| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | A couple of questions about the Certified Pro program Thread poster: Niraja Nanjundan (X)
|
|---|
| No, scared isn't the word..... | Nov 1, 2008 |
PRen wrote: Viktoria Gimbe wrote: writeaway wrote:
You don't even have to be truthful about your native language...
I have rated many of my colleagues in detail, and trust me, a few of them will never get a foot in the door because I told on them (they are the kind of people we'd rather not have in our industry, trust me). This scares me. Anyone else?
No, scared isn't the word. Maybe mystified and just a little bit horrified?
The "P" is a label 'awarded' by a website to certain of its members, who pay to be there. Nothing more, nothing less.
I see people tossing around words like legal status, certification and pro. What legal status? The "P" has no legal status anywhere and loses all meaning off the site. Are people now announcing to outsourcers that they are "Certified Pro" on Proz and are they mentioning it in their CV? What certification? This is a commercially run website, not an officially recognized certification authority. And 'Pro' WHAT, as was already asked. Let's keep our feet on the ground please.
Then there's the issue of transparency. I have a few questions I'd like to see answered:
1. What were the criteria used to 'select' the initial group of P-holders? Why all the 'secrecy'?
2. What were the criteria used to send out special invitations to others to apply?
3. What happens to people who do not have pals (well) in (with) the system? Who is judging them?
4. Is the P process the same for everyone? Is there a fast-track P for some? What are the criteria used?
5. Will outsourcers be actively encouraged to ignore KudoZ ratings and be urged to hire P people only, since this option is already available.
6. Is the long-term plan to force non-P people off the site ?
7. When everyone has a P (assuming those without will eventually leave the site), then how will outsourcers know which P people are more equal than others? Will there then be a red P and a gold P?
Another concern:
Assuming that P-Mods and the early-bird P people/invitees did not have to go through all the hoops required of 'ordinary' P hopefuls, what about all the rather private information people are being asked to send down to the P Committee? A lot of it is very personal and things one doesn't normally reveal to "others" (who sees this-and is it kept on file?) without some notion of confidentiality.
Have there been any promises or commitments by Proz NOT to pass this information on to third parties? Wouldn't certain translation-related software/equipment/service providers/websites love to get their hands on all that data? Who works for whom, how much they earn, what jobs they have done, who the end-clients are.....
Has anyone stopped to consider this before they eagerly send off their applications?
What about the arbitrary elements involved here? One should reread through Viktoria's description of 'her' selection process. Since wheat AND chaff are clearly being given "the P" (chaff is definitely NOT being eliminated, it's being included, just as it has been all along throughout Proz), then this 'process' will assure that 'like approves like' and gets rid of the rest. Does a P automatically raise you above your non-P colleagues and give you the right to sit in judgement on them?
And what about paying members who aren't applying or the many excellent translators who are non-paying members? Will the site create a separate section for them? Is the plan to force them off the site in the long term, or just turn them all into second-class citizens?
[Edited at 2008-11-02 13:20]
| | | | | Let's not confuse things! | Nov 1, 2008 |
writeaway wrote:
I see people tossing around words like legal status, certification and pro. What legal status? The "P" has no legal status anywhere and loses all meaning off the site.
When I raised the question of legal status, it related to whether the individual exercised the profession legally. We all know of "bilingual cousins - teacher friends - executive secretary - expat spouse etc. " types who'll do a job under the table now and then, which does not help the industry in any way. "Legal status" has zero to do with Proz!
And what about paying members who aren't applying or the many excellent translators who are non-paying members? Will the site create a separate section for them? Is the plan to force them off the site in the long term, or just turn them all into second-class citizens?
[Edited at 2008-11-01 16:12]
Writeaway, you've noticed this trend as well as anyone. Many have left, those who remain participate less and less...
Have a good evening,
Patricia
| | | | Paul Cohen 
Greenland
Local time: 08:48
German to English
+ ...
| Some people will definitely NOT benefit from this program | Nov 1, 2008 |
I wish we knew more about the first four points raised by writeaway.
