Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6] >
Announcement - part 2 - option to show client "willing to work again" entries in your profile (beta)
Thread poster: Henry Dotterer
writeaway
writeaway  Identity Verified
French to English
+ ...
If we opt out, do we lose the right to make BB entries? Jul 10, 2006

I was left totally confused by the last series of posts I read. If we opt out, do we automatically lose the right to make BB entries?
Just asking for information-not looking to enter into or cause any arguments.
And I fully agree with Philippe Boucry's post.

[Edited at 2006-07-10 15:30]


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 11:56
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Thanks for this feedback, Kirill Jul 10, 2006

Kirill Semenov wrote:

I've read everything carefully enough, I think, and I participated in that `monstrous thread'.

Now I can't see real difference of WWA comparing to the `Project History' except of the PH is more detailed and, thus, better. I think I will continue to use the PH mainly, as for the adjusted WWA - I just can't see why and how it's better now. I still don't see any harm with it, mind you, still `Project History' is more detailed and vivid, I assume, so I think I will concentrate on this feature, while - of course! - allowing and using the WWA feature sometimes.

Thanks for posting this opinion. It is true that in the revised implementation, WWA is very similar to project history. The difference is that WWA is on a person-by-person basis and PH is on a project-by-project basis.


 
Dyran Altenburg (X)
Dyran Altenburg (X)  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 11:56
English to Spanish
+ ...
Freedom of choice Jul 10, 2006

Henry wrote:
to put it differently, it is reasonable for you to desire the right not to participate in our WWA systems. But if your intent is to oppose their very existence, so that no one else can use them either, I can tell you at the outset that we will not be receptive to that position.


I've never had that position.

Being selfish as I am, my main concern is first and foremost, yours truly.

In other words, if whatever goes on in Proz doesn't affect me directly or indirectly, I just ignore it.

Notice that my questions are geared at finding out if by opting out/out today, I can expect not to be affected by any changes made to this new feature either now or in the future.

--
Dyran


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 11:56
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Thank you for clarifying, Dyran Jul 10, 2006

Dyran Altenburg wrote:
Henry wrote:
to put it differently, it is reasonable for you to desire the right not to participate in our WWA systems. But if your intent is to oppose their very existence, so that no one else can use them either, I can tell you at the outset that we will not be receptive to that position.

I've never had that position.

Being selfish as I am, my main concern is first and foremost, yours truly.

In other words, if whatever goes on in Proz doesn't affect me directly or indirectly, I just ignore it.

Notice that my questions are geared at finding out if by opting out/out today, I can expect not to be affected by any changes made to this new feature either now or in the future.

Understood. Thank you for clarifying.

I have instructed Justin, who is implementing all of this, to provide as soon as possible the option to be out of the WWA systems entirely. You will be able to make the decision now and not worry about it again.


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 11:56
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Clarifications: "opt out" is a misnomer. Jul 10, 2006

writeaway wrote:

I was left totally confused by the last series of posts I read. If we opt out, do we automatically lose the right to make BB entries?

Sorry. I think that there is some confusion stemming from the use of the expression "opt out". I should perhaps stop using that expression, because your question has inherited the lack of precision and to answer, I have to clarify.

By default, WWA entries do not appear in your profile. So when it comes to *using* the WWA system, the choice really is not whether or not to "opt out", but whether or not to "opt in". You can show or not show WWA entries in your profile, and there is no effect as to your ability to make Blue Board entries.

As for making sure that no entries can be made for you, you would do this by "withdrawing" from the ProZ.com WWA systems entirely. This would entail, out of fairness, that just as you do not accept unsolicited entries, you also would refrain from making them for others (whether via the WWA system, or the Blue Board.) In a sense, you would waive your right to make entries for others, in exchange for taking away their right to make entries for you.

Note that there is not yet a way for anyone to make unsolicited entries, so there is not yet a need to withdraw from the WWA networks (unless, like Dyran, you prefer to be out and done with it--and that is why we will provide that alternative soon.)

If there is going to be discussion on this point, I'd prefer to open a separate thread for it. The purpose of this one is to focus on features and implementation.

Just asking for information-not looking to enter into or cause any arguments.
And I fully agree with Philippe Boucry's post.

