Blue Board ratings - food for thought Thread poster: José Henrique Lamensdorf
|
|---|
Today I saw the following entry after a LWA=1 on the Blue Board:
Since I sent the document translated, I had no contact with XXX who doesn't answer any of my emails. And of course, no payment so far either. They are not honest.
Reply: I was indeed late, but I think it is not quite fair to keep this entry once one was paid
Please don't divert this thread to analyzing this specific outsourcer/translator!
The issue here is: Is it fair? Or not?
It made me think... In the last few weeks I've been persistently invited by one translation agency I worked for in the distant past, several different projects, and I turned all them down, politely explaining the reasons:
- Their low rates
- Their longer than average (among my clients) payment terms
- Their consistent noncompliance to these payment terms
Apart from these issues, it was a mutually rewarding professional experience. Their PMs are among the nicest people in the trade, and I got excellent evaluations from their reviewers on all jobs I delivered them.
They have a long stream of 5s in their BB record, and I didn't want to be the sore thumb standing out there by having given them a 3. Indeed, I would gladly work for them again as soon as they solved the three issues listed above, however I've been turning down each and every job they've offered me for the past 2 years or so. Therefore it's a somewhat fickle LWA, isn't it?
So I wonder how objective LWA ratings can get. Okay, the definitions are there, as defined by Proz, and shouldn't be changed (otherwise it would void the entire BB so far), however their informally agreed interpretation could be, e.g. 1 = didn't pay at all, ever; 3 = paid late; 5 = fully satisfactory experience. This would lead to 2 = paid part of it, or fabricated "quality issues" to pay less; and 4 = fulfilled agreement, yet under low rates and/or too long payment terms.
Would these informal interpretations make sense?
| | | |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Would these informal interpretations make sense?
BB ratings are not officially - and, IMO, should not be unofficially - only about payment. I once gave a low BB rating to an agency with which I had no payment problems simply because I had various other issues with them and would not want to work with them again.
So no, in my opinion, those informal interpretations would not make sense, and the outsourcer in your example was perfectly entitled not to change his/her original rating. It was not unfair.
Looking at your breakdown in further detail, your BB=2 interpretation might actually be against Proz rules (BB rule 2.2), as it's prohibited to post a BB rating if the agency has contested the quality within a short time of delivery (a rule I essentially disagree with, but it's there and should be abided by).
| | | |
Then 1 would be given to an excellent client who went bankrupt, and we would have to give a 2 or a 3 to a swindler who paid one small invoice out of ten, or who paid months and months later after a court trial. Too much honour.
| | | | | Yes, the issue is tough | Aug 16, 2011 |
It's difficult to make the BB not mostly about payment, as money is the only lasting thing (until you spend it ) that remains with the translator. Pleasant memories of the PMs you had contact with might not motivate you to work with their firm again, if getting paid was a stressful and/or costly experience.
There are some PMs and agency owners I'd really have pleasure in socializing with, yet I wouldn't work for th... See more It's difficult to make the BB not mostly about payment, as money is the only lasting thing (until you spend it ) that remains with the translator. Pleasant memories of the PMs you had contact with might not motivate you to work with their firm again, if getting paid was a stressful and/or costly experience.
There are some PMs and agency owners I'd really have pleasure in socializing with, yet I wouldn't work for their companies again, LWA = 0.
Likewise, unpleasant memories of the PMs would have the same effect. However this makes me wonder... what if that client only gets you unpleasant work? I mean something personally disgusting to you, subject-wise?
You may be right, things would be easier if we took Proz BB "definitions" at face value. But then 3 would be the standard; translators would only give 4s and 5s to their truly extraordinary clients... which doesn't seem to be the rule there. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Robert Forstag 
United States
Local time: 01:41
Spanish to English
+ ...
| BB would be more useful... | Aug 16, 2011 |
...if it were indeed only about payment, and if the number of projects worked on were listed as part of the entry (after all, a "5" from someone who has done 30 projects for an agency is more meaningful than the same rating from a translator who has done only a single project for a an agency).
For me personally, and for many other translators who consult it, the utility of the BB has mainly to do with predicting whether a company with which you have no or limited experience ... See more ...if it were indeed only about payment, and if the number of projects worked on were listed as part of the entry (after all, a "5" from someone who has done 30 projects for an agency is more meaningful than the same rating from a translator who has done only a single project for a an agency).
For me personally, and for many other translators who consult it, the utility of the BB has mainly to do with predicting whether a company with which you have no or limited experience will pay you on time. And, really, why should the Blue Board be about anything else? I think most of us expect "polite" and "courteous" treatment, so I don't really see that such behavior deserves special mention.
In any case, to address Jose's point, the BB ratings always need to be taken with a certain grain of salt. Lot's of "5"s are posted on the basis of a single short project--and at the behest of agencies themselves. In many cases, "bad experiences"with non-playing or slow-paying agencies are not registered on the Blue Board at all.
So beware!
Once again, I would advocate making the BB only about payment: both the ratings and the comments. A place can be created on agencies' profile pages for testimonials along the lines of "Divine Translations has great people!" and "Bill is so wonderful I've decided to name my son after him!"
