| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | What is the reason for not enabling WWA, since it is only possible to make positive entries? Thread poster: Astrid Elke Witte
|
|---|
| Sorry - I was away for a long weekend. | Oct 10, 2006 |
It was a holiday weekend here, I am just getting to this thread now... will post shortly...
| | | | | Moderating points | Oct 10, 2006 |
Hi all,
I have been asked to intervene for the purposes of rules enforcement in this thread. (Had I been around earlier, I would have intervened earlier.)
Some points:
* First, I want to clarify that WWA is not a topic that is taboo. I did ask people to lay off discussing WWA for a week or so back in June or July so that we could adjust the feature based on the (large amount) of feedback we had received. But then we re-introduced the feature with the change... See more Hi all,
I have been asked to intervene for the purposes of rules enforcement in this thread. (Had I been around earlier, I would have intervened earlier.)
Some points:
* First, I want to clarify that WWA is not a topic that is taboo. I did ask people to lay off discussing WWA for a week or so back in June or July so that we could adjust the feature based on the (large amount) of feedback we had received. But then we re-introduced the feature with the changes requested, as explained here: http://www.proz.com/topic/51026
What I asked, upon the reintroduction, was that those who opt out of using WWA will respect the right of others to use, and to discuss using, WWA. I appreciate that this request has been honored.
* There was no problem with the topic you raised, Astrid, and there is no need to apologize. (A side note: I understand that you went in to make entries for colleagues. A nice gesture! But if they were not people to whom you outsourced paid work, I would ask you to refrain for now. In the reintroduced version, in response to feedback, we are not asking for colleague-to-colleague entries (yet). Just outsourcer-to-colleague.)
* I would join with Luis in calling attention to forum rule 5 ("Speculating on others' opinions is not allowed.") I would ask those whose posts are not entirely consistent with this rule to edit their posts so that what has been written can not be construed as speaking on behalf of others without authority. I'll write personally to at least two posters to make that request.
If there is something else I should review in this thread, something I have overlooked, please do call my attention to it. I have not had time yet to read all of the posts here very carefully. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Please bear in mind that there are valid reasons other than fear | Oct 10, 2006 |
Hi all,
I would like to ask that those using WWA (or not) bear in mind that there are valid reasons not to use WWA, other than fear. We have seen several reasons put forward in this thread, and others in previous threads.
These reasons should be taken at face value. There are considerations unique to each business and personal situation - which in many cases others will not be aware of. Therefore, we should respect each member's right to choose whether or not WWA is rig... See more Hi all,
I would like to ask that those using WWA (or not) bear in mind that there are valid reasons not to use WWA, other than fear. We have seen several reasons put forward in this thread, and others in previous threads.
These reasons should be taken at face value. There are considerations unique to each business and personal situation - which in many cases others will not be aware of. Therefore, we should respect each member's right to choose whether or not WWA is right for him/her, without attaching any significance to it.
That said, fear does exist in relation to WWA. (We know this because some members have said clearly that they are afraid.) There is no shame in this. And there is no reason to pretend that *no one* is afraid of getting bad reviews (even if you are not). ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Thanks, Charlie | Oct 10, 2006 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
I feel that much of the resistance to WWA is to do with how it was announced at the time...
I agree.
If you approach the subject today with no knowledge of the background, it all seems fairly reasonable...
Right. There were clear mistakes in the initial implementation. We don't have a solution that makes everybody happy even now... but I think we have succeeded in smoothing out many of the rough edges. We'll make further adjustments, based on feedback in the future, as is our usual approach.
But at the time, its function was perceived as not at all clear, it was originally proposed to impose "penalties" (related to the BB) for those who opted out
Actually, we have been pretty clear about the intention from the beginning. The first line of the initial announcement said: "As part of the June release, and in response to member requests, we are introducing a new marketing tool for your consideration..."
, the wording on the profile for those opting out was viewed as being fairly negative
Yes, this was a mistake. We corrected that quickly, though.
, the discussion about confidentiality became fairly heated, and generally, I think it's fair to say that an initially negative atmosphere was generated in some quarters about the WWA feature.