Perhaps someone would care to enlighten us.
I'd like to address points 5 through 7.
writeaway wrote:
5. Will outsourcers be actively encouraged to ignore KudoZ ratings and be urged to hire P people only, since this option is already available.
I'm glad this question has been raised because it deals with those of us who will not benefit from this program.
KudoZ ratings can already be combined with the "P" for directory searches. If the "P" has any meaning whatsoever in terms of quality and reliability, clearly outsiders will give preference to "P" people who have high KudoZ scores. Yes, in my opinion, the fact that this "P" has been included in the search functions for the directory is early an indication that the site actively encourages outsiders to hire P people only.
writeaway wrote:
6. Is the long-term plan to force non-P people off the site?
I seriously doubt that the long-term plan is to force large numbers of people off the site. After all, people without the "P" also contribute to site revenues. Don't forget, people who don't have the "P" -- but still pay membership dues -- are helping to bolster the value of the P people. If everyone on the site had a "P", then the "P" would suffer from hyperinflation and become meaningless as a quality guideline for outsiders and potential clients.
Nevertheless, I believe that some people will leave the site because of the "P" program. Yes, in that sense, the "P" program could be interpreted as a campaign to "discourage undesirable elements". There are a large number of dedicated professionals on this site who have had some unfortunate run-ins with site staff and have been castigated with yellow cards and red cards for breaking site rules. Many of these offenders have already said their farewells and/or been forced to leave the site. Presumably, none of these individuals have a chance of meeting the “good citizenship” qualification.
These are the real losers of this initiative. By being banned from the “P” group, they will essentially remain ostracized and will have less of a chance of making connections with clients. The “good citizenship” qualification is a form of extra punishment for them … and a warning for the rest of us that there will be dire consequences if we break the rules. By adding the "good citizenship" criterion to the "P" program and connecting that to the breaking of site rules, the message from the site staff is clearer than ever: Love it or leave it. Dissent will not be tolerated on ProZ.com.
By the way, I'd like to add that many of the rules that they have broken by these miscreants would not necessarily fall into the category of what most of us would consider unethical conduct. In a KudoZ forum, for instance, is it unethical to ask translators who are clearly totally out of their depth if they wouldn't be better off giving the translation to someone who is actually qualified for the job? Is it unethical to call a spade a spade? Surely that cannot be compared with lying about one's qualifications on a profile or cheating during a translation contest!
Perhaps we should have a general amnesty for those who have broken certain types of site rules. Or perhaps they should have the possibility of recieving a "pink P" until they learn to stop publicly questioning why bad translators continue to have the chutzpah to sell bad translations to their clients. In any case, in my opinion, there should be a statute of limitations for all offenses. If we keep certain people in the dog house forever, yes, they will eventually leave the site.
writeaway wrote:
7. When everyone has a P (assuming those without will eventually leave the site), then how will outsourcers know which P people are more equal than others? Will there then be a red P and a gold P?
A gold "P"? That sounds even better! Yes, if everyone had a "P," then it only stands to reason that some new scheme would have to be created to distinguish between the top professionals and the mediocre ones. As I've stated above, you can't award a "P" to everyone without it becoming meaningless.
[Edited at 2008-11-01 21:06]
[Edited at 2008-11-01 21:24]
| | | |
writeaway wrote
7. When everyone has a P (assuming those without will eventually leave the site), then how will outsourcers know which P people are more equal than others? Will there then be a red P and a gold P?
Another concern:
What about the arbitrary elements involved here? One should reread through Viktoria's description of 'her' selection process. Since wheat AND chaff are clearly being giving "the P" (chaff is definitely NOT being eliminated, it's being included, just as it has been all along throughout Proz), then this 'process' will assure that 'like approves like' and gets rid of the rest. Does a P automatically raise you above your non-P colleagues and give you the right to sit in judgement on them?
And what about paying members who aren't applying or the many excellent translators who are non-paying members? Will the site create a separate section for them? Is the plan to force them off the site in the long term, or just turn them all into second-class citizens?
