Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6] >
Removal of Negative Feedback Entry on BB due to Ambiguity of TimeFrame regarding Complaints
Thread poster: Yasutomo Kanazawa
Jared Tabor
Jared Tabor
Local time: 12:48
SITE STAFF
Some of the things considered when an LWA entry is contested, and the quality issues clause Sep 28, 2017

Hi all,

Staff regularly review complaints regarding LWA entries and their replies. An outsourcer may wish to contest an LWA entry, and a translator may wish to contest the reply an outsourcer has made to their LWA entry.

In cases where an LWA or a reply is contested by either party, both parties are generally asked to provide further information so that staff can evaluate and make a decision. Information gathered can include email exchanges, POs, invoices, project detai
... See more
Hi all,

Staff regularly review complaints regarding LWA entries and their replies. An outsourcer may wish to contest an LWA entry, and a translator may wish to contest the reply an outsourcer has made to their LWA entry.

In cases where an LWA or a reply is contested by either party, both parties are generally asked to provide further information so that staff can evaluate and make a decision. Information gathered can include email exchanges, POs, invoices, project details and timelines, and so on. Staff then go through this information piece by piece, requesting more information where needed, until a clear picture of what happened can be made, and a decision is then made based on all evidence presented. The process is not trivial, and the staff who review these cases take them seriously. As I have mentioned in threads on this before, more often than not the issue turns out to be a breakdown in communication somewhere along the line, between outsourcer and service provider. I don't recall having seen cases of disputed LWA entries or replies where one party or the other was intentionally trying to pull one over on the other. Frequently, once both sides have seen that clear picture of what happened, things are resolved quickly and amicably.


On quality issues. How long is "shortly after delivery"? There is not necessarily one black and white answer on that. It can, at times, depend on other variables in a case, such as previously agreed-to terms. In cases where an LWA entry is disputed and quality has been called into question, ProZ.com staff request evidence that this is what has happened (they do not enter into evaluations of the quality itself). That it occur prior to the agreed upon payment deadline (except perhaps in cases of up-front payment or immediate payment upon delivery) is one marker. Quality issues raised after the invoice is due are not considered. Instances where an outsourcer might "cry quality" are relatively easy to detect.

Yasutomo, from looking over the case you talk about here, it appears to me that the end client notified the outsourcer of issues 21 days after your delivery, and the outsourcer notified you the following day. The payment window stipulated in the PO was 45 days. Correct me if I've got that wrong.

I have to admit that in this case, I am not 100% sure, though most of what I have seen leads me to believe the entry was correctly removed. Leaving aside arguments of who should have done what and when, if I agree to payment within 45 days of delivery and my client comes back with issues in 22 days, is that a reasonable scenario? There are two main possible courses: the entry is allowed (and so are any replies/comments the outsourcer wishes to make on the matter), or the entry is not allowed. I'd appreciate input from those participating in or reading this thread. Depending on your input I may also decide to survey both translators and translation companies at large to get some more insight into this part of the process in normal translation projects. Thanks.

Jared
Collapse


 
Maija Cirule
Maija Cirule  Identity Verified
Latvia
Local time: 17:48
German to English
+ ...
Alas Sep 28, 2017

Thomas T. Frost wrote:



Obviously we don't want good outsourcers unfairly given bad feedback because of bad translations not paid for, but if there is a clear rule saying they have for example two months to complain if it is to be taken into account for the Blue Board, then there is no need for that to happen.

We need clear definitions so everybody knows the rules. Why is that a problem for Proz?


if only this was their only problem

@Jared
And what about substantiation of a complaint? Let's assume I submitted a complaint that you have stolen my walet/necklace with brilliants or something like this. Would you feel happy if you were taken into custody and sentenced to a jail term without any evidence?



[Edited at 2017-09-28 17:52 GMT]

[Edited at 2017-09-28 18:07 GMT]

[Edited at 2017-09-28 18:10 GMT]


 
Angie Garbarino
Angie Garbarino  Identity Verified
Local time: 16:48
Member (2003)
French to Italian
+ ...
The payment term does not matter Sep 28, 2017

Jared Tabor wrote:
if I agree to payment within 45 days of delivery and my client comes back with issues in 22 days, is that a reasonable scenario? There are two main possible courses: the entry is allowed (and so are any replies/comments the outsourcer wishes to make on the matter), or the entry is not allowed. I'd appreciate input from those participating in or reading this thread. Depending on your input I may also decide to survey both translators and translation companies at large to get some more insight into this part of the process in normal translation projects. Thanks.

Jared


European laws (not sure in the USA or elsewhere) are clear.. no matter what the agreed payment term is.

I wonder why Proz. com cannot be as clear as the law.

Not to mention the evidence like in Maja's example.