Understood. Thank you very much, writeaway.


 
mediamatrix (X)
mediamatrix (X)
Local time: 12:56
Spanish to English
+ ...
What about the "Private record-keeping" feature? Jul 10, 2006

Henry,

Referring to the outsourcers' "Private record-keeping" feature, announced by Enrique as item 2 on the post that started the mega-thread on 'outsourcer WWA' :

Additional purpose: Private record-keeping

In conjunction with the release of the public feedback system, a facility is being offered for outsourcers to keep private records for their own reference. Outsourcers who have worked with ProZ.com users will be able to enter "willingness to work again" entries without making them available to others. The reason for outsourcers to save private entries to profiles is for their own reference and efficiency in future projects. When an outsourcer visits a profile in which he/she has made a private WWA entry, and when the owner of that profile comes up in a directory search, the entry is displayed, thereby reminding the outsourcer of his/her prior experience with the person concerned.


Will you confirm, please:

a) That this "Private record-keeping" feature has been completely removed from the current implementation of the 'outsourcer WWA' ?

b) That you have understood and taken on board users' and members' legitimate concerns regarding the storage of potentially libellous, unvetted, confidential third-party data in the Proz.com on-line databases?

c) Consequently, that Proz.com does not intend to implement any such feature in any future release?

I thank you in advance for a straightforward "yes/yes/yes" reply - if that is appropriate.

MediaMatrix


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 11:56
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Can't see how, Claudia. Jul 10, 2006

Claudia Iglesias wrote:

I often visit profiles just out of curiosity and think that unless I'm looking for a translator to do a job, these details shouldn't be visible without the translator's agreement.
I'm not talking about the numbers (+4/0/-0) but about the comments. They are intended for outsourcers not for curious people.

I often see in profiles sentences like "For more information contact me" or "CV upon request".
What about doing something similar for this information?

I see your point, and thanks for the idea.

At first consideration, I don't see a way to tell when someone is *not* an outsourcer. Don't forget search engine visitors, etc...


 
Claudia Iglesias
Claudia Iglesias  Identity Verified
Chile
Local time: 12:56
Member (2002)
Spanish to French
+ ...
Two suggestions Jul 10, 2006

At first consideration, I don't see a way to tell when someone is *not* an outsourcer. Don't forget search engine visitors, etc...


1) Those who want to see the comments should have to click on a button "request permission to see comments" which would automatically send an e-mail to the profile owner, who would have to accept.
2) Or maybe it's not necessary to request permission, but to inform. The profile owner would receive an e-mail stating "member xxxxx visited your WWA comments tab".
At least the visitor would know that watching isn't anonymous and the profile owner would be informed that xxxxx visited it.

Claudia


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 11:56
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Responses to mediamatrix Jul 10, 2006

mediamatrix wrote:
Will you confirm, please:
a) That this "Private record-keeping" feature has been completely removed from the current implementation of the 'outsourcer WWA' ?

I can not say "completely" with certainly because development is very much underway, but yes, the intention is to remove it completely, straightaway.
b) That you have understood and taken on board users' and members' legitimate concerns regarding the storage of potentially libellous, unvetted, confidential third-party data in the Proz.com on-line databases?

I follow the legal argument, yes, but as I posted when you brought this up earlier, it is a question for an attorney qualified in such matters, and not something for you or me (ie. legal amateurs) to be discussing here.
c) Consequently, that Proz.com does not intend to implement any such feature in any future release?

There is a need there and we may offer something. However, you can rest assured that (1) we won't do anything that would be illegal in any of our members' jurisdictions, (2) you'll be able to opt out, and (3) we'll keep you posted (just as we did in this case.)

Anyhow, the purpose of this thread is to discuss WWA for its potential as a marketing tool--that is why we took out features like the above. So let's save that discussion for another day.


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 11:56
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Great idea, Claudia Jul 10, 2006

Claudia Iglesias wrote:

At first consideration, I don't see a way to tell when someone is *not* an outsourcer. Don't forget search engine visitors, etc...


1) Those who want to see the comments should have to click on a button "request permission to see comments" which would automatically send an e-mail to the profile owner, who would have to accept.

I would be concerned with this slowing down the process.
2) Or maybe it's not necessary to request permission, but to inform. The profile owner would receive an e-mail stating "member xxxxx visited your WWA comments tab".
At least the visitor would know that watching isn't anonymous and the profile owner would be informed that xxxxx visited it.

Good thinking. This way, a person will be able to get a sense of how widely the info may be getting disseminated. Knowing that would help him/her to make a decision on whether or not to continue showing it.

I can't see major drawbacks to this... thanks, Claudia!


 
Walter Landesman
Walter Landesman  Identity Verified
Uruguay
Local time: 12:56
English to Spanish
+ ...
PH vs. WWA Jul 10, 2006

Henry wrote:

Kirill Semenov wrote:

I've read everything carefully enough, I think, and I participated in that `monstrous thread'.

