| Halaman dalam topik: < [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? Penyiaran jaluran : XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
| Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | Samuel Murray 
Belanda
Local time: 22:02
Ahli (2006)
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Afrikaan
+ ...
| Combining some replies into single post | Jul 4, 2012 |
Andy Watkinson wrote:
LilianBoland wrote:
After reading all of those shocking ideas that professional people should be tested, spied on, categorized, put into boxes, prejudiced against...
Please, this description has nothing to do with the proposals put foward here. This process is called peer review and is firmly established as standard practice in an enormous range of professional/academic/research etc fields.
I know the term "peer review" was used in this thread, but it doesn't have the same meaning as "peer review" in the academic world.
Academic peer review come in two varieties, namely pre-publication and post-publication. Pre-publication is when a researcher voluntarily submits his proposed work to a number of peers for review. What they review is not simply a single fact, but a whole argument. Then, after publication, other peers are free to comment on the publication, but again, they don't review just a single claim but an entire article. In addition, what is being reviewed is not a researcher's claims about himself, but his claims about something else that does not shape his identity or self-worth.
None of what would be called "peer review" in a ProZ.com nativeness checker would the anything remotely like acadmic peer review. What some of us are proposing here is certainly not "firmly established as standard practice in an enormous range of professional/academic/research fields".
It also happens to be a less labour intensive option for the site (making it a more probable solution, as things stand)...
Actually, mandatory testing would be much less labour intensive, unless the number of candidates for whistle-blowing testing is very small. Look at the numbers, however, and you'll see that this is not a small problem -- in some larger languages practically half of the translators confidently claim more than one native language (we're talking tens of thousands of possible "fraudsters").
Implementing a comprehensive whistle-blowing system just so that you can catch the 50 or 100 rottenest apples in the bucket (out of 100 000) is certainly not going to be economical, and it won't have the slightest effect on anyone else's quality of life.
==
Andy Watkinson wrote:
LilianBoland wrote:
Also, should we distinguish between British English, Irish English, American English, Australian English, etc.
Well, Lilian, we've all been taking this into account for decades. You're right; just a bit late and this is NOT the topic.
Actually, ProZ.com has not taken this into account at all. You can claim to be native in English but you can't claim to be native in American English, on ProZ.com.
Not permitting translators to declare American English as their native language is like asking translators to state "Germanic language" or "Romance language" as their native language instead of the actual language.
Those differences might be very important if the translations are to be published... or if they are intended for publication in the most prestigious papers.
What we don't know is why your perpetual point of reference should be newspapers, especially those in the US.
I get the impression that American publishers care a lot more about the nativeness of their English than publishers in other countries (comment, anyone?). Using standardised English is much more of a passion for Americans than for some other English circles, where variety is considered flavour, not error. So it would make sense for an American publication to prefer a native speaking author over a writer whose work has to be extensively panelbeaten into shape. Is this broadly so?
==
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Some kind of report function would be the first step, I think. Nothing systematic, just as and when people spot situations.
Two posters here tried to "report" a colleague here as an experiment or a test of the current abuse reporting system. Both found the experience extremely disagreeable. We all love to complain loudly about it when we see it, but actually reporting it as abuse is a different fish.
[Edited at 2012-07-04 07:35 GMT]
| | | | S E (X)
Itali
Local time: 22:02
Bahasa Itali hingga Bahasa Inggeris
| solution redux | Jul 4, 2012 |
Suggested solution:
Step 1. Handle native-speaker claims the same way as translation credential claims and get rid of the color-coded buttons in order to facilitate clarity. Outsourcers would be given the option to search for verified native speakers of language X. My idea would look like this on the profile page of someone who claims to be a native speaker of both Italian and English:
Native language(s): Italian (verified), English (reported)
or, as the ca... See more Suggested solution:
Step 1. Handle native-speaker claims the same way as translation credential claims and get rid of the color-coded buttons in order to facilitate clarity. Outsourcers would be given the option to search for verified native speakers of language X. My idea would look like this on the profile page of someone who claims to be a native speaker of both Italian and English:
Native language(s): Italian (verified), English (reported)
or, as the case may be:
Native language(s): English (verified), Italian (reported)
Step 2. To get the second (or third or...) native language verified, use a peer review process.