[Edited at 2008-11-01 17:54]
I fully agree with writeaway and with Paul Cohen! Exactly my thoughts.
[Bearbeitet am 2008-11-02 12:45]
| | |
|
|
|
sylvie malich (X)
Germany
Local time: 11:48
German to English
| Commercially run website, not officially recognized certification authority | Nov 2, 2008 |
writeaway wrote:
The "P" has no legal status anywhere and loses all meaning off the site. Are people now announcing to outsourcers that they are "Certified Pro" on ProZ.com and are they mentioning it in their CV? What certification? This is a commercially run website, not an officially recognized certification authority. And 'Pro' WHAT, as was already asked. Let's keep our feet on the ground please.
sigh. Thanks for saying that writeaway, it bears repeating.
The alternative would be to engage a genuine certification institute as a partner, have them charge the €/$ 100 and make the certification official and legal. I'm afraid clients coming to the site will assume wrongly that the "P" status means more than it really is.
I challenge you to do a sample search, using the P, your top two languages and Native Language in your native tongue as criteria --THEN check the sample texts provided on the profiles and read through them as I did. Some of them might make your hair curl.
-sylvie
p.s. I assume the P expires with your membership?
| | | | PRen (X)
Canada
Local time: 06:48
French to English
+ ...
sylvie malich wrote: writeaway wrote:
The "P" has no legal status anywhere and loses all meaning off the site. Are people now announcing to outsourcers that they are "Certified Pro" on ProZ.com and are they mentioning it in their CV? What certification? This is a commercially run website, not an officially recognized certification authority. And 'Pro' WHAT, as was already asked. Let's keep our feet on the ground please.
sigh. Thanks for saying that writeaway, it bears repeating. The alternative would be to engage a genuine certification institute as a partner, have them charge the €/$ 100 and make the certification official and legal. I'm afraid clients coming to the site will assume wrongly that the "P" status means more than it really is. I challenge you to do a sample search, using the P, your top two languages and Native Language in your native tongue as criteria --THEN check the sample texts provided on the profiles and read through them as I did. Some of them might make your hair curl. -sylvie p.s. I assume the P expires with your membership?
And it seems that translation skill is the last thing being "certified" - it places a distant third or fourth to paid membership, good citizenship, ability to meet deadlines, whether or not the applicant is on side with the site's ethical guidelines. And once again, who is vetting the vettors?
| | | | heikeb
Member (2003)
English to German
+ ...
| three out of three | Nov 3, 2008 |
sylvie malich wrote:
I challenge you to do a sample search, using the P, your top two languages and Native Language in your native tongue as criteria --THEN check the sample texts provided on the profiles and read through them as I did. Some of them might make your hair curl.
Wow - I did just that. The first profile with sample translations I found on the first page with P-certification. Done by a native speaker into their native language. Pretty darn bad for a "certified" translator!!! Not exactly complicated source texts on top of that. And to think that this person must be convinced of the quality of their translations to post them on their profile page....
The second profile with sample translations - not much better!
A third profile has the translator work into a non-native language with some major issues, among them not only linguistic problems but as well those that proofreading of the translation would (hopefully) have prevented...
Three random samples and I would not have certified a single one of them!
Although I would hope that many of those certified do deserve it, the fact that the very first three sets of sample translations I checked are way below what I would consider good translations and the work of professionals undermines the validity of the entire program.
How did these translators get certified? Doesn't anybody look at the submitted samples? Did the first batch(es) of "invited" translators maybe not get vetted at all?
Is there an option to notify somebody in charge regarding apparently unqualified, yet certified translators? Can a certification be revoked upon a valid complaint?
What if a client picks a translator based on their certification and is rightly so not happy with the delivered translation? Is it just "Tough luck!"?
The three samples I looked at do underline the questions raised earlier in this discussion and the importance of some kind of standardized approach that would help avoid this kind of issues. If that's at all possible.