BTW I had proposed a sort of arbitration many years ago because this is a serious problem, but it seems there is no interest.


 
Jared Tabor
Jared Tabor
Local time: 12:48
SITE STAFF
The parties involved are asked to submit evidence which helps staff determine the action to take Sep 28, 2017

Hello Maija,

Maija Cirule wrote:

@Jared
And what about substantiation of a complaint? Let's assume I submitted a complaint that you have stolen my walet/necklace with brilliants or something like this. Would you feel happy if you were taken into custody and sentenced to a jail term without any evidence?



[Edited at 2017-09-28 17:52 GMT]

[Edited at 2017-09-28 18:07 GMT]

[Edited at 2017-09-28 18:10 GMT]


I think the analogy is poor, or at least I don't see how it applies exactly. Do you mean substantiation of non-payment when submitted by a translator, or substantiation of late delivery or quality complaints provided by an outsourcer? In the cases brought to staff, evidence is requested which helps staff determine whether an entry, comment, etc., is in line with site rules (see my post above). Anyone who were to claim late delivery or quality issues when there weren't, or anyone who were to claim non-payment when there wasn't, could, possibly, "get away with it" the first time. The second time, there is already a pattern and a paper trail showing it, so that wouldn't last long. If you think there is anyone out there successfully using the Blue Board in such a manner, please do let me know, as I would be interested in looking at the case.

Jared


 
Thomas T. Frost
Thomas T. Frost  Identity Verified
Portugal
Local time: 15:48
Danish to English
+ ...
More clarity is needed Sep 28, 2017

Thanks to Jared for posting his observations.

"I don't recall having seen cases of disputed LWA entries or replies where one party or the other was intentionally trying to pull one over on the other."

Well I have. The outsourcer deliberately lied and complained to Proz about quality to get my BB entry hidden – after previously having expressed satisfaction to me by email, so my BB entry was unhidden. It was a question of a beneficial price of a short translation on th
... See more
Thanks to Jared for posting his observations.

"I don't recall having seen cases of disputed LWA entries or replies where one party or the other was intentionally trying to pull one over on the other."

Well I have. The outsourcer deliberately lied and complained to Proz about quality to get my BB entry hidden – after previously having expressed satisfaction to me by email, so my BB entry was unhidden. It was a question of a beneficial price of a short translation on the express condition of timely payment. In this case, I could document that the outsourcer was lying, but what if I had not been able to do so? If they hadn’t been lying, I’d have asked for that entry to be removed long ago, as it wasn’t that much money, by the way.

There is an oft-quoted aphorism: "not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."

When your rules contain vague terms such as "timely" and "shortly", then 'justice' is not seen to be done, no matter how fair staff consider themselves, because it is completely arbitrary how these terms are interpreted.

I don't see what the payment due date has to do with this at all. I cannot think of a single example where the payment due date limits a warranty or liability in society in general. The rules say nothing about the payment due date anyway, so this is a case where Proz say something in the rules, but do something else.

Jared says there is no black-and-white definition of "shortly". Why on earth not? We need a black-and-white rule on this, to help eliminating suspicions of unfair practices. Name one single good reason not to have a clear rule for this. If the parties had agreed on a cut-off date for complaints, then by all means that should apply, but it should not be an insurmountable obstacle for a group of intelligent people to state that complaints submitted later than X days/weeks/months after delivery will not be taken into account, except if otherwise agreed between the parties. Two months ought to be enough to cover nearly all cases, giving the end clients enough time to notice problems and complain to the outsourcer. If that is not enough, they can still agree with the translator about more time.

It wouldn't harm to elaborate a bit more on what sort of complaints are taken into account either. I understand Proz staff cannot go in linguistic detail and act like reviewers, but the rules could at least state that complaints must set out exactly what is wrong with the translation and why it justifies not paying or paying less, so as to try to eliminate frivolous complaints such as "I don't like the font" or "I don't like the Oxford comma" or whatever, because as the rules are, staff must hide a BB entry if there is a complaint, regardless if it is complete poppycock.

You should do what you say and say what you do. More transparency, please.

It is harmful to the site’s reputation and the users’ trust of it to be accused of being unfair because of unclear rules, but it would not harm the site, honest suppliers and honest outsourcers to state the rules more clearly.
Collapse


 
Angie Garbarino
Angie Garbarino  Identity Verified
Local time: 16:48
Member (2003)
French to Italian
+ ...
Me too Sep 28, 2017

Thomas T. Frost wrote:



"I don't recall having seen cases of disputed LWA entries or replies where one party or the other was intentionally trying to pull one over on the other."

Well I have. The outsourcer deliberately lied and complained to Proz about quality to get my BB entry hidden – after previously having expressed satisfaction to me by email, so my BB entry was unhidden.



And I will be more than happy to privately send the link to such BB (unhidden) and to the related ST, just let me know Jared.

