germany
Local time: 17:04
English to German
+ ...
| Pre-screening process and paying members only | Mar 15, 2009 |
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote:
minimum diploma grade: BA (C, or 3.00) and 4 points for it
maximum diploma grade: Ph.D. and 40 points for it
Hello Ali,
discussing the ProZ Certified PRO programme is very interesting indeed, however, I fail to
a) understand the huge gap between a BA and a Ph.D, and
b) a minimum diploma grade BA is not realistic.
I am in favour of streamlining processes. Not only would an A - E "classification" be just academic, but it would be unfair and make things even more complicated than they currently are.
The easiest thing is to define a
a) sophisticated pre-screening process with the support of a translation authority and
b) a set of requirements that translators who want to register with ProZ.com MUST meet.
It is needless to add that this strategy would make the controversial discussion about the magic "P" obsolete.
In my opinion, ProZ.com is the richest translation portal in terms of content and functionality despite all the issues (data protection and privacy, Google ads out of control, UI (user interface), brand/image etc.) discussed lately and to be addressed as soon as possibile to avoid further damage, but many issues were and are the result of breaking ProZ users/members down in 2 classes (paying/non paying members) among other things.
Like it or not, all ProZians should be paying members.
That would nip a lot of issues in the bud, and while generating the revenue required to maintain and further develop this multi-faceted site to the full satisfaction of all ProZians, the embarrassing and harmful Google ads, which have transformed ProZ.com into an advertising pillar, could be avoided making ProZ.com the *professional* website it used to be.
Best,
Aniello
| | |
|
|
|
| Not a truly optional feature | Mar 15, 2009 |
ICL wrote: Eduardo López Herrero wrote:
The problem is that the PRO feature not only doesn't benefit all members; it damages some (most?) of us by making our profiles look somewhat lackluster in comparison to others. It was wrong to introduce such a change without the approval of paying members. Obviously *EVERYONE* who registers and becomes a paying member of Proz.com can apply to this program, so no one is being "discriminated" from being accepted or at least for applying to it.
I'm not talking about being discriminated. I have no interest in joining the program. But, alas, if I don't, my name could get filtered out just because I don't have the P (see below).
Regarding the fact that it may be misleading to potential clients, I believe that if those clients are professional enough to take the time to read the FAQ about this badge, they should get the basic idea behind this symbolic recognition, since, as it has been commented before, here in Proz.com we have all levels of "translators" registered, so for those companies looking for some traditional methods of filtering professionals, the PRO badge may serve as **one** of the *guiding* signs.
If potential clients are professional enough, upon reading the FAQ they will come to the conclusion that the badge adds close to nothing to the data they can find in peoples' profiles. Then they could get the impression that P translators are trying to appear as being "more" than they actually are... because the badge does look impressive. (Actually, this is one of the reasons why I don't want the P -- it won't precisely give an image of seriousness to the trained eye). On the other hand, as we all know, there are lots of good jobs that come to you through the hands of incompetent, or just inexperienced, coordinators, who are often extremely busy. I wouldn't trust them to read any FAQ.
But it probably all boils down to, once again, weighing whether paying as a full member and applying for a PRO badge (or taking advantage of any of the features/tools offered by Proz.com) is worth the money or not. That is obviously a personal/subjective decision.
As should be obvious from the above, this is not a truly optional feature. If you don't take it, you are damaged (the extent of the damage is not relevant, just in case). I am a full member with a whole year of paid fees ahead, and now I feel that I'm getting less for my money.
To summarize my position, I think everything shown on a translator's profiles should be there under the sole responsibility of the translator, and the site should not attempt to certify anything. In my opinion, that goes beyond its objective and also its possibilities.
Eduardo
| | | | Paul Cohen
Greenland
Local time: 14:04
German to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Perhaps a separate thread is needed | Mar 15, 2009 |
Aniello Scognamiglio wrote:
Like it or not, all ProZians should be paying members.
That would nip a lot of issues in the bud, and while generating the revenue required to maintain and further develop this multi-faceted site to the full satisfaction of all ProZians, the embarrassing and harmful Google ads, which have transformed ProZ.com into an advertising pillar, could be avoided making ProZ.com the *professional* website it used to be.
A groundbreaking concept, no doubt about it.
Without going into whether I agree or not, I think that this is an idea that will probably generate a great deal of discussion. Perhaps it would be better to start up a new thread, Aniello, and delve into the issue there. After all, we are primarily talking here about the visibility of the "P" badge on the site and how it is interpreted by potential customers and other visitors.
| | | |
Hola de nuevo, Eduardo
Eduardo López Herrero wrote:
I'm not talking about being discriminated. I have no interest in joining the program. But, alas, if I don't, my name could get filtered out just because I don't have the P
[...]this is not a truly optional feature. If you don't take it, you are damaged (the extent of the damage is not relevant, just in case). I am a full member with a whole year of paid fees ahead, and now I feel that I'm getting less for my money.
[/quote]
Again, there are a number of Proz.com features that are optional or rather the kind you can "opt out" from. AFAIK, once again, given Proz.com's "open access" registration policy, these features were created precisely to "filter" profiles according to some minimum standards: academic preparation, references of employers, etc.