Either this program maintains a high standard right from the start (too late for that, apparently) or it's pretty much worthless. And it's extremely misleading for clients hoping to find a high-quality professional translator by relying on that certification.
| | | | Andrea Riffo
Chile
Local time: 05:48
English to Spanish
+ ...
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Not sure old chap, not sure. I'm a non member (ex paying member, FWIW).
I have long bitched about the unprofessional nature of some aspects of the site, I applaud the idea of a scheme like this, even if I have reservations about how this particular scheme is being run.
I agree to an extent. The idea behind it, I want to believe, is laudable.
However, I would have prefered it a thousand times over if Proz had started by fixing the problems they have with the features already in place. For example, set up a system to verify that people who claim to belong to XX association or have XX certification REALLY DO HAVE IT. And no, the "verify credentials" option doesn't cut it. People still can claim to belong to XX association without it being true, and it has come to my attention that Proz does not bother to do a proper checkup on such claimed credentials even when people ask to advertise online trainings on proz's platform.
This relatively simple (though no less important) problem should have been fixed BEFORE attempting a large-scale program such as the red P... otherwise, why should we trust THIS program and claims of "professional credentials"?
Greetings
[Edited at 2008-11-03 11:02]
| | |
|
|
|
Niraja Nanjundan (X)
Local time: 15:18
German to English
TOPIC STARTER | Everyone should be assessed in the same way | Nov 3, 2008 |
Heike Behl, Ph.D. wrote:
Did the first batch(es) of "invited" translators maybe not get vetted at all?
If this is really the case, then they should definitely be made to go through the same assessment process that others are now being made to go through - that would only be fair.
[Edited at 2008-11-03 08:31]
| | | | | I wish somebody would enlighten us all... | Nov 6, 2008 |
by providing an answer to the questions raised by writeaway:
1. What were the criteria used to 'select' the initial group of P-holders? Why all the 'secrecy'?
2. What were the criteria used to send out special invitations to others to apply?
3. What happens to people who do not have pals (well) in (with) the system? Who is judging them?
4. Is the P process the same for everyone? Is there a fast-track P for some? What are the criteria used?
5. Will outsour... See more by providing an answer to the questions raised by writeaway:
1. What were the criteria used to 'select' the initial group of P-holders? Why all the 'secrecy'?
2. What were the criteria used to send out special invitations to others to apply?
3. What happens to people who do not have pals (well) in (with) the system? Who is judging them?
4. Is the P process the same for everyone? Is there a fast-track P for some? What are the criteria used?
5. Will outsourcers be actively encouraged to ignore KudoZ ratings and be urged to hire P people only, since this option is already available.
6. Is the long-term plan to force non-P people off the site ?
7. When everyone has a P (assuming those without will eventually leave the site), then how will outsourcers know which P people are more equal than others? Will there then be a red P and a gold P?
It seems as though translators are mostly being judged on the basis of "peer reviews" and I find this rather unsettling to say the least. Surely, wouldn't it make more sense to "certify" translators on the basis of client reviews, rather than peer reviews? Why submit a questionnaire to peers who have been previously selected in secrecy before this thing ever even kicked off? How can you ensure that there is no bias in this process? Why not phone clients directly and hear it straight from the horse's mouth? What gives these peers the right to play god with other translators' careers and vouch for their professionalism/skills and professional ethics?
The mind really does boggle. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Federica Masante wrote:
by providing an answer to the questions raised by writeaway:
...
It seems as though translators are mostly being judged on the basis of "peer reviews" and I find this rather unsettling to say the least. Surely, wouldn't it make more sense to "certify" translators on the basis of client reviews, rather than peer reviews? Why submit a questionnaire to peers who have been previously selected in secrecy before this thing ever even kicked off? How can you ensure that there is no bias in this process? Why not phone clients directly and hear it straight from the horse's mouth? What gives these peers the right to play god with other translators' careers and vouch for their professionalism/skills and professional ethics?
The mind really does boggle.
I don't know the answers to most of the questions raised by writeaway and Federica, but I can share my own experience WRT to the last point.
