| Stron w wątku: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | Lawyers, please come back (as KudoZ answerers)! Autor wątku: Claire Titchmarsh (X)
|
|---|
| Agree with Lesley | Oct 27, 2006 |
Lesley Clarke wrote:
On another point, I don't agree with prohibiting non-native speakers from answering, I know on at least one occasion I knew the answer to a translation into Spanish precisely because of my experience doing the translation in the other direction while on another occasion it took the combined efforts of native Spanish speakers and English speakers to dillucidate the best translation of an expression in Spanish.
I've had this on a couple of occasions too - the native Italians came up with plausible translations of the English original, but my experience of translating from the Italian meant that I knew their suggestions didn't correspond to actual usage.
I think this (certainly for me, anyway) holds true more for specific one or two word terms rather than longer phrases though; every time I've suggested an answer in Italian to a longer question, some native speaker has suggested something altogether more... well... Italian
As far as the glossary is concerned, I'd suggest having the Kudoz moderators pick a team of 3 willing members for each language and speciality to go through a given number of entries at a time and weed out the rotten eggs (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor) on a majority decision. I suggest 3 to enable more than one team to be available, to avoid the system having an excessive impact on the users involved (who presumably will also have some "real" work to do...)
[Edited at 2006-10-27 17:18]
| | | | | But how can we measure, for practical purposes? | Oct 27, 2006 |
Claire Titchmarsh wrote: Things are definitely sliding But so far, every time we have polled the community as a whole, the consensus is that the level of KudoZ discourse is either the same or gradually improving. My conclusion is that the community is dynamic, and when people leave, others step in. (But maybe we should poll again.) - A general poll will include all the people who provide rubbish answers, so obviously it will not deal with the problem.
Point taken (although I don't think a poll is worthless.) But what alternative approach to assessing quality trends would you recommend?
Since I joined the site in 2003 I have noticed a decline in quality, although the dodgy answers have always been a feature, it seems that now there are more people just slapping down any old answer with no web references or any further information, and this has been particularly noticeable over the past 12 months.
OK. Is there anything you can point to as concrete evidence?
I am not saying it is not happening... but people were saying exactly the same thing in 2003, ie. the time you joined, as you are saying now and logically, it is impossible that we have been in freefall since 2000 (in other words, that there would be six years of freefall after only 6 months of the KudoZ good old days...)
It is possible that the last year, for once, is different. But how can we tell? Let's be creative, folks.
I am not saying Claire is wrong in her assessment, and there have always been people willing to agree that KudoZ quality is falling (even as others deny it)--but I am searching for a way to measure.
For practical purposes, it is not enough to just say "I am sure it is." How would we know what to do if we can't pinpoint or describe the problem?
Thoughts would be appreciated.
| | | | Ford Prefect 
Burkina Faso
Local time: 16:46
niemiecki > angielski
+ ...
henry wrote:
OK. Is there anything you can point to as concrete evidence?
You could do this by picking a few guys and girls with reasonable Kudoz records in certain pairs and fields and asking them to assess 100 randomly-selected questions each within their fields of expertise from 2001 and 2006. Anonymise the questions (take all the names out), and present them in such a way that the assessor cannot tell if the question was asked in 2001 or 2006. You could present them in a random order with just a reference number, for example. Quality at the end of the day is about whether the end product is any good. The points farmers and idiots will always be with you and perhaps in terms of quality, what we mean is what proportion of questions get one correct or otherwise useful answer, and for the sake of the glossary whether the asker makes the correct choice.
So each person gets asked to review 200 questions, and grades each one on three criteria as follows:
First criterion
1. There was at least one useful/correct answer proposed.
2. There were no useful/correct answers proposed and I think I could have proposed a useful/correct answer.
3. There was no useful/good/correct answer and I don't think I could have proposed a useful/correct answer.
Second criterion
1. The asker picked a useful answer.
2. The asker picked a dumb answer.
Third criterion
1. There were no dumb/blatant points farming answers.
2. There were one or more dumb/blatant points farming answers.
Necessarily this involves a degree of subjectivity, so pick people who are widely respected to do the grading. I have a good idea (which should be obvious) as to what the difference in criterion 1 scores would be between that 5 year gap, but no idea if there will be any change in criteria 2 and 3. If you find no significant difference in the number of questions scoring 1's in the final 2 criteria between 2001 and 2006, that should squish complaints about quality deteriorating.
| | | | | Thoughts? But you already have plenty of thoughts on Kudoz et alii... | Oct 27, 2006 |
Hello Henry,
You know that I just recently made some (constructive) comments to you which, among other things, were aimed at calling your attention about the "slowness" with which some innovations seem to be implemented in Proz.com.
