| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | Should “native language” claims be verified? Thread poster: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 04:08
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Agree with Jenny (this time) | Sep 10, 2012 |
writeaway wrote: Jenny Forbes wrote:
I suggest that from now on Proz should make it absolutely clear that "native language" claims here are not verified. Thus, outsourcers would be fully aware that it is up to them to check the veracity or otherwise of "native language" claims if that factor is important to them in their selection of a translator. Yes. ... Since it's clear that Proz probably will not and/or cannot reliably "verify" native speaker claims and since the road to making false claims is as wide open as ever, the best solution may well be for Proz to publish a (very) visible disclaimer as they do for other things on the site.
I agree that this would be the very least that ProZ.com should do urgently. Clients are given the wrong impression about the value and/or meaning of "native language" in the search results -- not deliberately, but merely through omission.
The simplest implementation of this is to change the label of the option in the directory search page from "Native language:" to "Native language declared:" or "Native language reported:". Now I realise that very few of the options in the search page are guaranteed anyway, and that the addition "claimed" or "reported" may equally apply to most of them, the fact is that the native language option generates a lot more excitement than any of the others, so it is important to have that label addition at least for the native language option.
My suggestion applies only to the search page and not to the actual profile pages. There is no need to change the label "Native in:" on the profile pages to "Reportedly native in:".
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 04:08
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
I think you misunderstand me. I'm certainly not saying that some credentials are worth more than others...
If you had said it, I would have agreed Some credentials are worth far more than others.
What I am saying is that there are a large number of profiles with credentials that don't even exist and in this instance it has even been verified.
I don't this is a fair statement, though, because it is so sweeping and unverifiable, and it is based on the assumption (no, the accusation) that ProZ.com staff wilfully verfies credentials that do not exist. My own experience with the credential verification process is that they have some rather strict rules about the proofs that they want submitted.
I know what the answer is, but I'll ask anyway: can you tell us about some of these profiles with credentials that do not exist? You don't have to say the names of translators (that is prohibited) but you can tell us the names of the credentials, and we'll google for it (which I have confirmed will bring up those profiles).
| | | | Kay Barbara
United Kingdom
Local time: 04:08
Member (2008)
English to German
+ ...
| P holders: thou shalt not critizise? | Sep 10, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: Kay Barbara wrote:
Certification by peer-review is open to abuse That's interesting from a fellow P holder. I don't think the P system is particuarly corrupt or being abused, and this is a system built on peer-review.
Just to explain: I was given the P when the program was first introduced, I can't remember having been peer-reviewed, though. No one ever asked me to write anything or speak to someone in order to receive it. I can't remember now what information exactly I had to fill in for the P application back then, but I think I was eligible due to my degree.
Anyway, I fail to see how my P-badge is in contradiction to my opinion on peer review - am I not allowed to voice disagreement with something I am part of?
Also, the P does not really mean that much, does it? It's nice, sure, because some clients might think that it really does stand for added value, but I am sure there are sub-par translators with a badge and so many non-P translators which really deserve one but don't bother to apply. I doubt that it matters for my clients whether I have a red P or not.
Lastly, I never said that the P system is "corrupt or being abused". That peer-review is open to abuse can't really be argued, can it? if something is not done 100% objectively, the peers involved may exert influence, that's the nature of the thing. Just look at scientific peer review, a similar case.
Peer review might still be the lesser evil, but I can't really get excited about it.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:08
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Just glance back | Sep 10, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
I know what the answer is, but I'll ask anyway: can you tell us about some of these profiles with credentials that do not exist? You don't have to say the names of translators (that is prohibited) but you can tell us the names of the credentials, and we'll google for it (which I have confirmed will bring up those profiles).
As you say Samuel, it's a bit difficult without pointing fingers but if you just glance back at where I came into the discussion about the CPE, I think you'll see what I mean. I've also JUST spotted a profile with a very dubious claim to be a native speaker (ropey English on the profile, c.v. and website) that has a credential for "English" from the Institute of Translation and Interpreting. "English" that's it (??). Anyway, it's petty and splitting hairs but yes, I think we're rapidly coming to the conclusion that it's probably best if ProZ doesn't claim to verify anything. Clients may eventually come to realise that all information on everyone's profiles has to be taken with more than a pinch of salt and they can go to a professional association or other websites if they really want verified credentials and factual information.
| | |
|
|
|
Kay Barbara
United Kingdom
Local time: 04:08
Member (2008)
English to German
+ ...
| Solution (off-topic) | Sep 10, 2012 |
A solution would be to allow monolingual certificates only for one language, so that something like this can't happen: "English-Spanish, United Kingdom: Camb ESOL"
It should be: "English, United Kingdom: Camb ESOL"
I realize that this may still create the (potentially misleading) impression that the person in question is a viable choice as a editor/reviewer for English ... as you said, this warrants a seperate thread.
