| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | The Value of the Blue Board Thread poster: inkweaver
|
|---|
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:11
Member (2008)
Italian to English
| Nothing personal | Nov 23, 2011 |
Cilian O'Tuama wrote:
Please don’t be suspicious of straight 5s! Maybe the outsourcer can’t help it!
Cilian - if you want to know exactly why I'm suspicious, ask me in private.
| | | | | The entire BB concept is now skewed | Nov 23, 2011 |
A normal, average, plain vanilla client should get a 3. A 4 should be spared for clients that stand out from the crowd by consistently excelling in vendor and project management. And a 5 should be privy for those clients that build a solid partnership with the translator, timely and proper payment being a mere natural consequence.
The problem is that, as the BB stands now, no decent translator w... See more A normal, average, plain vanilla client should get a 3. A 4 should be spared for clients that stand out from the crowd by consistently excelling in vendor and project management. And a 5 should be privy for those clients that build a solid partnership with the translator, timely and proper payment being a mere natural consequence.
The problem is that, as the BB stands now, no decent translator will consider a job offer from a prospect having a LWA between 3.0 and 4.5, which should be perfectly safe, had the BB system been properly used from the start.
I have a couple of clients that, using this skewed scale, certainly deserve an 8 or 9; been working for one for 5 years already, the other one only for a couple of months.
On the other hand, there is one client (I'd bet it's the same one Tom is referring to, here) who is getting close to two hundred LWAs, most of them 5s, but I've already declined at least two dozen job offers from them, since I had better things to do, simply on account of their low rates and long payment term.
I have suggested - both privately (via support ticket) and publicly - that Proz should benchmark with one if its competitors (not allowed to mention names here, something to do with rubiaceae) on this aspect, implementing, on top of the existing BB, a color system, possibly using the same colored circle from the translator "Availability" for clients assessment on 3-5 objective criteria. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Laurent KRAULAND (X) 
France
Local time: 17:11
French to German
+ ...
| Objective criteria, indeed... | Nov 23, 2011 |
which means: did the client comply with the initial agreement between them and the translator?
Basically, this is *all* we would need to know.
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
(.../...)
I have suggested - both privately (via support ticket) and publicly - that Proz should benchmark with one if its competitors (not allowed to mention names here, something to do with rubiaceae) on this aspect, implementing, on top of the existing BB, a color system, possibly using the same colored circle from the translator "Availability" for clients assessment on 3-5 objective criteria.
I also agree upon the fact that some of my clients would deserve 8 or 9 according to the way in which the BB is now used.
[Edited at 2011-11-23 11:15 GMT]
| | | | | LWA points are not a rating | Nov 23, 2011 |
LWA is not supposed to be a rating of the outsourcer, but just what it says: an indicator of the likelihood of the translator to work with this outsourcer again:
5) Most definitely (I would be delighted to work again with this outsourcer)
4) Definitely (I would work again with this outsourcer)
3) Maybe (I might work again with this outsourcer)
2) Doubtfully (I would probably not work again with this outsourcer)
1) No way (I would definitely refuse to work again with... See more LWA is not supposed to be a rating of the outsourcer, but just what it says: an indicator of the likelihood of the translator to work with this outsourcer again:
5) Most definitely (I would be delighted to work again with this outsourcer)
4) Definitely (I would work again with this outsourcer)
3) Maybe (I might work again with this outsourcer)
2) Doubtfully (I would probably not work again with this outsourcer)
1) No way (I would definitely refuse to work again with this outsourcer)
According to this, I would always give a "plain vanilla client" a 4.
Maybe the categories are not ideal, but with this categories used properly, an average of 4 is bad, since it probably includes single LWAs of 3 and lower. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| One question... | Nov 23, 2011 |
Dr. Matthias Schauen wrote:
LWA is not supposed to be a rating of the outsourcer, but just what it says: an indicator of the likelihood of the translator to work with this outsourcer again:
5) Most definitely (I would be delighted to work again with this outsourcer)
4) Definitely (I would work again with this outsourcer)
3) Maybe (I might work again with this outsourcer)
2) Doubtfully (I would probably not work again with this outsourcer)
1) No way (I would definitely refuse to work again with this outsourcer)
According to this, I would always give a "plain vanilla client" a 4.
Maybe the categories are not ideal, but with this categories used properly, an average of 4 is bad, since it probably includes single LWAs of 3 and lower.
Matthias, would you work for an outsourcer having, say, one hundred LWAs = 4, plus 30 LWAs = 3?
The way the BB has developed, few people would consider working for them for the first time, yet a numerous crowd is willing to continue doing so.
| | | | inkweaver
Germany
Local time: 17:11
French to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | That's the way it should be | Nov 23, 2011 |
Tom in London wrote:
One particularly bad non-payer ended up paying me in full within a few minutes, when he realised he was about to be blocked from Proz.
Then he asked me to change my negative comment into a positive one, because he had paid !
I considered that to be highly unethical, and changed my previous negative comment to an even worse one.
So all in all, thank you BB and thank you Proz for this very important safety net.
[Edited at 2011-11-22 20:05 GMT]
IMHO that's exactly the way it should be, Tom.
The outsourcer I was referring to initially did pay me after I made the entry, not without sending me a very abusive email first, so why would I want to change the rating? I can only guess though that some sort of pressure must have been put on those colleagues who gave him a bad rating. At least I can't think of any other reason why people would remove an entry after about a year or more.
The problem that remains is that with those unfavourable ratings removed this particular outsourcer appears to be a trustworthy one while he is not.
| | | | | LWA < 5: Check the BB entries | Nov 23, 2011 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Matthias, would you work for an outsourcer having, say, one hundred LWAs = 4, plus 30 LWAs = 3?
Interesting question. I think I would. But if instead of 30 LWAs = 3 there were 20 LWAs = 3 and 5 LWAs = 2 (same LWA average) I wouldn't.
I think I understand what you mean: medium LWA values are rarely given, people either give 5 (if everything is okay) or 1 or 2 (if there is trouble).
For me, the system works, though: If an outsourcer has an average LWA value below 5, I check the BB entries with LWAs of 1-3 and make up my mind depending on what is written there and on the total ratio of positive to negative experiences.
[Edited at 2011-11-23 15:15 GMT]
| | | | Joshua Pepper
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:11
French to English
+ ...
| This springs to mind. | Nov 27, 2011 |
I thought that some of you might enjoy this highly entertaining yet deadly serious take on the question:
Original alt (mouseover) text: The bug report was marked 'could not reproduce'.
http://xkcd.com/937/
| | |
|
|
|
Annette Skipper (X)
Denmark
Local time: 17:11
English to Danish
+ ...
| Proz.com also censors BB entries | Nov 28, 2011 |
I have experienced a situation where proz.com has censored my entry on BB - they choose to remove my entry prior to having obtained the facts of the matter from me, only from the client.
So, I concur, BB cannot be trusted, partly due to proz.com itself. If you care to know more, see separate entry in this forum (unless proz.com has chosen to delete it).
| | | | Laurent KRAULAND (X)
France
Local time: 17:11
French to German
+ ...
| | Pages in topic: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » The Value of the Blue Board | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | 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 