I thought that part of this slowness was due to the fact that maybe you had too little personnel and that you were overwhelmed with tasks, because we see you not infrequently involved in trying to solve many complaints or issues that are pos... See more Hello Henry,
You know that I just recently made some (constructive) comments to you which, among other things, were aimed at calling your attention about the "slowness" with which some innovations seem to be implemented in Proz.com.
I thought that part of this slowness was due to the fact that maybe you had too little personnel and that you were overwhelmed with tasks, because we see you not infrequently involved in trying to solve many complaints or issues that are posted in the forums (for example, this one).
But you explained to me all the tasks your team performs and that your ubiquitous involvement in the site was basically just a sign of your enthusiasm for the site.
Still, after the recent mega-thread about Proz innovation, we are still not seeing any changes or actually they are not taking place as quickly as probably most of us would like (and if you doubt how many of us wish these things, make the surveys quicker so you get a quicker idea of things).
In the case of Kudoz, as some and even yourself have more or less acknowledged, it seems some issues keep popping up after so many years and they have not been solved to date.
For example, if you asked me, I would say the time has clearly come for Proz.com to hire (and pay) a team of professional linguists to take over the control of Kudoz, because the population of Proz.com has become too high (and keeps increasing) and more and more people use and contribute to Kudoz.
Therefore, the amount of entries in KudoZ has grown to an amazing volume and needs urgent "polishing", as well as a stricter control of it, to avoid, for example, increasing abuses of the point system (if you wish to keep this point system).
If only "voluntary" work is dedicated to this area, it could happen that the volunteers might not dedicate the time that is really required to perform the duties I already mentioned, because voluntary work is based on the time left (from both work and personal activities) to do something, as opposed to having someone duly paid and dedicated full-time to do something.
In short, Henry, if you consider urgently expanding your paid/qualified personnel in some areas, my common sense tells me that you will both *really* improve these areas and Proz.com's image in the process, which means more business, which I presume is something that has a major importance for the site, as only more business can finance more resources (and thus, better management).
Since your business concept of Proz.com is based on the idea of the involvement/participation of the community, I think it is obvious that you should consider carefully (and very seriously) what the community tells you, especially when some changes are time and again requested and when its members (paying/non-paying) have given you clear signs that their intentions are aimed at really improving the site.
We all (not only you) will benefit from a better managed and more professional Proz.com, because Proz.com is (and can be even more) a very useful resource to a good number of language professionals throughout the world.
Finally (yes, finally!), I repeat an idea I proposed in your recent summary of the mega-thread about surveys for improvements: for the sake of *total transparency* about the results, make surveys by emails (as opposed to polls, because not everyone participates in the forums or site).
Send the emails to each and every member and/or user and publish the results in a list that includes the name/nickname of everyone who participated. You don't necessarily have to include what the person voted (but it could be interesting that you did, so we all know our respective points of view about certain issues).
Again, have a good weekend (it's almost bedtime around here),
Ivette
PS: I avoid site participation on weekends, so in case you make a reply, see you next week. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| In response to Ivette's post: | Oct 27, 2006 |
I think a considerable number of Kudoz users would be happy to help upgrade the system free of charge - I know I would.
I also have a hunch that any decrease in the quality of questions asked/answers picked is due to the ever-increasing number of questions from "unregistered askers"; however, I blocked notifications from such users several months ago precisely because of this hunch, so my impression may be incorrect.
As far as medical/chemical is concerned, and consider... See more I think a considerable number of Kudoz users would be happy to help upgrade the system free of charge - I know I would.
I also have a hunch that any decrease in the quality of questions asked/answers picked is due to the ever-increasing number of questions from "unregistered askers"; however, I blocked notifications from such users several months ago precisely because of this hunch, so my impression may be incorrect.
