| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11] | TM-Town link at top of Proz kudoz-based ranking searches Thread poster: Jo Macdonald
|
|---|
| Been a member since 2001, on and off... | Jul 25, 2016 |
and never got a decent client out of Proz... lots of contacts, but when they hear my rates, they disappear... and my rates are not incredibly high. Lots more clients through the professional organisations I belong to. Having said that, I still support Proz for the other "things" it offers... 
EDIT: I've been a member since 2004, not 2001...
[Ed... See more and never got a decent client out of Proz... lots of contacts, but when they hear my rates, they disappear... and my rates are not incredibly high. Lots more clients through the professional organisations I belong to. Having said that, I still support Proz for the other "things" it offers...
EDIT: I've been a member since 2004, not 2001...
[Edited at 2016-07-25 12:10 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | They are already integrated | Jul 25, 2016 |
Tom in London wrote:
I suggest that TM Town and the Kudoz ranking should be integrated so that both are shown to the prospective client, at the same time. The one should not be an alternative to the other.
If one logs out and looks at the link at the bottom of the profile page taking visitors/potential clients to "other translators" in our respective language pairs, TM-Town & Kudoz are already listed together.
However there is no actual ranking as such. Being top in Kudoz loses all meaning. This listing seems arbitrarily determined by the powerz that be, with many Peed members, even those with hardly any Kudoz pointz, coming in pages ahead of badgeless members. However there are also P people with high Kudoz rankings who are found way down the list along with ordinary mortals. So it's anyone's guess as to how it's determined where people are listed.
Imo, this new approach to listing people is certainly distorting things.
I would still like this misleading link removed from the bottom of my profile page.
| | | |
writeaway wrote:
If one logs out and looks at the link at the bottom of the profile page taking visitors/potential clients to "other translators" in our respective language pairs, TM-Town & Kudoz are already listed together.
However there is no actual ranking as such. Being top in Kudoz loses all meaning. This listing seems arbitrarily determined by the powerz that be, with many Peed members, even those with hardly any Kudoz pointz, coming in pages ahead of badgeless members. However there are also P people with high Kudoz rankings who are found way down the list along with ordinary mortals. So it's anyone's guess as to how it's determined where people are listed.
Imo, this new approach to listing people is certainly distorting things.
I would still like this misleading link removed from the bottom of my profile page.
Same for the EN-NL pair. No actual ranking and P-listers come first.
I rank 26th in the Kudoz list (and it won't get any better since I decided to discontinue contributing to the farce that Kudoz has become in my language pairs), yet I appear 73rd on the list...
What impression is that going to make on prospective clients, I wonder?
In addition, the list of so-called specialist translators that pops up after clicking the 'legal' tab to the right of the page, contains Prozians who don't even list ‘law/patents' etc. as their specialty!?
What is going on?
I think Proz owes us at least an explanation of how all these so-called rankings are compiled.
I also feel that Henry should address the issue of the UNWANTED link at the bottom of our profile page sooner than 'in the future'.
Today would be perfect, as far as I'm concerned.
As a paying member, I think that I have the right to decide what shows on my profile page and what doesn't.
I want that link removed. My payment includes a profile page on the Proz website. I find it ridiculous that there is a link on my profile page that I did not approve and that could lure potential clients away from my page. If I want to refer (potential) clients, I'll do so myself.
| | | | | Not a new feature | Jul 25, 2016 |
writeaway wrote:
Imo, this new approach to listing people is certainly distorting things.
As I said this is not a new thing.
sindy cremer wrote:
What is going on?
I think Proz owes us at least an explanation of how all these so-called rankings are compiled.
I'm actually not sure, but there are some pages we made some time ago (5 years ago?) for SEO reasons, and this may be one of them, especially since it sounds like this is something only for non-logged-in visitors.
I'm not familiar with the ordering that is being described. Anyway this is very much a fringe feature, which would not represent a significant amount of (human) client activity, but I will look into it when current projects are completed. Perhaps it is something that should be removed.
Philosophically, it is my view that profiles of members should link to other profiles only at the discretion of the profile owner. If you don't want there to be a link to others, basically there should not be one. (At least in most cases -- can't think of exceptions right now.)
Linking from free profiles to the profiles of paying members, on the other hand, is something that should be expected. It is fair for members who have paid for increased exposure to get it. Plus, it can be helpful to outsourcers.