Peer review meaning:
'evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field' (Oxford)
or, more broadly and to present purposes:
'Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility' (Wikipedia)
Re. color-coded buttons: Color-coded buttons (yellow for verified, grey for unverified/reported, what have you) are confusing and time-wasting and therefore their meanings are unlikely to be widely understood. One complaint in this thread has been just that. To facilitate understanding and communication, they should be replaced by the words they stand in for, as is already done for other information on member profiles that is subject to verification. ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:02
Bahasa Portugis hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Ref. solution redux | Jul 4, 2012 |
This is almost exactly what I'd suggested somewhere near the start of the thread, the only difference being that what you call "reported", I called "pending verification". However, the staff reaction to this was not positive:
"The path has already been laid for the native speaker credential, and the grey icons in essence represent that verification has not been made. Those who wish to declare only one native language in the meantime are able to do so-- if two have been declared, the... See more This is almost exactly what I'd suggested somewhere near the start of the thread, the only difference being that what you call "reported", I called "pending verification". However, the staff reaction to this was not positive:
"The path has already been laid for the native speaker credential, and the grey icons in essence represent that verification has not been made. Those who wish to declare only one native language in the meantime are able to do so-- if two have been declared, the icons will be grey. Clicking on the icons shows further information. I see no reason to change this at the moment and I feel it would be more productive for me to focus on some of the improvements I've made mention of here instead." ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
S E (X)
Itali
Local time: 22:02
Bahasa Itali hingga Bahasa Inggeris
| @ Ref. solution redux | Jul 4, 2012 |
Thanks Lisa, I found it on page 18 of this thread, dated June 26.
1.
I strongly if respectfully disagree, then, with the staff position that the current path for the native speaker credential is fine as-is. It is not.
It requires clicking not only to find out what the colors mean but also, more importantly, that they mean anything at all. What's more, first you have to know that you can click, which requires first hovering your cursor over the... See more Thanks Lisa, I found it on page 18 of this thread, dated June 26.
1.
I strongly if respectfully disagree, then, with the staff position that the current path for the native speaker credential is fine as-is. It is not.
It requires clicking not only to find out what the colors mean but also, more importantly, that they mean anything at all. What's more, first you have to know that you can click, which requires first hovering your cursor over the symbol(s).
In the interest of transparency, the visual presentation of the native speaker credential should be handled like the translation credential:
Native language(s): Italian (verified), English (reported)
Or, at the very least, hovering over the native language icon should automatically produce an explanation box, as is already in place for the icons for membership, profile completion, etc.
2.
Verification of more than one native language could be carried to via a process of peer review (see previous post for working definition of peer review).
3.
Outsourcers should be able to search specifically for verified native speakers, just as they are now able to search for service providers with a verified translation credential. ▲ Collapse
| | | | BeaDeer (X)
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Slovenia
+ ...
[Edited at 2012-07-04 11:13 GMT]
| | | | | What on earth... | Jul 4, 2012 |
Why do so many people spend so much time on a non-question?
It's a bit like politics -- lots of talk without substance.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Belanda
Local time: 22:02
Ahli (2006)
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Afrikaan
+ ...
| Lisa's idea versus status quo, and those darned icons | Jul 4, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
However, the staff reaction to this was not positive:
Jared wrote:
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Pending any decisions on how to sort out the current confusion and mess, may I suggest that everyone chooses one native language ... and any further ones remain "Pending verification"?
The path has already been laid for the native speaker credential, and the grey icons in essence represent that verification has not been made. Those who wish to declare only one native language in the meantime are able to do so-- if two have been declared, the icons will be grey.
Let me see if I understand correctly what are the essential differences between what you had suggested and what Staff had explained is the current situation (which they apparently believe is no worse than your suggestion):
You: use words, not icons
Staff: use icons, not words
You: first declared language is assumed verified, until challenged
Staff: sole declared language is assumed verified, until challenged
You: second declared langauge is assumed not verified, until verified
Staff: both first and second declared languages are assumed not verified, until verified
If we skip the icons issue for now, can you explain to us how your suggested "alternative to the current confusion and mess" is drastically better than the status quo? It would seem to me that you are eager to get more translators labelled "verified" without any further verification required.
==
Sarah Elizabeth Cree wrote:
It requires clicking not only to find out what the colors mean but also, more importantly, that they mean anything at all. What's more, first you have to know that you can click, which requires first hovering your cursor over the symbol(s).
I understand that some people are verbal and some people are visual. Some people are confused by lots of icons but would not be bothered by lots of text. Some people will drown in the text and would prefer some of it reduced to icons.