As far as medical/chemical is concerned, and considering only registered users and members, I don't believe there's any perceptible decrease in quality of questions asked or answers picked since I first registered nearly 3 years ago.
[Edited at 2006-10-27 21:15] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Excellent suggestion, Ford Prefect | Oct 27, 2006 |
Ford Prefect wrote: henry wrote:
OK. Is there anything you can point to as concrete evidence? You could do this by picking a few guys and girls with reasonable Kudoz records in certain pairs and fields and asking them to assess 100 randomly-selected questions each within their fields of expertise from 2001 and 2006. Anonymise the questions (take all the names out), and present them in such a way that the assessor cannot tell if the question was asked in 2001 or 2006. You could present them in a random order with just a reference number, for example. Quality at the end of the day is about whether the end product is any good. The points farmers and idiots will always be with you and perhaps in terms of quality, what we mean is what proportion of questions get one correct or otherwise useful answer, and for the sake of the glossary whether the asker makes the correct choice. So each person gets asked to review 200 questions, and grades each one on three criteria as follows: First criterion 1. There was at least one useful/correct answer proposed. 2. There were no useful/correct answers proposed and I think I could have proposed a useful/correct answer. 3. There was no useful/good/correct answer and I don't think I could have proposed a useful/correct answer. Second criterion 1. The asker picked a useful answer. 2. The asker picked a dumb answer. Third criterion 1. There were no dumb/blatant points farming answers. 2. There were one or more dumb/blatant points farming answers. Necessarily this involves a degree of subjectivity, so pick people who are widely respected to do the grading. I have a good idea (which should be obvious) as to what the difference in criterion 1 scores would be between that 5 year gap, but no idea if there will be any change in criteria 2 and 3. If you find no significant difference in the number of questions scoring 1's in the final 2 criteria between 2001 and 2006, that should squish complaints about quality deteriorating.
I like it! Not just for checking the trend, but also for setting a baseline, against which improvements in quality can be measured.
Thanks, Ford Prefect!
| | | | | Quality of answers | Oct 27, 2006 |
Actually I for one have no problem with the quality of the answers I get in my pair, Spanish-English. I find I often get a choice of very well thought out answers. I also find the glossary essential and one of the first places I consult for terms.
| | | | | Thanks, Ivette | Oct 27, 2006 |
ICL wrote:
For example, if you asked me, I would say the time has clearly come for Proz.com to hire (and pay) a team of professional linguists to take over the control of Kudoz, because the population of Proz.com has become too high (and keeps increasing) and more and more people use and contribute to Kudoz.
It is not clear to me that this would be a solution to the issues raised, or that it would be viable, but it is fresh thought, so thanks for the input!
| | |
|
|
|
Claire Titchmarsh (X)
Local time: 18:46
włoski > angielski
+ ...
NOWY TEMAT | I also liked F. Prefect's suggestion | Oct 27, 2006 |
...and it might be a useful (although time-consuming) exercise to prove what I'm saying about declining quality.
But with all due respect this is missing the point: the problem exists, is perceived by a significant number of users and has been ever since the site was launched, by your own admission Henry. The same complaints are still being received 6 years on. This means that the problem hasn't been solved.
The only concrete evidence I can give, without spending eon... See more ...and it might be a useful (although time-consuming) exercise to prove what I'm saying about declining quality.
But with all due respect this is missing the point: the problem exists, is perceived by a significant number of users and has been ever since the site was launched, by your own admission Henry. The same complaints are still being received 6 years on. This means that the problem hasn't been solved.
The only concrete evidence I can give, without spending eons trawling through the Kudoz answers of the past 3 years, is to state that there are between 5-10 top quality answerers in the IT-EN pair (I won't name them obviously) who used to post when I first started using proZ, and have now stopped completely. They are still registered users, though some of them have not renewed their platinum memberships.
ICL also raised a valid point: thousands of questions have now been posted, many of which are duplicated. This proves that few bother with the Kudoz Term search before posting, something that should be drummed into people so nobody wastes time. However, people may be posting the same term twice because nobody gave a good answer the first time - so any unsatisfactory questions should be removed from view altogether, rather than left as a lesson on how not to translate that particular term, a lesson that not everybody will understand. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Thanks again, Claire | Oct 27, 2006 |
Claire Titchmarsh wrote:
...and it might be a useful (although time-consuming) exercise to prove what I'm saying about declining quality.