Now I can't see real difference of WWA comparing to the `Project History' except of the PH is more detailed and, thus, better. I think I will continue to use the PH mainly, as for the adjusted WWA - I just can't see why and how it's better now. I still don't see any harm with it, mind you, still `Project History' is more detailed and vivid, I assume, so I think I will concentrate on this feature, while - of course! - allowing and using the WWA feature sometimes.

Thanks for posting this opinion. It is true that in the revised implementation, WWA is very similar to project history. The difference is that WWA is on a person-by-person basis and PH is on a project-by-project basis.

I understand your point, Henry.

But I still think PH and WWA are very connected or related. For example, an outsourcer says on a project: "Wonderful service, AS USUAL" or "I am looking forward to working with XX again". That may count as WWA as well, doesn`t it? I don´t want to bother my clients again.

Anyhow, I know Justin is working on it (hope gettting news soon). I just wanted to clarify things. And yes, I also think that the WWA information looks fine at the top of the profile and might me helpful (PH is not highlited like this).



[Edited at 2006-07-10 18:15]


 
Christel Zipfel
Christel Zipfel  Identity Verified
Local time: 16:56
Member (2004)
Italian to German
+ ...
Still one question.... Jul 10, 2006

I wrote, on page 49 of the megathread:


Survey results? Jul 6

I have been here since page 2 with several posts, but lately didn't follow thoroughly this thread like I did before, although I continued to read it.

So maybe I did actually miss the communication of the result of the survey that has been proposed? If yes, could somebody please enlighten me? If not, why didn't we get it? It could be interesting, though.

Thanks.



I still didn't get any answer to this post either. So I am here again. I won't bother you any longer, Henry, as people who disagree with this feature are not supposed to intervene here, but you still owe me this reply at least...

[Bearbeitet am 2006-07-10 19:24]

[Bearbeitet am 2006-07-10 19:46]


 
Gerard de Noord
Gerard de Noord  Identity Verified
France
Local time: 16:56
Member (2003)
English to Dutch
+ ...
Small glitch Jul 10, 2006

Hi Henry,

There seems to be a small glitch in the WWA part of Adam Burman's profile (http://www.proz.com/profile/128124).

His profile states one favourable comment but his WWA record already shows two favourable comments.

Regards,
Gerard


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 11:56
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Survey results - and a new survey Jul 10, 2006

Christel Zipfel wrote:
I wrote, on page 49 of the megathread:

Survey results? Jul 6

I have been here since page 2 with several posts, but lately didn't follow thoroughly this thread like I did before, although I continued to read it.

So maybe I did actually miss the communication of the result of the survey that has been proposed? If yes, could somebody please enlighten me? If not, why didn't we get it? It could be interesting, though.

Thanks.

I still didn't get any answer to this post neither. So I am here again. I won't bother you any longer, Henry, as people who disagree with this feature are not supposed to intervene here, but you still owe me this reply at least...

Sorry for not replying. I had not had any intention of posting the results, because the purpose of the survey was quite narrow, but if you would like to know, the basic result was that approximately 54% of those responding indicated that they would choose not to use WWA.

Before drawing any conclusions from this, please bear in mind that:
(1) This survey was asked *before* the options were explained in details
(2) Significant changes have been announced in this thread that address some of the complaints (such as "yes" only, etc.)
(3) The purpose of that survey was not to check on the opinions of the community, but only on the opinions of those active in the thread (which was largely critical).

In short, it would be unwise to conclude anything about the opinion of the general community on the basis of that survey.

We want to know the opinions of the community in general and will run further surveys. In fact, here is one now. (All site users are invited to complete this brief survey.)

The next survey will be toward the end of the trial period, after people have had a chance to absorb the WWA system and ask any questions.


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 11:56
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Thanks, Gerard, we'll clarify Jul 10, 2006

Gerard de Noord wrote:
There seems to be a small glitch in the WWA part of Adam Burman's profile (http://www.proz.com/profile/128124).

His profile states one favourable comment but his WWA record already shows two favourable comments.

Thanks, Gerard. Quoting the FAQ:

......................

In the profile WWA box, aggregate data is shown. How does that correspond to the entries received?

A summary in the WWA box shows the number of each response received (yes's / maybe's / no's). Note, however, that only entries which meet certain criteria are counted in these totals. Specifically, the entries must be from outsourcers for whom there is some degree of verification, in the form of vidding or other criteria.

......................

In Adam's case, one of those who made an entry is not an outsourcer, but a colleague. I will instruct Justin to present the entries in such a way that the correspondence between aggregate data and actual entries is clearer.

Regards,
Henry


 
Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6] >


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Announcement - part 2 - option to show client "willing to work again" entries in your profile (beta)






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 »
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 »