| 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: 14:57
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
The thread changed course a little when Jared said that this was something the site was already working on ... I think we then moved on to try to seek a satisfactory interim measure (since the implementation of this verification process could take years).
I did not realise that we were discussing an interim measure. I thought that we were discussing what we believe the ideal would be for ProZ.com to consider as their implemented measure (in the hope that they would read some of what is written here), not just an interim measure.
What I was therefore trying to push for was a clearer form of identification than the somewhat indistinguishable yellow/grey icons we have at present, instead adopting a system of one native language for each individual, with any other "native languages" listed below under the title of "Pending verification".
Yes, but the abuse that Phil is talking about will not be reduced by doing that. Phil's problem is not declaring *multiple* native languages but declaring the *wrong* native language. Having more recognisable labels/icons/descriptions won't reduce the number of people declaring a [single] language as their native language that isn't their native language.
...and those who genuinely have two or more native languages will at least have the benefit of having one of those marked as verified, rather than the two unverified ones they have at present. The "verified" single native language could be disputed by colleagues, as can be done at present, so in fact the change is very small but would be an excellent first step.
Aah, so what you're saying is that people who declare more than one native language can, at present, not be reported to Staff as easily because neither language is "verified", and that by labelling one of them as "verified", complaintants will have a higher chance of getting a fruitful investigation from Staff into the native language claim? I don't think any of the declared native languages need to be "verified" before you are allowed to submit a report of abuse, so if all you wish to accomplish in the mean time is to make it easier for people to report abuse, then I think your suggestions are a bit overkill. Do I understand correctly what you're trying to achieve?
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 08:57
Spanish to English
+ ...
| I am confused | Jun 28, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
We could of course examine the various ways and means of verification and not be off-topic, but the thread changed course a little when Jared said that this was something the site was already working on (so perhaps we can think of that as "stage 2"). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we then moved on to try to seek a satisfactory interim measure (since the implementation of this verification process could take years). What I was therefore trying to push for was a clearer form of identification than the somewhat indistinguishable yellow/grey icons we have at present, instead adopting a system of one native language for each individual, with any other "native languages" listed below under the title of "Pending verification".
Agreed.
The "verified" single native language could be disputed by colleagues, as can be done at present, so in fact the change is very small but would be an excellent first step. Are we agreed?
This seems contradictory to what you've stated above, and I would myself disagree (on pragmatic grounds) with the possiblity of challenges to a single native language.
My view is that a single claimed native language should be exempt from verification and challenges. Only additional languages would be subject to verification and challenges.
The abuse that is the subject of this thread occurs primarily in cases of claims of multiple native languages, and so verification and challenges should be limited to profiles making such claims.
Once again, I think it important to provide very clear and workable suggestions to deal with the issue, in order to prevent stonewalling responses along the lines of (hypothetically) the following:
As the contributions of this thread clearly show, the matter of 'nativeness' is a highly complex issue subject to multiple definitions and interpretations, and therefore is a question that deserves considerable sober reflection before any important decisions can be taken. We therefore have undertaken a commitment to study the issue, and will render a decision regarding dealing with the problem discussed in the present thread--if indeed it is determined that a problem does exist--in due course, although we cannot at this time commit to any concrete timeline for said resolution. We thank everyone for their contributions.
[Edited at 2012-06-28 14:43 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 20:57
Chinese to English
| I would be happy to go with Lisa's suggestion | Jun 28, 2012 |
Samuel: I'm happy to take this step by step - reduce the problem, see if it clears up by itself.
Robert: All native languages - indeed anything you say about yourself on the site - is open to challenge at any time. There isn't a special "native challenge" mechanism, it's just a report of misrepresentation by a site user. So I don't think that part of Lisa's proposal is a problem. Challenges shouldn't be a regular thing, nor the major process by which native claims are regulated; the... See more Samuel: I'm happy to take this step by step - reduce the problem, see if it clears up by itself.
Robert: All native languages - indeed anything you say about yourself on the site - is open to challenge at any time. There isn't a special "native challenge" mechanism, it's just a report of misrepresentation by a site user. So I don't think that part of Lisa's proposal is a problem. Challenges shouldn't be a regular thing, nor the major process by which native claims are regulated; they're just always an option of last resort. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 08:57
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Challenges are, as of now, the only resort | Jun 28, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Robert: All native languages - indeed anything you say about yourself on the site - is open to challenge at any time. There isn't a special "native challenge" mechanism, it's just a report of misrepresentation by a site user. So I don't think that part of Lisa's proposal is a problem. Challenges shouldn't be a regular thing, nor the major process by which native claims are regulated; they're just always an option of last resort.