As promised earlier, I will review this when current projects are completed.
| | |
|
|
|
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:11
Member (2008)
Italian to English
| Understanding | Jul 25, 2016 |
Sindy Cremer wrote:
A number of comments I found easy to understand and with which I fully agree.
Not sure that I understand Henry's response, though.
| | | | | Thank you, Henry | Jul 25, 2016 |
for taking the time to respond.
Henry Dotterer wrote:
I'm not familiar with the ordering that is being described. Anyway this is very much a fringe feature, which would not represent a significant amount of (human) client activity, but I will look into it when current projects are completed. Perhaps it is something that should be removed.
The link bothers me, because I don't want my profile page to serve as a search tool for potential clients who found me other than through Proz.com and whom I have referred to my profile page (to check my WWAs for instance).
Competition is fierce enough in our business as it is. My profile page is supposed to help grow my business, not my competitors'.
Henry Dotterer wrote:
Philosophically, it is my view that profiles of members should link to other profiles only at the discretion of the profile owner. If you don't want there to be a link to others, basically there should not be one. (At least in most cases -- can't think of exceptions right now.)
Linking from free profiles to the profiles of paying members, on the other hand, is something that should be expected. It is fair for members who have paid for increased exposure to get it. Plus, it can be helpful to outsourcers.
I fully agree with you there (and can't think of any exceptions, full stop) and I wouldn't be complaining if I were not a paying member.
Last but not least: why has this topic been removed from the 'most recent posts' list on the forums front page?
| | | | | | | Original topic addressed | Jul 26, 2016 |
Sindy Cremer wrote:
Last but not least: why has this topic been removed from the 'most recent posts' list on the forums front page?
When a topic has already been addressed, and the remaining discussion is no longer related to the original topic, we tend to "retire" threads from the home page.
| | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for replying Henry | Jul 26, 2016 |
Just to clarify my complaint: I have NO objections to paying members being listed first. That seems to be standard practice on similar sites as well.
But I do object to the lists of people mentioned being numbered (why hire no. 32 if you can hire no. 1) and to the fact that it seems that those automatically mentioned first are P-badged people. They are not necessarily better than anyone else and this removes any/all value from the Kudoz rankings. Visitors to the site will be unaware... See more Just to clarify my complaint: I have NO objections to paying members being listed first. That seems to be standard practice on similar sites as well.
But I do object to the lists of people mentioned being numbered (why hire no. 32 if you can hire no. 1) and to the fact that it seems that those automatically mentioned first are P-badged people. They are not necessarily better than anyone else and this removes any/all value from the Kudoz rankings. Visitors to the site will be unaware of all this and will naturally be led to think this numbered list reflects individual translation skills. It's only logical, given the bright red badges and the numbers.
This is why I would like to see this either removed from the bottom of our profile pages or at least for us to be given the option to hide it. Naturally the P individuals may want to continue displaying this link to visitors/potential clients. No problems with that as long as it is not visible on my own profile page. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Michael Beijer 
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:11
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
| weighting in the ranking system of P badge vs no P badge vs KudoZ points | Jul 26, 2016 |
Although I think having a P badge should provide some advantage over not having one, I think KudoZ points should carry much more weight in the ranking system than P badges.
Michael
| | | |
writeaway wrote:
Just to clarify my complaint: I have NO objections to paying members being listed first. That seems to be standard practice on similar sites as well.
But I do object to the lists of people mentioned being numbered (why hire no. 32 if you can hire no. 1) and to the fact that it seems that those automatically mentioned first are P-badged people. They are not necessarily better than anyone else and this removes any/all value from the Kudoz rankings. Visitors to the site will be unaware of all this and will naturally be led to think this numbered list reflects individual translation skills. It's only logical, given the bright red badges and the numbers.
This is why I would like to see this either removed from the bottom of our profile pages or at least for us to be given the option to hide it.
| | | | | Just for the record | Jul 27, 2016 |
Henry Dotterer wrote: Sindy Cremer wrote:
Last but not least: why has this topic been removed from the 'most recent posts' list on the forums front page? When a topic has already been addressed, and the remaining discussion is no longer related to the original topic, we tend to "retire" threads from the home page.
The thread I linked in my previous post was "retired from the home page" the same day it was started, while the topics it touched were reported as "addressed" (by the original poster) 8 days later, all without any explanation from the staff (breach of rules, actions taken, rationale, etc.), despite the requests for clarification.
| | |
|
|
|
| Judgments are made as to what is appropriate for the home page | Jul 27, 2016 |
Mirko Mainardi wrote:
The thread I linked in my previous post was "retired from the home page" the same day it was started, while the topics it touched were reported as "addressed" (by the original poster) 8 days later, all without any explanation from the staff (breach of rules, actions taken, rationale, etc.), despite the requests for clarification.