By the way I did not mean to point fing... See more A solution would be to allow monolingual certificates only for one language, so that something like this can't happen: "English-Spanish, United Kingdom: Camb ESOL"
It should be: "English, United Kingdom: Camb ESOL"
I realize that this may still create the (potentially misleading) impression that the person in question is a viable choice as a editor/reviewer for English ... as you said, this warrants a seperate thread.
By the way I did not mean to point fingers here, Lisa was confused and I thought I'd help out.
Samuel Murray wrote: Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: Kay Barbara wrote:
By the way, the credential dropdown list also includes e.g. "United Kingdom: Camb ESOL" which you can choose for language pairs. So seemingly a certificate for monolingual language proficiency is readily accepted (by Proz) as a translation credential More proof, if any was needed, that the system is rotten to the core. Information (even verified information) on profiles is worthless. Some credentials are worth more than others, and obviously some are worth less than others, and a monolingual second-language credential is certainly worth less than a bilingual credential, but it is a verifiable credential nonetheless. The main value of a verifiable credential is that it shows that the translator was honest with his declaration. A secondary value exists where the client is aware of the specific credential and wants a translator who specifically has it. I do agree that the feature is imperfect. If you declare a credential and if it is verified that you do have that credential, then your credential status changes from "declared" to "verified", and unfortunately that creates the impression to some clients that you are a good translator (i.e. that you are a "verified" translator), which is not true at all. Having a credential verified should carry no more value than having your identify verified. An overhaul of the credential system may be a topic for a separate discussion, but since it is raised here, let me try to suggest a quick fix: First change the wording in the search page from "N/A; Reported; Verified" to "N/A; Reported". Then, change the results so that if a translator declares any verifiable credential and fails to get his credential verified (by staff), he is treated in the search results as having declared no credential (even if he declared other credentials also, both verifiable and non-verifiable). Third, don't change the wording on the translators' profile pages -- the change suggested here only impacts the search function and not the profile page. This means that clients can filter out translators who made verifiable claims that are as yet unverified, but can still check the translators' profile pages to see which credentails were claimed and/or verified. This is just a stick in the bush -- since you complained about this issue, what would you suggest as a workable solution for it? ▲ Collapse
| | | | Arnaud HERVE
France
Local time: 04:08
English to French
+ ...
I think that to a certain extent, Proz belongs to an earlier generation of websites, around the year 2k, when only people with education got a computer or could use it professionally. I don't know if you remember but back then creating a blog was quite a literary event.
But now we are in what I call a post-web-2 generation, where the most illiterate teenager handling a smartphone can register anywhere and give his opinion about topics he only 10% understands.
As far as ... See more I think that to a certain extent, Proz belongs to an earlier generation of websites, around the year 2k, when only people with education got a computer or could use it professionally. I don't know if you remember but back then creating a blog was quite a literary event.
But now we are in what I call a post-web-2 generation, where the most illiterate teenager handling a smartphone can register anywhere and give his opinion about topics he only 10% understands.
As far as native language is concerned, in the previous generation I would have gladly accepted a non-native engineer with specialized technical background and long-term professional use of English.
But now I cannot help wondering if the person who registered as English language native could be accepted in Anglophone secondary education, has the attention span for texts longer than Twitter, etc. I even canceled my Facebook account because I thought the comments were too useless. And I don't want to know if my American cousin has fed her dog, or went to the restaurant last Friday.
I'm not giving a definite answer here, but I can say that although I am a non-native English speaker with a PhD in English and I am sufficiently experienced in translation, well I don't offer services towards English. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 04:08
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Kay (and @Lisa, I think) -- why not just don't mention the languages? | Sep 10, 2012 |
Kay Barbara wrote:
A solution would be to allow monolingual certificates only for one language, so that something like this can't happen: "English-Spanish, United Kingdom: Camb ESOL". It should be: "English, United Kingdom: Camb ESOL".
Well, in fact, it should be "United Kingdom: Camb ESOL: CAE" or or suchlike. Simply stating "Camb ESOL" gives no indication of the exact qualification that the candidate had obtained -- it could be FCE (the most basic exam for school children) or it could be CPE (a rather more advanced exam, for adults).