Theoretically, yes. The reality is that, as of the moment, challenges are not a "last resort" but, indeed, the only resort to deal with the issue. As Lisa points out, any more comprehensive policy might take years to institute. Furthermore, Jared has indicated a willingness to seriously address challenges that are appropriately brought forth regarding seemingly bogus native claims, and I take him at his word.
Given this actual state of affairs, I think it necessary to limit the scope of any challenges that are made.
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:57
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Self-regulation | Jun 28, 2012 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
Given this actual state of affairs, I think it necessary to limit the scope of any challenges that are made.
What I hope is that the system I'm proposing will self-regulate. Now if anyone is stupid enough to make a bogus native language claim then they have to accept that they will be challenged on this. I believe the site already has punitive measures in place to deal with fraudulent claims of any sort. At present unverified languages cannot be challenged.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 20:57
Chinese to English
| First: does it even work? | Jun 28, 2012 |
Before we get into rules to prevent over-zealous challenging, let's determine if the current system is functioning at all.
Dunno about everyone else, but following Jared's clarification on Monday, I reported one unfortunate soul who seems a very obvious case. I'm waiting to see if anything happens on that.
But Lisa, you say unverified can't be reported? Why?
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 08:57
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Let's give the system a reasonable chance. | Jun 28, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Before we get into rules to prevent over-zealous challenging, let's determine if the current system is functioning at all.
Dunno about everyone else, but following Jared's clarification on Monday, I reported one unfortunate soul who seems a very obvious case. I'm waiting to see if anything happens on that.
Agreed. But I think it would be fair to wait at least a month (and not a week, as you suggested in a previous post).
If appropriate action in egregious cases is not taken, I'm not sure what the point would be in continuing the discussion....
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:57
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Unverified cases | Jun 28, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Before we get into rules to prevent over-zealous challenging, let's determine if the current system is functioning at all.
Dunno about everyone else, but following Jared's clarification on Monday, I reported one unfortunate soul who seems a very obvious case. I'm waiting to see if anything happens on that.
But Lisa, you say unverified can't be reported? Why?
As I understand it, the site policy is that an unverified language cannot be considered fraudulent. Jared says as much if I can find his post... As has been proven by other contributions to this thread severe "embellishment" is just seen to be marketing, not deception. I'm not sure outsourcers would see that distinction, at least not in that section of the profile.
Phil, did you report a verified or unverified language?
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:57
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Fewer languages = fewer challenges | Jun 28, 2012 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
If appropriate action in egregious cases is not taken, I'm not sure what the point would be in continuing the discussion....
There's still a point in pushing for one and only one native language to be displayed. I've submitted a support request for clarification on challenging unverified languages. It doesn't change the fact that an outsourcer and I suspect the majority (yes, Charlie B., "the majority") of people on this site wouldn't know how to distinguish between yellow and grey icons and this is exactly the loophole people are currently exploiting.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 20:57
Chinese to English
| I missed that detail | Jun 28, 2012 |
My case was unverified, so apparently not a test of what system there is. Back to the drawing board...
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:57
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Let's wait for confirmation on that | Jun 28, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
My case was unverified, so apparently not a test of what system there is. Back to the drawing board...
I'm double-checking to be sure.
| | | | | Devious souls? | Jun 28, 2012 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
My view is that a single claimed native language should be exempt from verification and challenges.
Not sure about that. People might make a false claim for a single non-native language for, er, "marketing reasons", as some like to phrase it, safe in the knowledge they were untouchable.
This might mean the system needs to allow for a person to have no native language, verified or otherwise, who would then need to be utterly excluded from all searches and whatnot (blocked from responding to job posts, say?)
| | |
|
|
|
| We should submit a poll? :-) | Jun 28, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
... the majority (yes, Charlie B., "the majority") of people on this site wouldn't know how to distinguish between yellow and grey icons and this is exactly the loophole people are currently exploiting.
No argument from me
I said the other day, it's only this thread that alerted me to the different colours anyway.
I'm verified and haven't the foggiest notion specifcally how that happened..... (altho I suppose it could be the degree from an English Univ or the Dip Trans into English?)
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:57
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | But you SWORE Charlie! | Jun 28, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
I'm verified and haven't the foggiest notion specifcally how that happened..... (altho I suppose it could be the degree from an English Univ or the Dip Trans into English?)
http://www.proz.com/faq/2401#2401
| | | | | That must be it... | Jun 28, 2012 |
... because I do spend a lot of time swearing.
| | | | | 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 