Therefore, if these features are part of the rules and general policy of this website, opting out of some of them or, on the contrary, using them actively are both your choice/responsibility and part of the advantages/disadavantages you have to assume when deciding to invest or not in membership.
Furthermore, for example, people who participate very actively in Kudoz get a much better directory rating than those of us who prefer not to participate as much. Is this unfair and "damaging" to my profile or even to my professional reputation? I don't think so. It's just one of Proz.com's features, just like the PRO badge. Again, I hope serious/professional clients (which are the only ones I am interested in) will take the time to "dig" better into all the features this website offers through the profiles to establish some minimum reliability references.
About this fixed idea of PRO-awarded members feeling superior or something, I hardly [think] that is the case for everyone, and certainly not for myself. I just happened to have attended/given a lecture (though "informal", in a powwow) about the EN 15038 standard and how it aims at establishing better some general minimum requirements for the translation industry, so I personally thought that Proz.com using this standard as a **reference** to better screen profiles was a good idea.
Eduardo López Herrero wrote:
To summarize my position, I think everything shown on a translator's profiles should be there under the sole responsibility of the translator, and the site should not attempt to certify anything. In my opinion, that goes beyond its objective and also its possibilities.
I totally disagree, because, by that rule of thumb, everyone could ***SAY AND POST*** everything they wanted in their profile (as it happens in other similar websites which are not nearly as serious as Proz.com) and manage to get away with it without any minimum verification of this.
Más saludos...
P.S.: just edited a mistake (put it in square brackets). I had said "I hardly doubt" when I meant "I hardly think".
[Edited at 2009-03-15 16:27 GMT]
| | | | | Response to Kim | Mar 15, 2009 |
Kim Metzger wrote:
Many members (including "certified Pros") have chosen to designate English as their native language because they feel their writing skills are equivalent to those of an educated native speaker, not because English is their actual native language. Often, they were born, raised and educated in the Netherlands, say, but then spent several years living in England or the US. Shouldn't this issue have been resolved before the program was initiated?
Certain measures were taken in relation to native language. For example, peer corroboration was introduced as part of the program. No approach will be perfect, but a number of applications have been denied on the basis that native language was called into question and could not be substantiated by the applicant.
| | |
|
|
|
| Would you mind sending details, Kevin? | Mar 15, 2009 |
Kevin Lossner wrote:
But when the issues are known - and in the aforementioned case they were made known to ProZ - I do wonder what has gone wrong.
So do I. Would you please send me specifics offline?
| | | | | Thanks, M. Ali | Mar 15, 2009 |
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote: Henry D wrote:
I'll also have the team add some more FAQs in that area based on any new questions that have come up in this thread. Thanks for the new FAQs. They make the situation much more complex day by they.
New FAQs have not yet been added. The FAQs you see are what I was asking you to read earlier.
I happen not to be in favor of the idea proposed in your latest post, by the way, but I appreciate your being open and constructive.
| | | | Paul Cohen
Greenland
Local time: 14:04
German to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | To "P" or not to "P" - that is the question for many of us | Mar 15, 2009 |
Eduardo López Herrero wrote:
I'm not talking about being discriminated. I have no interest in joining the program. But, alas, if I don't, my name could get filtered out just because I don't have the P.
Thanks for reminding us of the issue of the directory.
Is it fair to take a program that is admittedly still in its infancy and make it a decisive search criterion on the directory of the world's largest and most successful translation website?
This is not a truly optional feature.
I agree.
I am a full member with a whole year of paid fees ahead, and now I feel that I'm getting less for my money.
Same here. This aspect of the "P" makes it a question of to "P" or not to "P" for many of us.
I think everything shown on a translator's profiles should be there under the sole responsibility of the translator, and the site should not attempt to certify anything. In my opinion, that goes beyond its objective and also its possibilities.
Ditto. It's the "certification" aspect that is fueling the controversy.
| | | | Paul Cohen
Greenland
Local time: 14:04
German to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | What's in a name? A lot. | Mar 15, 2009 |
First of all, I'd like to thank Henry for taking the general topic of "evaluation and screening" off the taboo list. More transparency helps demystify things and opens the floor to a more informed discussion.
This has been a fascinating debate that is sure to spark other threads, but I'd like to direct it now toward a specific question: How could we find a solution for the visibility of the "P" badge that the vast majority of Prozians would find acceptable?
Looking back... See more First of all, I'd like to thank Henry for taking the general topic of "evaluation and screening" off the taboo list. More transparency helps demystify things and opens the floor to a more informed discussion.
This has been a fascinating debate that is sure to spark other threads, but I'd like to direct it now toward a specific question: How could we find a solution for the visibility of the "P" badge that the vast majority of Prozians would find acceptable?
Looking back on the discussion of the past couple of days, I think the "P" badge could remain largely as it is if the name were simply changed. As a number of people have pointed out, the word "certification" has the potential to make some people see red (pardon the pun).
But ProZ could certainly have a core group of translators. Why not let the "P" badge denote the "Proz.com Core Group"? Or, better yet, the "Proz Core Network"?