Yes, it is definitely fair to say. I agree that this may have something to do with the uptake, which I also find a bit slow relative to other releases. (Just 1637 site users have activated it.)
Note for Henry and/or mods - I'm not trying to re-open any of these debates, I'm just trying to explain to Astrid why there is a certain negativity around WWA. While I have opted out, mainly because I frankly cannot be bothered to ask my clients, most of whom are not on here, to post any feedback, I remain on the fence, neither for nor against.
Understood. Thanks!
| | |
|
|
|
Ruben Berrozpe (X) 
English to Spanish
| Clarifications | Oct 10, 2006 |
First of all let me say that I don't feel comfortable about this topic being reopened, especially on these terms. It would be interesting to speculate on whether the topic would have been locked by now if the thread's main focus had been different - but since this kind of speculation is not welcome (if not explicitly forbidden) in these forums, I will go no further. Let me just point out that I find unfair that a thread portraying a subset of this community (those people opposed to WWA) in such ... See more First of all let me say that I don't feel comfortable about this topic being reopened, especially on these terms. It would be interesting to speculate on whether the topic would have been locked by now if the thread's main focus had been different - but since this kind of speculation is not welcome (if not explicitly forbidden) in these forums, I will go no further. Let me just point out that I find unfair that a thread portraying a subset of this community (those people opposed to WWA) in such a Manichean way is allowed to stay unmodified for so long, not to mention the offensive comments vested by at least one participant in the conversation. The fact that at least two Moderators took part in the discussion and no action whatsoever was taken doesn't say much either about the Site's impartiality in rules enforcement.
As to the subject at hand, there's little I can add to what has already been said. However, since I arrived too late to the 50-page discussion earlier in the year, I will participate with my two cents here:
- First of all, I wonder why no one mentioned an apparent contradiction in the conclusions to the aforementioned thread as opposed to what had been discussed earlier on. If I recall correctly, as the discussion evolved, it was accepted by Henry that the out-out option would be the default and people would be given the opportunity to opt in-out or in-in; mostly because of legal issues concerning the gathering of personal data by ProZ, regardless of whether that data is publicly displayed or not. At the end of the thread, I found (to my dismay) Henry backtracking on this and setting the in-out option as the default, so I guess those legal concerns remain. I would appreciate if anyone can clarify this, since I feel this conflict was lost in the heat of the conversation.
- Second and last, the link between WWA and BB has not been properly justified (in my opinion). The fact that someone opting out-out is not able to help other colleagues by inserting BB entries is beyond my understanding. I agree with something Luis said earlier in the June thread: someone opting out of WWA should not be able to insert WWA comments for other translators, but linking this to BB only reinforces the feeling that WWA and BB are balancing forces (which they aren't) and encourages the misuse of the system via 'tit-fot-tat' actions by resentful outsourcers/translators.
Thanks,
Rb ▲ Collapse
| | | | Astrid Elke Witte
Germany
Local time: 02:35
Member (2002)
German to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Just for clarification, Henry | Oct 10, 2006 |
The colleagues whom I wanted to make a WWA entry for were all colleagues to whom I have outsourced work this year. They had also all done a good job.
Astrid
| | | | | Response to Ruben | Oct 10, 2006 |
Ruben Berrozpe wrote:
First of all let me say that I don't feel comfortable about this topic being reopened
As far as I know, it was never closed. But I will close it now.
Let me just point out that I find unfair that a thread portraying a subset of this community (those people opposed to WWA) in such a Manichean way is allowed to stay unmodified for so long, not to mention the offensive comments vested by at least one participant in the conversation. The fact that at least two Moderators took part in the discussion and no action whatsoever was taken doesn't say much either about the Site's impartiality in rules enforcement.
That is not fair, Ruben. Neither Nancy nor Uldis is biased on this issue, as far as I know neither has opted to use WWA - and even if they had, they are both capable of moderating impartially. It is an unwarranted attack, and a violation of our forum rules, for you to suggest otherwise here.