I am not familiar with the forum topic you mention. I don't know who made the change. But the FAQ covers the question of why some topics appear on the home page and some don't. There is not necessarily a breach of rules, it is often more of a judgment call. (For example, postings that say "Look at this job -- they are offering only 1 cent per word!" are often not featured, because they are a tired topic that is not considered worthy of home page promotion.) There are other reasons that a topic may be featured, or not. You should not necessarily expect an explanation when a forum is moved to or from the state where it will be featured on the home page. Of course the thread is still there for those interested.
It is explained in the FAQ in this way: "The home page is important real estate to the ProZ.com community, insomuch as it commands a high degree of member attention and time. In the interest of providing the best possible workplace environment, ProZ.com's staff exercises editorial control over what appears on it (as is common in publishing)..." See: http://www.proz.com/faq/3094#3094
| | | |
Henry Dotterer wrote: Mirko Mainardi wrote:
The thread I linked in my previous post was "retired from the home page" the same day it was started, while the topics it touched were reported as "addressed" (by the original poster) 8 days later, all without any explanation from the staff (breach of rules, actions taken, rationale, etc.), despite the requests for clarification. I am not familiar with the forum topic you mention. I don't know who made the change. But the FAQ covers the question of why some topics appear on the home page and some don't. There is not necessarily a breach of rules, it is often more of a judgment call. (For example, postings that say "Look at this job -- they are offering only 1 cent per word!" are often not featured, because they are a tired topic that is not considered worthy of home page promotion.) There are other reasons that a topic may be featured, or not. You should not necessarily expect an explanation when a forum is moved to or from the state where it will be featured on the home page. Of course the thread is still there for those interested. It is explained in the FAQ in this way: "The home page is important real estate to the ProZ.com community, insomuch as it commands a high degree of member attention and time. In the interest of providing the best possible workplace environment, ProZ.com's staff exercises editorial control over what appears on it (as is common in publishing)..." See: http://www.proz.com/faq/3094#3094
That's totally different from the explanation you gave in your previous post.
That said, I also believe there's a rather big difference between the "home page" ( http://www.proz.com/ ) and the "Most Recent Posts" tab of the forum section ( http://www.proz.com/forum/categories/recent-recent.html ), which is what me and others were actually referring to. And in fact, the "Recent topics in translator forums" section of the home page lists different threads than those appearing in the "Most Recent Posts" (including an empty thread with an empty title posted yesterday, speaking about promotion worthiness...). The "Most Recent Posts" section just lists threads in chronological order, based on the time of the last post, without any need for "editorial" discretion (in fact, from time to time you see 5 years old threads or so being bumped to the top...), so manual intervention to remove specific threads from it (and "from view") seems a very arbitrary action not linked to the FAQ section you posted, but much more similar to a sanctioning measure of sorts (which is why an explanation was asked). Many users use the "Most Recent Posts" section to see what's being discussed at a glance, so removing a thread from there is a very effective way of smothering it and limit its circulation.
At any rate, mine was just a call for transparency, equality and fairness, hoping those are the principles that inform your choices (especially when there are no rules to enforce).
| | | | | I'd be interested to hear (read) Henry's reply to this | Jul 27, 2016 |
Mirko Mainardi wrote: That said, I also believe there's a rather big difference between the "home page" ( http://www.proz.com/ ) and the "Most Recent Posts" tab of the forum section ( http://www.proz.com/forum/categories/recent-recent.html ), which is what me and others were actually referring to. And in fact, the "Recent topics in translator forums" section of the home page lists different threads than those appearing in the "Most Recent Posts" (including an empty thread with an empty title posted yesterday, speaking about promotion worthiness...). The "Most Recent Posts" section just lists threads in chronological order, based on the time of the last post, without any need for "editorial" discretion (in fact, from time to time you see 5 years old threads or so being bumped to the top...), so manual intervention to remove specific threads from it (and "from view") seems a very arbitrary action not linked to the FAQ section you posted, but much more similar to a sanctioning measure of sorts (which is why an explanation was asked). Many users use the "Most Recent Posts" section to see what's being discussed at a glance, so removing a thread from there is a very effective way of smothering it and limit its circulation.
...because Mirko's argument seems to make sense.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » TM-Town link at top of Proz kudoz-based ranking searches | 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! » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