Not exactly the "scientific method", Claire! (In other words, it might also show something other than what you expect. )
But with all due respect this is missing the point: the problem exists, is perceived by a significant number of users and has been ever since the site was launched, by your own admission Henry. The same complaints are still being received 6 years on. This means that the problem hasn't been solved.
Please allow me to restate my point. At any given time since 2000 on, there have been some site users, the faces changing but the message similar, saying that KudoZ quality had dropped dramatically in the latest period of months or years. They do not tend to say that quality was always low and should be improved, they tend to say that quality was once high, but is no more.
Take 2003, the time you joined. Apparently you regard this as a time that experts were contributing more actively than they do now. But even then, there was a group of members saying that KudoZ quality had already declined dramatically, and that none of the good answerers remained. Why the difference in perspective? Is it possible to be in a state of dramatic decline perpetually?
Even in this thread, we have a report that quality in the Spanish KudoZ is fine. Hence the idea of measuring. (Thanks, again!)
The only concrete evidence I can give, without spending eons trawling through the Kudoz answers of the past 3 years, is to state that there are between 5-10 top quality answerers in the IT-EN pair (I won't name them obviously) who used to post when I first started using proZ, and have now stopped completely. They are still registered users, though some of them have not renewed their platinum memberships.
OK, but what I am wondering is whether this is normal turnover (albeit undesirable - the community would benefit from continued participation by top members!), and hence, that they have been replaced by new, outstanding professionals. (Just as you may have replaced someone that had been "lost" in 2003, Claire.)
ICL also raised a valid point: thousands of questions have now been posted, many of which are duplicated. This proves that few bother with the Kudoz Term search before posting
One can no longer post without a search being performed. So it is not really a question of getting people to "bother".
However, people may be posting the same term twice because nobody gave a good answer the first time - so any unsatisfactory questions should be removed from view altogether, rather than left as a lesson on how not to translate that particular term, a lesson that not everybody will understand.
Really? I am not sure that everyone would agee that having nothing is better than having something.
...............
This thread shows that as usual, there are a variety of ideas on how to best improve upon KudoZ. I hope you will all take part in the discussions that follow our posting of our KudoZ objectives and plan (sometime around the week after next) in this thread.
(The order in which we will release action plans corresponds to the community's preferences, with (1) more opportunities to meet desirable clients being first, and (2) KudoZ and quality being second.) Other issues (profiles, Blue Board, forums, etc. will follow.)
| | | | suvasree
Local time: 22:16
angielski > bengalski
+ ...
| Ten Questions for Henry | Oct 28, 2006 |
1. When you first made a plan for Kudoz did you conceive of it as a cooperative endeavour or as a competition? Do you think these two can go hand-in-hand?
2. If Kudoz in your mind was a cooperative endeavour, why did you introduce the points system? Did you mean it to be an "incentive"?
3. One of the reasons why people buy Platinum membership here is to get "prominence". Do you think Kudoz gives you the same since you have decided to rank translators according to the K... See more 1. When you first made a plan for Kudoz did you conceive of it as a cooperative endeavour or as a competition? Do you think these two can go hand-in-hand?
2. If Kudoz in your mind was a cooperative endeavour, why did you introduce the points system? Did you mean it to be an "incentive"?
3. One of the reasons why people buy Platinum membership here is to get "prominence". Do you think Kudoz gives you the same since you have decided to rank translators according to the Kudoz they have earned and the money they have paid to you and there are no other criterion? If it does, do you believe that it may give rise to an unhealthy competition in a field like translation which is subjective and there may be some who would try to earn points by not very honest means? Do you even believe that points can be earned by dishonest means or do I have to show you?
4. Have you observed that some people registered here always answer a question in 5/10 minutes and they have been doing it for the last 3/4/5 years? Do you believe that you can answer each and every question in such a short time years on end unless...? Do you want examples? How can you answer almost every question within the first ten minutes of it getting posted if you are a translator yourself and is hard-pressed for time? How can you have instant solutions in minutes when I have searched for it may be for hours?