Face it -- icons are *normal* on web sites and also in computer programs. Icons save space, are naturally delimited, and can replace many words instantly, whereas words take up space, needs to be artifically delimited, and can lead to misunderstanding if the user is unaware that the word is really an abbreviation for a much longer explanation.
There are practically no useless or meaningless icons on ProZ.com's web site. All the icons have a meaning. That is normal. Perhaps you just don't realise that icons have meaning, and you tend to see them as just pretty visual effects.
If that is so, then your feature request should not be that those who don't mind icons and find them useful should be shot in the foot but rather that those who don't quite understand the basic concept of icons should be given the opportunity to view the web site with words, not icons. In fact, if you want to please both camps, simply request that all icons get ALT text in the HTML, so that they show up as words instead of icons when the user disables images in his browser.
[Edited at 2012-07-04 10:50 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
LilianNekipelov
Amerika Syarikat
Local time: 16:02
Bahasa Rusia hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
| Only university professors have the right to conduct evaluations of their students. | Jul 4, 2012 |
I am sorry, but my feeling is that with all the steps that are being proposed most people, even the most honest translators, who have some pride will leave. I think the site is as good as it can be for that kind of site. Let clients worry how to verify credential when they are about to sign a contract. Each client may require a different type of verification depending on the seriousness and volume of the work to be performed. Some may want just a short test, others may require copies of diploma... See more I am sorry, but my feeling is that with all the steps that are being proposed most people, even the most honest translators, who have some pride will leave. I think the site is as good as it can be for that kind of site. Let clients worry how to verify credential when they are about to sign a contract. Each client may require a different type of verification depending on the seriousness and volume of the work to be performed. Some may want just a short test, others may require copies of diplomas and certificates, some other clients may still want to check references or see reviews from former clients. I think at this point I got tired of this discussion, although it was very interesting. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Negotiable, naturally | Jul 4, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
@Charlie
Your "verified non-native" idea has two big problems, as I see it. (1) There's no way the staff will agree, because it's too draconian.
But do you (or anyone else) think there is any merit in it? At some hypothetical point, a proposal would have to be hypothetically made with regard to these imaginary changes that will never happen, and in the course of the said negotiations, there would need to be non-existent give and take. The more draconian aspects can be our imaginary bargaining chips
The thing is, as I see it, if I start to offer Eng-Fr, and then claim a grey "N" for French, and then rightly get called up on it and finally rightly fail the test, that then looks no different to me (or a client) to just adding Eng-Fr as a service and not touching the "N"s. And of course, it is no different, except in the degree to which I have shown myself to be an honourable, trustworthy and reliable profile owner, or not, and the degree to which this website can be said to be home to honest, truthful and professional translators who are what they say they are (and offer the services they say they can offer). Or not.
But I can take it or leave it, ultimately.
(And in truth, if I were the King of Proz, I'd just delete the profile, end of story. This is already a concession )
(2) It's a threat, and for threats to work they have to be widely understood and feared. Neither would be the case on Proz - new users wouldn't understand it,
I had always assumed (bad lad) that any hypothetical change, be it the iron fist of an angry god or molly-coddling hand-holding with tea and sympathy for the poor, misunderstood souls, would be preceded by a high profile email barrage lasting at least 3 months. New users who don't understand the importance of truth and honesty are no loss.
and lots of people sign up just to see how it goes, without any level of investment in the site. For them, getting marked "pants on fire" or getting chucked off wouldn't be much of a punishment.
Why do dabblers on a professional website, need protecting? You can dabble and lurk with a fairly minimal profile, and as long as what you do put is the truth, you're laughing. If you don't put the truth in your profile, you're no loss. Oh I just said that. Well, it is the bottom line, AFAIAC.
(Christ, I'm starting to sound like some rabid republican evangelist. I'll start saying "those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear" next. Look what you've done to me. Look!
I'm going to have a nice cup of tea now. )
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:02
Bahasa Portugis hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Samuel Murray wrote:
If we skip the icons issue for now, can you explain to us how your suggested "alternative to the current confusion and mess" is drastically better than the status quo? It would seem to me that you are eager to get more translators labelled "verified" without any further verification required.