We already have the word "pro" in "Proz."
A name like that sounds far more appropriate to me. It suggests, in my opinion, a select community of professionals who network and collaborate "in an environment consisting entirely of screened professionals" (to quote the program's description).
This would make it appear more like a genuine option and less like something that necessarily reflects poorly on the ability and professionalism of those who are not members. The "Proz Core Network" would certainly imply that members have climbed up the ladder, at least in terms of playing an active role on the site. It would not be meaningless.
This kind of name would also be more in keeping with the "good citizenship" criterion. Fair is fair -- if you've repeatedly broken the rules, you can't be a member of the core network.
And, perhaps most importantly, it would steer clear of the thorny issue of "certification," making it less likely to be misinterpreted by potential clients and the industry at large.
Change the name in this direction, and I'll be a happy camper. In fact, I'll even join. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Özden Arıkan
Germany
Local time: 17:04
Member
English to Turkish
+ ...
| Question for Henry | Mar 15, 2009 |
Let's say a member declared X and Y as native languages, translating between them.
And let's say nativeness in Y is a false claim.
This member applies to be certified in Y to X.
The site has received this member's credentials, samples, and the like in Y to X.
Is it still relevant from the viewpoint of the program that this person has made a false claim regarding native language (i.e. a problem of professional ethics)?
If yes, is there any way that this... See more Let's say a member declared X and Y as native languages, translating between them.
And let's say nativeness in Y is a false claim.
This member applies to be certified in Y to X.
The site has received this member's credentials, samples, and the like in Y to X.
Is it still relevant from the viewpoint of the program that this person has made a false claim regarding native language (i.e. a problem of professional ethics)?
If yes, is there any way that this could get... well, 'caught' during the process of evaluating this person's application to be certified in Y to X?
If no to the above, what could and should be done afterwards
AND
would you plan to consider the above scenario in the evaluation of applications from now on?
[Edited at 2009-03-15 16:27 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Example Only: | Mar 15, 2009 |
Aniello Scognamiglio wrote: M. Ali Bayraktar wrote:
minimum diploma grade: BA (C, or 3.00) and 4 points for it
maximum diploma grade: Ph.D. and 40 points for it
Hello Ali, discussing the ProZ Certified PRO programme is very interesting indeed, however, I fail to a) understand the huge gap between a BA and a Ph.D, and b) a minimum diploma grade BA is not realistic. I am in favour of streamlining processes. Not only would an A - E "classification" be just academic, but it would be unfair and make things even more complicated than they currently are. The easiest thing is to define a a) sophisticated pre-screening process with the support of a translation authority and b) a set of requirements that translators who want to register with ProZ.com MUST meet. It is needless to add that this strategy would make the controversial discussion about the magic "P" obsolete. In my opinion, ProZ.com is the richest translation portal in terms of content and functionality despite all the issues (data protection and privacy, Google ads out of control, UI (user interface), brand/image etc.) discussed lately and to be addressed as soon as possibile to avoid further damage, but many issues were and are the result of breaking ProZ users/members down in 2 classes (paying/non paying members) among other things. Like it or not, all ProZians should be paying members. That would nip a lot of issues in the bud, and while generating the revenue required to maintain and further develop this multi-faceted site to the full satisfaction of all ProZians, the embarrassing and harmful Google ads, which have transformed ProZ.com into an advertising pillar, could be avoided making ProZ.com the *professional* website it used to be. Best, Aniello
Dear Aniello,
All what I have written were examples.
But in order to be more clear about how the system should be:
The system should be based only on the objective and concrete data:
But not on the comments, reviews or evaluation of the other users on this site.
And, Good Citizenship Criteria Should be removed from the requirements.
Because the title, sign or any symbol you are providing them qualifies their professional eligibility.
What I mean is a system where every process will be objective and based on the concrete data.That was what I mean.
But the said Certified PRO Program violated the principle of objectivity at its beginning. Because site has an idea of their users. And according to this idea site judged those who were contacted and took decision that they deserve much more respect or behavior than other users. And I can say who are they approximately: Those who attended the conferences, those who have big forums activity, those who have very high KudoZ points, those who in close contact with the site or its affiliates or staff, Moderators. How can you start a program in this manner?
And after that those who selected began evaluate the other persons.
You may write 100 pages of assurance that the screening process made very carefully or program works in a fair manner.
But usually such programs do not begin with secret lobby actions behind the scenes.
So What I want that such kind of program will be provided basing only on the objective data.
So Please do not take serious all examples but go through their basics.
[Edited at 2009-03-15 18:50 GMT]
| | | | | I fully agree on that | Mar 15, 2009 |
Aniello Scognamiglio wrote:
Like it or not, all ProZians should be paying members.
That would nip a lot of issues in the bud, and while generating the revenue required to maintain and further develop this multi-faceted site to the full satisfaction of all ProZians, the embarrassing and harmful Google ads, which have transformed ProZ.com into an advertising pillar, could be avoided making ProZ.com the *professional* website it used to be.
Maybe it is a bit off-topic, but this is something I have always thought.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should the "P" symbol be for internal eyes only? | 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 