5. Do you think that there would be translators who might not feel inclined to participate in this exercise and hence would not get prominence in your site although they may be excellent translators? Do you feel that there may be translators who would not agree with this system of instant translation on principle and hence would reject it and as a consequence would be less important for your site?
6. If points do not matter and if everyone is honest about it, why do we see so much acrimony and negative remarks in the Kudoz forum? Why do you think that people who should have nothing to do with a certain language pair are prompted to put forward their answers? Isn't it for more points?
7. You do believe that anyone and everyone can judge a translation, don't you? Or why have you conceived of such a great plan where translators are ranked according to the judgement of the Askers who can be just anybody?
8. You still hardly see any decline? Shall I give you numerous examples of irrelevant questions, questions dealing with topics that can't have anything to do with a professional translator's job? Your so called top-ranked translators have answered such questions!
9. Do you believe that you can judge the quality of a translation from samples? Do you think it possible to translate words/terms/phrases out-of-context?
10. Why would someone new to this profession pay you money when he knows that there would be "grandfathers" always ranked above him in the Directory?
Henry, you should have the courage to say that you meant it to be competitive and you should erase any bogus talk about a cooperative endeavour. I hope your "competitive" site would do much good to the world of translation with more "instant" answers! ▲ Collapse
| | | | CMJ_Trans (X)
Local time: 18:46
francuski > angielski
+ ...
| Dear Henry....... Yours exasperated | Oct 28, 2006 |
Dear Henry,
I have just read and re-read your response to Claire's very pertinent comments and I would respectfully suggest that you take a step back and put yourself in the shoes of a neutral and objective observer, read through the whole thread again and imagine what an outsider would think of your remarks.
Have you never noticed that you are ALWAYS on the defensive? Your immediate reaction to anything you construe as critcism is to snatch at straws to prove that, in the end... See more Dear Henry,
I have just read and re-read your response to Claire's very pertinent comments and I would respectfully suggest that you take a step back and put yourself in the shoes of a neutral and objective observer, read through the whole thread again and imagine what an outsider would think of your remarks.
Have you never noticed that you are ALWAYS on the defensive? Your immediate reaction to anything you construe as critcism is to snatch at straws to prove that, in the end, everything is OK with the site and any slippage people may think they have noticed is a just figment of their imagination.
It is precisely because of this sort of blinkered attitude that the site is, whether you want to believe it or not, in trouble today. Just as Nelson is reputed to have put the telescope to his blind eye (Enemy ships? I see no enemy ships) you seem to be in denial that anything could be wrong with your "precious" site.
If I use the term "precious site", it because clearly ProZ.com is your baby and you are offended if anyone dare tell you it is less than perfect, even if they are doing it for your own good.
In you reply to Claire, you said: "Even in this thread, we have a report that quality in the Spanish KudoZ is fine. Hence the idea of measuring. (Thanks, again!)".
Frankly when I read that, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. One person expresses satisfaction with a language pair from which there has just been a massive exodus of members and you take that for a sufficient vote of confidence..... Come on!
There have now been so many people appealing to you to do something to "stop the rot" that, even if you personally do not believe there is a rot, don't you think it's time that you stopped ignoring the call?
A point I should perhaps add to give weight to what I am saying is the following:
You claim that as fast as one set of good people leave the site (by natural attrition, I presume you mean?), there are others waiting in the wings to take their place. While this may have been true in the beginning, it certainly no longer true today.
When the site was first launched, there were scores of older, more experienced professionl translators out there, for whom the site was something brand new. All were potential members of the site. Many joined - and lots of them have subsequently left. To begin with, there were other good people to "replace" them indeed but you may just have squandered this initial capital with the result that all that is left is the odd person who may suddenly wake up to the site's existence plus a host of younger greenhorns, who need help and do not yet have the breadth and depth of experience to help others. In short, the site is increasingly becoming a case of the blind leading the blind. The rich seam that you tapped when you first started has, as in all such cases, inevitably dried up.
So, Henry, you really must do something to attract the "old hands" back or standards will eventually plummet to the extent that ProZ.com will become an international joke.
You may not wish to publish this contribution as it stands but as long as you read it (and take its content to heart), it will have served its purpose. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ford Prefect
Burkina Faso
Local time: 16:46
niemiecki > angielski
+ ...