I believe I've explained myself already. Any solution is a compromise and accepting that some false claims to native languages will slip through the net is a reality we have to accept (for the time being). If you think staff are going to be willing to verify every single claim to a native language, including those only displaying one, then you're having a laugh.
| | | | S E (X)
Itali
Local time: 22:02
Bahasa Itali hingga Bahasa Inggeris
| @ Samuel: it's not about icons per se, its about clarity in a given context | Jul 4, 2012 |
Hi Samuel,
You must not have noticed that immediately after suggesting that 'native speaker/language verification' be treated like 'translation credential verification' I offered a 'pro-icon' alternative to at least treat the 'native speaker/language verification' icon like the icons for membership and profile completeness etc. by providing a explanation window that appears when you hover your cursor over the icon.
That's hardly a manifesto against icons, as you seem to... See more Hi Samuel,
You must not have noticed that immediately after suggesting that 'native speaker/language verification' be treated like 'translation credential verification' I offered a 'pro-icon' alternative to at least treat the 'native speaker/language verification' icon like the icons for membership and profile completeness etc. by providing a explanation window that appears when you hover your cursor over the icon.
That's hardly a manifesto against icons, as you seem to imply (you wrote, "Face it -- icons are *normal*" following this up with an explanation of the uses of icons - you will get no argument there from me, I disagree with none of it and nor did I before you wrote it).
But nor is my preferred solution to replace this particular icon with words a rail against icons; it's an attempt to make a person's native language status immediately clear to any interested parties visiting that person's profile - by providing the information transparently and at a glance.
Not sure why you would interpret a suggestion to reduce mouse clicks and hovering is an 'anti-image' or 'anti-icon' stance.
It's not about 'minding icons' or whether or not people understand icons and how they work - it's about communicating as clearly as possible and requiring as little of the viewer's effort as possible to get the information on offer. Specifically as regards native language status, which is - as per this thread - perceived by many as needing to be more overtly and transparently communicated to proz.com users.
(As an aside: you wouldn't know this without visiting my profile - which I don't at all expect you to have done - but I have a PhD in Art History, as well as an MA, and as a translator I work almost exclusively on texts for publication having to do with images and visual communication. I have spent 14 years - and counting - professionally dedicated to images and visual communication. So I find it pretty amusing that you would imagine I "don't realize that icons have meaning" or that they are '"just pretty visual effects'". Couldn't be more to the contrary.)
[Edited at 2012-07-04 12:27 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Robert Forstag
Amerika Syarikat
Local time: 16:02
Bahasa Sepanyol hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
| To those who have reported blatant misrepresentation: | Jul 4, 2012 |
What has been the response? Have claimed native languages been removed? Or, on the contrary, upheld? Promises to review the matter at some later date? Set up blue-ribbon panels to make recommendations? What?
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Sepanyol
Local time: 21:02
Ahli (2007)
Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
| Just a different icon | Jul 4, 2012 |
At the moment on my profile page, it says "Native in: English N " - with the N circled in yellow.
I just think the "N" itself is redundant - it's said in words that this is my native language. Why not simply change as follows:
yellow-circled N ---> V (plus circle, colour, whatever you like, with an explanation that V=verified)
grey-circled N ---> R (with an explanation that R=Reported)
Doesn't solve any of the other problems, but it does make things ... See more At the moment on my profile page, it says "Native in: English N " - with the N circled in yellow.
I just think the "N" itself is redundant - it's said in words that this is my native language. Why not simply change as follows:
yellow-circled N ---> V (plus circle, colour, whatever you like, with an explanation that V=verified)
grey-circled N ---> R (with an explanation that R=Reported)
Doesn't solve any of the other problems, but it does make things a little clearer and paves the way for the day when there may actually be fewer reported and more verified native languages.
I can't imagine that would be at all difficult to implement (and I started as a programmer back in the days of batch runs, cards and dumps).
Sheila ▲ Collapse
| | | | Robert Forstag
Amerika Syarikat
Local time: 16:02
Bahasa Sepanyol hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
| An open door is still a door... | Jul 4, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
[I had always assumed (bad lad) that any hypothetical change, be it the iron fist of an angry god or molly-coddling hand-holding with tea and sympathy for the poor, misunderstood souls, would be preceded by a high profile email barrage lasting at least 3 months. New users who don't understand the importance of truth and honesty are no loss.
One hopes that this is how the site would see it as well, but we can't be sure until we see what action, if any, is taken.
In the end, what this issue shows is that a truly radical open-door policy that welcomes all comers and all claims simply isn't possible without an explicit abdication of any pretense of integrity. And claiming indignantly that fraud won't be tolerated while allowing it to flourish doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
| | | | | Halaman dalam topik: < [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? | 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 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 