- First of all, I wonder why no one mentioned an apparent contradiction in the conclusions to the aforementioned thread as opposed to what had been discussed earlier on. If I recall correctly, as the discussion evolved, it was accepted by Henry that the out-out option would be the default and people would be given the opportunity to opt in-out or in-in; mostly because of legal issues concerning the gathering of personal data by ProZ, regardless of whether that data is publicly displayed or not. At the end of the thread, I found (to my dismay) Henry backtracking on this and setting the in-out option as the default, so I guess those legal concerns remain. I would appreciate if anyone can clarify this, since I feel this conflict was lost in the heat of the conversation.
Go back and check, because this is not what was decided. There is no default set at all. As I indicated several months ago, we will ask everyone to make a decision before setting any default. (We have not yet done that.) Those who have chosen to use the WWA feature in its current form have explicitly turned it on, and have explicitly requested entries from their clients. I hope you have no objection to that.
- Second and last, the link between WWA and BB has not been properly justified (in my opinion). The fact that someone opting out-out is not able to help other colleagues by inserting BB entries is beyond my understanding. I agree with something Luis said earlier in the June thread: someone opting out of WWA should not be able to insert WWA comments for other translators, but linking this to BB only reinforces the feeling that WWA and BB are balancing forces (which they aren't) and encourages the misuse of the system via 'tit-fot-tat' actions by resentful outsourcers/translators.
This discussion is beyond the scope of this thread. You have both my rationale and others' opinions in previous posts, so let's leave it at that.
... since I arrived too late to the 50-page discussion earlier in the year, I will participate with my two cents here:
This thread is not a continuation of the 50-page thread - it is a separate matter raised by a separate person. Please be respectful of that, and let those who wish to use WWA discuss it. Thank you.
| | | | | Thanks, Astrid! | Oct 10, 2006 |
Astrid Elke Johnson wrote:
The colleagues whom I wanted to make a WWA entry for were all colleagues to whom I have outsourced work this year. They had also all done a good job.
Great. Thanks for clarifying, and thanks for being considerate!
| | |
|
|
|
GregSmith
Local time: 02:35
French to English
+ ...
| Free marketing | Oct 19, 2006 |
Riccardo Schiaffino wrote:
I don't fear the WWA, but I object to it for several reasons, among which:
1) Contractual obligations.
2) Privacy of my customers.
3) Desire not to impose on my customers.
4) Difference between a system such as WWA and references.
I agree with you all the way, Ricardo.
I am very careful about what websites I sign up to myself, especially if I'm not likely to visit them often, and as an occasional outsourcer myself I would not appreciate a freelancer asking me to sign up to some website for whatever reason, although he/she is welcome to quote me as a reference.
Frankly, this is no more than a means by ProZ to advertise to unregistered outsourcers & get them to visit & register, with registered freelancers serving as marketing personnel.
There are some things I like about ProZ, but that's not one of them.
| | | | GregSmith
Local time: 02:35
French to English
+ ...
desdelaisla wrote:
I reckon it is not a marketing tool for us, but for *outsourcers*; more precisely, a tool to market proz’s services to outsourcers and to convince them to *pay* for proz’s services.
...
… and those of us who have clients and customers not coming from Proz.com, why on Earth would we want them to register to the site? So that they can browse the site and find people offering laughable rates? So that they can browse the jobs section and come to the idea that they are silly to pay us decent rates while most outsourcers are just offering peanuts? That’s incredible…
Proz.com for Employers. In my opinion that was (and is) the main idea behind the WWA, no matter how they tried to convince us with this “marketing tool for us” argument. The site is no longer “the Translators’ Workplace” but rather is (or soon will be) “the Translators and Outsourcers go-between”. OK, if that’s the case, why not SAY IT in the first place. You can’t serve two kings, as this site is aiming to…
...
I very much doubt that this post will appear on your screens, but let’s see.
I'm glad it did. It's the most sensible post on here.
What can I say? You've hit the rather oversized nail on the head!
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » What is the reason for not enabling WWA, since it is only possible to make positive entries? | 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 » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