Claire Titchmarsh wrote:
...and it might be a useful (although time-consuming) exercise to prove what I'm saying about declining quality.
Or it could do the opposite or indicate there is no change.
But with all due respect this is missing the point: the problem exists, is perceived by a significant number of users and has been ever since the site was launched, by your own admission Henry.
But perception can be influenced by a number of things and is often at odds with reality, cf my comments above. That's why an experiment, subjective of course but with the assessors blind to the things that might prompt their own opinion to influence the result, would be helpful. It could confirm or deny this perception with considerable accuracy.
Most Kudoz pairs (and I admit I have not contributed or asked much in the last few months due to being busy with other things) get infested by individuals who clearly don't have a clue what they are talking about from time to time. While this is irritating it doesn't take long for people to work out who they are and ignore them or chase them off.
Quality, in fact, relies greatly on the asker and in particular their ability to pick the best of the answers proposed, or CWG if there are no good answers. Arguably this is more important than whether or not 3 answers are dumb. A clued-up asker will not accept them unless by sheer chance one of them is actually correct.
Another factor that plays over time is that the glossary gets filled up with the "easier" terms. By definition the proportion of challenging terms asked today is going to be much higher than previously. This also means that (a) less attempts to answer them will be serious (b) more answers, even from good translators, will be wrong. You work in both my pairs too, and ask yourself - which pair is most challenging to answer (IMO: DE>EN), and which pair consistently places more demand on Kudoz (again, IMO DE>EN - this would be easy to confirm).
However, people may be posting the same term twice because nobody gave a good answer the first time - so any unsatisfactory questions should be removed from view altogether, rather than left as a lesson on how not to translate that particular term, a lesson that not everybody will understand.
I sympathise with this view but don't agree with it. Kudoz is not an edited resource. Caveat lector. Dictionaries are edited and still get it wrong occasionally. Caveat lector. Improving the quality of the open glossary will require time and effort which not everyone has or is prepared to offer. It is also subject to the law of diminishing returns. In any case, if you find duff terms you can still disagree with them after the event, if you find terms with no good answers, you can submit an answer post-grading. Let other people make their own minds up about whether their search has yielded useful results. Of course people will always make bad choices, we all do it but hopefully you and I make bad choices less frequently than others. Provided people are aware (as they should be) that Kudoz is not The Infallible Word of The Supreme Translator, there is nothing more we need do. Let the glossary users "edit" the answers for their own purposes rather than trying to spoon-feed them.
| | | |
Ford Prefect wrote:
So each person gets asked to review 200 questions
I doubt very much that you'll find people prepared to review 200 (!) questions for free. You might be able at first, but then the interest will drop. And why, then? These so called 'respected members' have plenty of experience and knowledge and rarely use KudoZ. Why improve it? What's for them to gain? And as far as the quality of the glossaries is concerned, if you know your job, you will be able to discern between good and bad answers. There is no way KudoZ can be improved as it stands. It's a flawed system as it is. Personally, I rarely take part and have almost stopped answering, but I still give the occasional disagree. I'm curious to see what the site's proposals will be.
Giovanni
| | | | Ford Prefect
Burkina Faso
Local time: 16:46
niemiecki > angielski
+ ...
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
I doubt very much that you'll find people prepared to review 200 (!) questions for free.
So give them a year's free membership or something.
You might be able at first, but then the interest will drop.
You only need to do it once, one person per pair and speciality - pick the top 5 pairs and the top 3 specialities, that means you only need 15 people.
And why, then? These so called 'respected members' have plenty of experience and knowledge and rarely use KudoZ.
Oh, I don't know. Many of the most respected members have huge Kudoz tallies, like you do.
Why improve it?
Agreed. See my previous post. We all know the system is flawed, but it is a lot more useful than nothing. After all, you have quite a good score and have even asked some questions too. So you can't find it all that bad.
And as far as the quality of the glossaries is concerned, if you know your job, you will be able to discern between good and bad answers.
Agreed.
There is no way KudoZ can be improved as it stands. It's a flawed system as it is.
Show me a system that is not flawed and I will concede that those who want perfection are realists.
| | | | | Stron w wątku: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Lawyers, please come back (as KudoZ answerers)! | 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 » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