[Edited at 2011-08-16 15:24 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 22:41
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | While I agree that information about payment discipline | Aug 16, 2011 |
is important, I do have to disagree that the rest of one's impression of a business partner consists of mere joy about "nice" PMs. To me, a client's approach in terms of quality, their choice of translators, their project management, their know-how of the industry (e.g. electronics, steel industry, printing processes etc.) and also: how they cooperate with their own clients are highly important. Those are hard facts as well. Which is why a top-notch agency that is chronically late with payments ... See more is important, I do have to disagree that the rest of one's impression of a business partner consists of mere joy about "nice" PMs. To me, a client's approach in terms of quality, their choice of translators, their project management, their know-how of the industry (e.g. electronics, steel industry, printing processes etc.) and also: how they cooperate with their own clients are highly important. Those are hard facts as well. Which is why a top-notch agency that is chronically late with payments for a couple of days will always receive a better rating from me than a translation mill that pays like a clockwork. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 01:41
Spanish to English
+ ...
I certainly hope that the agencies that I work with cooperate well with their paying clients, but I really have no way of knowing if they do or not--just as I don't know whether the people at the corner store where I buy groceries or the dry cleaners where I take my clothes have healthy or troubled relations with their suppliers.
As for "agency know-how," about this or that subject area, I am not entirely sure how I would evaluate that either. In the hundreds of projects that I've ... See more I certainly hope that the agencies that I work with cooperate well with their paying clients, but I really have no way of knowing if they do or not--just as I don't know whether the people at the corner store where I buy groceries or the dry cleaners where I take my clothes have healthy or troubled relations with their suppliers.
As for "agency know-how," about this or that subject area, I am not entirely sure how I would evaluate that either. In the hundreds of projects that I've done for several dozen different agencies, I've rarely been offered the kind of support that reflects any real technical expertise. My clear understanding, in nearly all cases, is that I'm on my own. I imagine that is the way it is with most freelancers, but let's see what they have to say.
None of this is meant as criticism. It is just "the way it is." I doubt my experience is atypical. Again, let's see how others weigh in.
More to the point, a perusal of the Blue Board entries associated with ratings of "5" for the most part does not reveal comments praising agencies' mastery of a particular subject area or their exemplary relations with their paying clients. Instead, what is typically offered are expressions of gratitude that so-and-so at such-and-such an agency was "nice" to them and/or paid them on time. The prevalence of such remarks makes those who post them look like beggars with hat in hand who hope that they will get more work from the agency that they are praising for behavior that, in the end, ought to be expected in any business relationship.
Enabling such behavior does not promote professionalism. That is why I renew my call for a Blue Board that focuses on payment issues only and the relegation of laudatory comments having to do with anything else to a "Testimonials" section of outsourcers' profile pages.
[Edited at 2011-08-16 19:43 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 22:41
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | I know what you mean | Aug 16, 2011 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
Instead, what is typically offered are expressions of gratitude that so-and-so at such-and-such an agency was "nice" to them and/or paid them on time. The prevalence of such remarks makes those who post them look like beggars with hat in hand who hope that they will get more work from the agency that they are praising for behavior that, in the end, ought to be expected in any business relationship.
My favorite flavor however:
"I did a small job for this company, and they paid on time. Yayyy!" Rating 5.
Enabling such behavior does not promote professionalism. That is why I renew my call for a Blue Board that focuses on payment issues only and the relegation of laudatory comments having to do with anything else to a "Testimonials" section of outsourcers' profile pages.
[Edited at 2011-08-16 16:31 GMT]
By definition the Blue Board is meant as risk management tool where the translator can search parameters (NOTE: plural) for future reference. If we turn the BB into a mere credit report while all other, "lesser" information is compiled on a testimonial "playground", then we should at least change the name of this tool.
| | |
|
|
|
Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 01:41
Spanish to English
+ ...
| @Nicole (cont'd) | Aug 16, 2011 |
Nicole wrote:
My favorite flavor however:
"I did a small job for this company, and they paid on time. Yayyy!" Rating 5.
___
Indeed. Gag me with a spoon!
___________________________________________________________________
Nicole wrote:
By definition the Blue Board is meant as risk management tool where the translator can search parameters (NOTE: plural) for future reference.
___
Maybe that was the ori... See more Nicole wrote:
My favorite flavor however:
"I did a small job for this company, and they paid on time. Yayyy!" Rating 5.
___
Indeed. Gag me with a spoon!
___________________________________________________________________
Nicole wrote:
By definition the Blue Board is meant as risk management tool where the translator can search parameters (NOTE: plural) for future reference.
___
Maybe that was the original thought, but I strongly suspect that the utility of this "tool" is for the most part defined--by the overwhelming majority of those who use it--in terms of a "credit report."
___________________________________________________________________
Nicole wrote:
If we turn the BB into a mere credit report while all other, "lesser" information is compiled on a testimonial "playground", then we should at least change the name of this tool.
___
I think that, given its inherent vagueness, "Blue Board" can be retained. And profile pages seem more appropriate places for overt marketing activities.
Whatever the initial intention of the Blue Board, the fact is--as you yourself recognize--that it has to a large extent degenerated into a romper room of vacuous happy talk that often obscures rather than facilitates a serious evaluation of outsourcers. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 01:41
Spanish to English
+ ...
| | | | Multiple criteria | Aug 16, 2011 |
Long ago I suggested Proz borrowed this concept from a competitor - not Starbucks, but the name is a close match - possibly with some colored dots like the ones used for translator availability on the profile, however it seems that the development folks there have an unsurmonutable backlog.
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Blue Board ratings - food for thought | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