You are asked to provide references from both fellow translators and clients. I provided 3 references from fellow translators - of whom one is registered with but not an active member of this site, one is not even registered and the third is a Cert Pro with whom I have worked in the past (I chose this person for this reason, I wasn't aware of their Cert Pro status at the time). I also provided 4 client references: 2 direct clients and 2 agencies.
I imagine my experience is typical. No one is "playing god" with other translators' careers; the extent to which you can vouch for their professionalism and skills is strictly correlated with the contact you've actually had with them. In fact most Cert Pros are unable to review most of the applicants they're asked to review, due to a lack of contact.
| | | | tazdog (X)
Spain
Local time: 11:48
Spanish to English
+ ...
| a couple more answers | Nov 6, 2008 |
What really boggles the mind is the way that every Proz.com initiative seems to get turned inside out by people looking for flaws or ulterior motives.
I was one of the initial Certified PROs (although maybe I should run for cover now that I’ve said that). I don’t have any “pals” in the system that I’m aware of, and AFAIK, the criteria used to select the initial group were basically the same as the ones being used for everyone else. I was first contacted by e-mail with a b... See more What really boggles the mind is the way that every Proz.com initiative seems to get turned inside out by people looking for flaws or ulterior motives.
I was one of the initial Certified PROs (although maybe I should run for cover now that I’ve said that). I don’t have any “pals” in the system that I’m aware of, and AFAIK, the criteria used to select the initial group were basically the same as the ones being used for everyone else. I was first contacted by e-mail with a brief outline of the program and asked if I might be interested, and when I replied that I would, a phone conversation was set up. At that time, I was told that the factors that led to my selection as an initial candidate (not automatically a “P”) included (if I remember correctly) verified credentials, site participation record and WWAs (= client reviews), as well as having endorsed the Proz professional guidelines. If I’m not mistaken, membership in a professional association and high Kudoz acceptance rate with a low level of disagrees were also mentioned (in my case, 1829 ES>EN questions answered, 69.3% accepted, avg. disagrees per question: 0.01). There may have been more. After the program was explained to me, I was asked if I could recommend other people who might be interested and might meet the criteria, based on my direct knowledge gained from having worked with them. I was only able to give a few names. Not all of them are now Certified PROs, so my word was *not* an automatic free ride. My impression is that the recommendations were to short list people so that Proz staff could review their profiles, the same way that mine was reviewed, and decide whether to issue an invitation to apply.
The peer reviews that have been mentioned are not just for new applicants. Any Certified PRO in my language pair can review me at any time (although I think it’s limited to once a year), so it's an ongoing process. It's also not a lifetime deal; if negative reviews start coming in, the "P" can be withdrawn.
While I’m sure the process is not foolproof (what is?), I think a bona-fide, good-faith effort is being made to ensure that there are checks and balances, in that the "P" is not based merely on a list of a few rigid criteria or on just one person's opinion.
As far as the Kudoz ratings are concerned: AFAIK, the “P” can be used as a search criterion (same as native language, CAT tool, etc.), but if it's not selected, translators still appear in the order of Kudoz points in the pair. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Is there an explanation why a surprising number of P badge recipients have 000 Kudoz participation? | Nov 6, 2008 |
Cindy Chadd wrote:
At that time, I was told that the factors that led to my selection as an initial candidate (not automatically a “P”) included (if I remember correctly) verified credentials, site participation record and WWAs (= client reviews), as well as having endorsed the Proz professional guidelines. If I’m not mistaken, membership in a professional association and high Kudoz acceptance rate with a low level of disagrees were also mentioned (in my case, 1829 ES>EN questions answered, 69.3% accepted, avg. disagrees per question: 0.01). There may have been more. After the program was explained to me, I was asked if I could recommend other people who might be interested and might meet the criteria, based on my direct knowledge gained from having worked with them. I was only able to give a few names. Not all of them are now Certified PROs, so my word was *not* an automatic free ride. My impression is that the recommendations were to short list people so that Proz staff could review their profiles, the same way that mine was reviewed, and decide whether to issue an invitation to apply.