I agree that the current practice of tying a credential to a language is silly, to say the least. It incorrectly creates the impression that a translator's credential is proof of his abilities in a certain language pair, which is nonsense. Many reported and verified credentials do not relate to a langauge combination but to just one language, or sometimes not even to a language but to a trade.
I agree with your suggestion but I would take it further -- remove all mention of languages in the credential section unless the credential was specifically for a certain language or if the credential's name actually includes the name of the language. In other words, have a general "credential" section for all the credentials, instead of a separate section for each language combination.
| | | | Kay Barbara
United Kingdom
Local time: 04:08
Member (2008)
English to German
+ ...
In the statement I made (of which you only quoted the last part) I was referring specifically to native German speakers - how would they be caught at an earlier stage?
My point was that verification of native language claims is way down the priority list for me because native language does not tell you enough about translation capability, which is rather what Proz is about IMO, and because it seems to be very hard to implement.
I think Jenny's suggestion is indeed a ray... See more In the statement I made (of which you only quoted the last part) I was referring specifically to native German speakers - how would they be caught at an earlier stage?
My point was that verification of native language claims is way down the priority list for me because native language does not tell you enough about translation capability, which is rather what Proz is about IMO, and because it seems to be very hard to implement.
I think Jenny's suggestion is indeed a ray of hope and the best suggestion so far: to clearly state that native language claims are not verified so no one can say they didn't know.
Phil Hand wrote: Kay Barbara wrote:
I so personally can't see what difference verification makes when they are just unprofessional
Well, one rather obvious difference is that they would be *caught* being unprofessional at an earlier stage. By being eliminated from client searches, a proportion of unprofessional translators (not all, just some) would be removed from the potential pool for some jobs - those jobs where the client decided native language was relevant. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Kay Barbara
United Kingdom
Local time: 04:08
Member (2008)
English to German
+ ...
| Yes, this sounds good. | Sep 10, 2012 |
But let's save this for another thread, in order to not engage in this parallel (but valid) discussion.
Samuel Murray wrote: Kay Barbara wrote:
A solution would be to allow monolingual certificates only for one language, so that something like this can't happen: "English-Spanish, United Kingdom: Camb ESOL". It should be: "English, United Kingdom: Camb ESOL". Well, in fact, it should be "United Kingdom: Camb ESOL: CAE" or or suchlike. Simply stating "Camb ESOL" gives no indication of the exact qualification that the candidate had obtained -- it could be FCE (the most basic exam for school children) or it could be CPE (a rather more advanced exam, for adults). I agree that the current practice of tying a credential to a language is silly, to say the least. It incorrectly creates the impression that a translator's credential is proof of his abilities in a certain language pair, which is nonsense. Many reported and verified credentials do not relate to a langauge combination but to just one language, or sometimes not even to a language but to a trade. I agree with your suggestion but I would take it further -- remove all mention of languages in the credential section unless the credential was specifically for a certain language or if the credential's name actually includes the name of the language. In other words, have a general "credential" section for all the credentials, instead of a separate section for each language combination.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 04:08
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Other web sites and reliable information | Sep 10, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Clients may eventually come to realise that all information on everyone's profiles has to be taken with more than a pinch of salt and they can go to a professional association or other websites if they really want verified credentials and factual information.
Do you know of many professional association web sites that verify all or most of the information in their member directories? I belong to only two, and neither of them have any verification system in place to ensure that what I claim on my profile page on their web site and in their search results are true and correct.
| | | | | Second-best solution, perhaps... | Sep 10, 2012 |
... but possibly better than the status quo
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
....I think we're rapidly coming to the conclusion that it's probably best if ProZ doesn't claim to verify anything. Clients may eventually come to realise that all information on everyone's profiles has to be taken with more than a pinch of salt and they can go to a professional association or other websites if they really want verified credentials and factual information.
That could also be an answer. It might be nice to be provided with a specific space to provide links to such professional organisations - I just whizzed through the "edit profile" options to see if, for instance, there was anywhere to add my CIoL "find-a-linguist" URL next to my credential, but I couldn't even find how to edit that credential (maybe you can't, once it's done it's done?). I daresay there are places I could add it, but some uniformity of approach might be better.
Disappointing though, to finally give up on the idea that this place is anything more than a glorified list of names of people who claim to be able to translate, rather than a place to come with a fair chance of finding someone who can competently provide the service you need.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:08
Hebrew to English
| Not a perfect solution, but stepping in the right direction | Sep 10, 2012 |
Kay Barbara wrote:
Just to explain: I was given the P when the program was first introduced, I can't remember having been peer-reviewed
Ah, that goes some way to explaining then, the initial cohort were picked on other criteria, nowadays we're subjected to peer review.
