Blue Board - only substantiated quality issues should matter for rejecting an entry Thread poster: Thomas Johansson
|
|---|
According to the current Blue Board rules, LWA entries are allowed only when "there have not been complaints related to quality shortly after delivery".
I can see the point of not allowing negative LWA entries by a translator who has submitted a seriously bad translation: If such entries were allowed, anyone could deliver a very bad translation and, if the client refused to pay, they could then put a negative LWA entry on the Blue Board as a means to put pressure on the client. We ... See more According to the current Blue Board rules, LWA entries are allowed only when "there have not been complaints related to quality shortly after delivery".
I can see the point of not allowing negative LWA entries by a translator who has submitted a seriously bad translation: If such entries were allowed, anyone could deliver a very bad translation and, if the client refused to pay, they could then put a negative LWA entry on the Blue Board as a means to put pressure on the client. We don't want the Blue Board to be abused in this way.
However, I feel the rule, in its current formulation, is too vague.
As currently stated, any fraudulent or unprofessional agency or client could effectively use it as a means to remove any unfavorable LWA entry from the Blue Board: As soon as a negative entry is posted by a translator, the agency (or other client) could just claim there had been a "quality issue" with the translation delivered by the translator and the entry would be removed.
To back up their claim, the agency would also need to have complained about the quality shortly after delivery, but any fraudulent agency could easily implement such complaints as a working routine in all their relations with translators. Once the translator posts a negative entry on the Blue Board, the agency would then quickly get it removed by pointing out the quality complaint it had made. And the wider translator community would never be informed about the bad practices of this agency.
So, I propose that not any sort of "quality issue" should be accepted by Proz.com as a basis for rejecting a negative entry.
The current rule already limits the relevant quality issues to those done "shortly after delivery".
I propose the following additions:
- Only real, substantiated and well-founded quality issues should be accepted as a basis for rejecting an entry.
- The translator must have been informed about specific quality issues detected (concrete examples of errors, etc.).
- The translator must have been given an opportunity to defend or correct their translation.
Only in case these conditions are met, a quality issue should be considered as a basis for rejecting an LWA entry.
[Edited at 2016-11-02 17:18 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | esperantisto 
Local time: 11:51
Member (2006)
English to Russian
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | No, they can’t | Nov 2, 2016 |
Thomas Johansson wrote:
… As soon as a negative entry is posted by a translator, the agency (or other client) could just just claim there had been a "quality issue" with the translation delivered by the translator and the entry would be removed.
They can’t just just claim it, they are normally asked to present documented evidence, and translators can react.
| | | | Yolanda Broad
United States
Local time: 04:51
Member (2000)
French to English
+ ...
MODERATOR | Relevant Blue Board rule | Nov 2, 2016 |
The complete rule does not state that an outsourcer merely has to complain about quality to get an LWA squashed. For the full rule, see: http://www.proz.com/faq/3031#3031
[Edited at 2016-11-02 12:25 GMT]
| | | | | Showing that you have "merely complained" seems to be sufficient to request removal... | Nov 2, 2016 |
Yolanda Broad wrote: The complete rule does not state that an outsourcer merely has to complain about quality to get an LWA squashed. For the full rule, see: http://www.proz.com/faq/3031#3031 [Edited at 2016-11-02 12:25 GMT]
What the BB FAQ says on the subject is:
1.3
"You may only make entries for clients with whom you have worked on a project and to whom you have delivered work on time and without complaints related to quality."
2.19
"Note: If you have submitted a valid LWA entry (you delivered commissioned work on time, and without quality complaints) ..."
3.14
"A service provider has posted a non-payment complaint in my Blue Board record. What should I do?
...
Finally, if non-payment derives from quality issues with the job delivered by the service provider or with a late delivery of the project, please contact site staff via support request and provide the email correspondence in which the service provider has been notified of the issue."
As Thomas wrote in his post "To back up their claim, the agency would also need to have complained about the quality shortly after delivery, but any fraudulent agency could easily implement such complaints as a working routine in all their relations with translators", and that would theoretically satisfy the requirements set forth in the above quoted paragraphs...
Besides, what Thomas proposed seems quite sensible to me.
| | |
|
|
|
| I know a case | Nov 2, 2016 |
esperantisto wrote: Thomas Johansson wrote:
… As soon as a negative entry is posted by a translator, the agency (or other client) could just just claim there had been a "quality issue" with the translation delivered by the translator and the entry would be removed. They can’t just just claim it, they are normally asked to present documented evidence, and translators can react.
Well, I know a case where a negative LWA entry from a translator was hidden after the agency just claimed there had been a quality complaint. The translator was given an opportunity to submit the full communication with the agency and, after doing so, the entry was finally admitted again by proz.com after approx. 48 hours.
In any event, I feel the agency's claims should have been checked more rigorously before the entry was hidden in the first place and the burden of evidence was shifted to the translator.
This is one reason I feel it's necessary to improve and clarify the rules and procedures and perhaps also make them more transparent.
[Edited at 2016-11-02 17:03 GMT]
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Blue Board - only substantiated quality issues should matter for rejecting an entry | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
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 
Translation news