A remarkable number of P-recipients (in my pairs) have 000 Kudoz participation (or any other site activity it seems) and are names that were never visible before suddenly appearing when one does a P-only search.
It is becoming clear that many factors determine who gets a P and not all of them are necessarily language-related.
It's a pity that these questions/this forum post are seen as turning this initiative 'inside out looking for flaws or ulterior motives'. Does this imply that the questions asked here are invalid and unnecessary? This issue never would have been raised if the initial start-up of the P badge had been transparent and in the open and not behind closed doors with a few specially (as opposed to randomly) selected people, who then emerged at the public start of the P program singing the praises of the initiative they had been invited to join.
[Edited at 2008-11-06 09:33]
| | | | | It's a fair point | Nov 6, 2008 |
writeaway wrote:
It's a pity that these questions/this forum post are seen as turning this initiative 'inside out looking for flaws or ulterior motives'. Does this imply that the questions asked here are invalid and unnecessary? This issue never would have been raised if the initial start-up of the P badge had been transparent and in the open and not behind closed doors with a few specially (as opposed to randomly) selected people, who then emerged at the public start of the P program singing the praises of the initiative they had been invited to join.
I certainly don't think the questions being asked in here are invalid and unnecessary, just overly suspicious! It would be reasonable to assume that Henry and co are acting in good faith.
I think (I may be wrong) that the idea was to hammer out most of the set-up with real-life translators before launching it on the Proz public at large. Certainly our input is being requested and incorporated into the system extremely quickly. The staff involved in the process aren't translators, so they need our input to know what we actually want and expect from the programme. Logistically, I can see that launching it in the very earliest stages of its development may have been laudable in terms of transparency, but would not have been very practical or manageable. Equally, by developing the entire programme in-house without the involvement of real-life translators they could have risked producing something which was completely unusable and irrelevant for the very people it was designed for. I assume that the choice to initially invite just a handful of members was to gain the benefit of translator input - but in a manageable form.
I do see this as a great opportunity for the real professionals among us to stand out from the crowd. I think it's a shame, although possibly understandable, that it's been greeted with cynicism. Whatever the reasons for launching this programme, if handled well it can only be a benefit to the site as a whole and its "best" (for want of a better word) members.
| | | | | Not overly suspicious, but where is an official reply? | Nov 6, 2008 |
Marie-Hélène Hayles wrote: writeaway wrote:
It's a pity that these questions/this forum post are seen as turning this initiative 'inside out looking for flaws or ulterior motives'. Does this imply that the questions asked here are invalid and unnecessary? This issue never would have been raised if the initial start-up of the P badge had been transparent and in the open and not behind closed doors with a few specially (as opposed to randomly) selected people, who then emerged at the public start of the P program singing the praises of the initiative they had been invited to join. I certainly don't think the questions being asked in here are invalid and unnecessary, just overly suspicious! It would be reasonable to assume that Henry and co are acting in good faith. edI think (I may be wrong) that the idea was to hammer out
I am not even remotely suggesting that anyone is acting/has acted in bad faith, but I (and perhaps others) would like to hear an official reply. I didn't start this thread and others have also voiced concerns. The idea behind asking those 'overly suspicious' questions was to obtain some transparency with regard to the the whole P badge initiative. There are definitely visible contradictions as to who is likely/not likely to get the P and only someone with decision-making powers can really answer these question. As more Ps are now appearing, it's becoming quite clear that language/translation skills, honesty (bogus native language claims), site participation (P-people who are just paying members but who have never contributed to forums, Kudoz etc) are not the only factors taken into consideration for awarding the P. There is also no statement about confidentiality. People are requested to send Site Staff a lot of personal, confidential information, in the hope, but not the certainty, of getting a P. Is it really overly suspicious to ask for a statement assuring people that this data won't be passed on to third parties? Will the data sent by P-rejects be deleted? Normally such statements are included automatically, aren't they?
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » A couple of questions about the Certified Pro program | 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! » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