Anyway, I fail to see how my P-badge is in contradiction to my opinion on peer review - am I not allowed to voice disagreement with something I am part of?
Also, the P does not really mean that much, does it? It's nice, sure, because some clients might think that it really does stand for added value, but I am sure there are sub-par translators with a badge and so many non-P translators which really deserve one but don't bother to apply. I doubt that it matters for my clients whether I have a red P or not.
I didn't say you were contradicting yourself, I just assumed you had gone through the same peer-review process I had that's all.
Whether it truly means much is a good topic for debate (I happen to agree with you there though).
Lastly, I never said that the P system is "corrupt or being abused". That peer-review is open to abuse can't really be argued, can it? if something is not done 100% objectively, the peers involved may exert influence, that's the nature of the thing. Just look at scientific peer review, a similar case.
Peer review might still be the lesser evil, but I can't really get excited about it.
Fair enough, I happen to agree about it being a lesser evil, and far from a perfect solution....but I don't think we're ever going to arrive at a perfect solution, nor please everyone....so maybe we should just look at stepping in the right direction. It can't be any worse than the status quo.
And no, I know you never said the P peer review system was corrupt or being abused, I was using it as an example of a peer review system already in place here on ProZ.com that works relatively well most of the time.
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:08
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Samuel Murray wrote:
Do you know of many professional association web sites that verify all or most of the information in their member directories? I belong to only two, and neither of them have any verification system in place to ensure that what I claim on my profile page on their web site and in their search results are true and correct.
You can be forgiven for not reading every line of this monumental thread However, if you had you'd realise that I did go through some of this not so long ago.
The professional association I belong to verifies ALL claims from members declaring that they have a second native language. The first is not verified but would be backed up by the considerable amount of documentation they require to accept anyone as a member. In terms of language pairs, you can only register for pairs in which you have a relevant qualification. I am down for Spanish to English (having passed their Diploma in Translation) and could also put myself down for Russian to English. Recently I decided to apply for my other two language pairs (Portuguese and French) based on my extended periods of residence and the fact that I've already been translating from those two languages for the best part of twenty years. I've had to submit proof of this work, details on exact volumes etc, plus two referees for each language pair and it's still not enough. I now need to provide proof of my French nationality, any certificates I have obtained in French as well as certificates from all schools attended in Brazil. I suspect that still won't be the end of it. I may just have to bite the bullet and sit their exams in order to be registered for those pairs as well. However, I'm not complaining, it's what ensures the association is not a "free-for-all".
As for specialisations, you're certainly limited in number and although you're not verified on these you are certainly, on pain of death, made aware of their Code of Professional Conduct.
Finally, I might add (quite importantly) that the information on your profile is input by the membership secretary, I cannot add or amend anything.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:08
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | In "About me"? | Sep 10, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
That could also be an answer. It might be nice to be provided with a specific space to provide links to such professional organisations - I just whizzed through the "edit profile" options to see if, for instance, there was anywhere to add my CIoL "find-a-linguist" URL next to my credential, but I couldn't even find how to edit that credential (maybe you can't, once it's done it's done?).
Good idea Charlie. I might as well add mine too. As far as I can see, the "About me" section is the only place we can do it.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 07:38
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Goes against the grain of this discussion | Sep 10, 2012 |
Jenny Forbes wrote:
I suggest that from now on Proz should make it absolutely clear that "native language" claims here are not verified. Thus, outsourcers would be fully aware that it is up to them to check the veracity or otherwise of "native language" claims if that factor is important to them in their selection of a translator.
The true value of this seminal discussion is in the tremendous amount of client education (and translator education too) that it has achieved (or will achieve) on the native language issue.
If we accede to the above suggestion, it would be tantamount to undoing some of that good, as in effect, it would reinforce the importance of native language again. Why otherwise would proz.com disclaim the verification of only this credential when it is widely known that many other credentials are also equally abused? The unintended signal that this would send out is that native language is in some way more important than other credentials.
But this is almost exactly opposite of the consensus that this discussion has finally managed to achieve, that native language is quite irrelevant from the point of translation competence and quality.
The first thing that proz.com should be doing instead in the light of this discussion, is to stop the practice of allowing outsourcers and agencies to filter translators on the basis of native language.
This will send out a clear signal that it is no longer considered in this translator community that native language is any indicator of competence or quality in translation. It will also encourage outsourcers and agencies to adopt/develop more comprehensive filtering mechanisms for identifying translator talent.
And this in my opinion will be to the good of the translation industry as a whole.
[2012-09-10 12:59 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | 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! » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