Many thanks


 
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 16:48
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
@Jared and @Yasutomo Sep 28, 2017

Jared Tabor wrote:
1. How long is "shortly after delivery"?
2. That it occur prior to the agreed upon payment deadline ... is one marker. Quality issues raised after the invoice is due are not considered. Instances where an outsourcer might "cry quality" are relatively easy to detect.


Thank you for taking time to write your comment, Jared. I see where you're coming from, but to me there is a difference between "translators are not allowed to make entries if there have been quality complains 'shortly after delivery'" and "outsourcers are not allowed to dispute entries if there were no quality complaints 'before the payment due date'".

I'm not suggesting that a client has no right to discover quality issues long after the job was done (or even paid). But I got the impression that the "shortly after delivery" rule was meant to prevent reviews by bad translators, i.e. translators whose work is so bad that the client discovers it fairly quickly. (-:

Perhaps the wording of the rule should be changed, if it appears that "shortly after delivery" creates false expectations. Waiting three weeks for a job of 3500 words proofreading and 250 words translation is not "shortly after delivery" by any standard, but it certainly is well before the payment due date, even for terms of 30 days.



Jared wrote that...
1. The outsourcer notified [the translator] of issues 22 days after delivery.
2. The payment window stipulated in the PO was 45 days.


Yasutomo Kanazawa wrote:
1a. When payment was due, they sent me a message claiming that...
1b. Then one month later when payment is due...
2. ... agreed on a payment terms of 30 days from date of invoice.


Yasutomo, were you able to discover what it was that caused you to think that the payment term was 30 days, and that the client's complaint occurred only 29-30 days after delivery?

On my Proz profile, I clearly mention that I will not accept any claims or complaints after 7 days after delivery.
...
Assigning the job to me means that they have accepted my terms and conditions, and I too had agreed to theirs.


I'm afraid that even if they found you via ProZ.com, no terms and conditions stated on your ProZ.com profile page can be assumed to form part of the agreement between them and you.

Unfortunately, if a translator's unsigned/unacknowledged terms and conditions contradict the client's unsigned/unacknowledged terms and conditions, the terms and conditions that apply are the ones communicated most recently before the job was accepted by the translator. If they send you a PO before you start the job, and the PO says "45 days" and neither of you have signed, acknowledged or agreed to anything saying "30 days", and you go ahead with the job, then the agreed term is 45 days. However, if they send you the PO only after you've begun, then whatever extra terms are mentioned on the PO are not applicable.

I have asked them to submit some evidence to support their claim, but to no avail.


FWIW, I think that saying "we are dissatisfied with your translation, but we don't know why" is only a "quality complaint" by some stretch of imagination.


[Edited at 2017-09-28 21:30 GMT]


 
Maija Cirule
Maija Cirule  Identity Verified
Latvia
Local time: 17:48
German to English
+ ...
I don't think the analogy is "poor" Sep 29, 2017

Jared Tabor wrote:

Hello Maija,

Maija Cirule wrote:

@Jared
And what about substantiation of a complaint? Let's assume I submitted a complaint that you have stolen my walet/necklace with brilliants or something like this. Would you feel happy if you were taken into custody and sentenced to a jail term without any evidence?



[Edited at 2017-09-28 17:52 GMT]

[Edited at 2017-09-28 18:07 GMT]

[Edited at 2017-09-28 18:10 GMT]


I think the analogy is poor, or at least I don't see how it applies exactly. Do you mean substantiation of non-payment when submitted by a translator, or substantiation of late delivery or quality complaints provided by an outsourcer? In the cases brought to staff, evidence is requested which helps staff determine whether an entry, comment, etc., is in line with site rules (see my post above). Anyone who were to claim late delivery or quality issues when there weren't, or anyone who were to claim non-payment when there wasn't, could, possibly, "get away with it" the first time. The second time, there is already a pattern and a paper trail showing it, so that wouldn't last long. If you think there is anyone out there successfully using the Blue Board in such a manner, please do let me know, as I would be interested in looking at the case.

Jared


Yasutomo lost his money on the basis of absolutely unfounded complaint (and we do not even know if the outsourcer has received such a complaint in reality).
OK, my intention is not to play a Don Quixote, only I would like to remind the definition of "transparency":
Transparency, in a business or governance context, is honesty and openness. Transparency and accountability are generally considered the two main pillars of good corporate governance .
The implication of transparency is that all of an organization’s actions should be scrupulous enough to bear public scrutiny. Increasingly, the nature of social media and other communications means that even actions intended to be secret may be brought into the public's awareness, despite an organization's best efforts to keep them hidden.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/transparency

[Edited at 2017-09-30 06:49 GMT]


 
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 16:48
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
On substantiation Sep 29, 2017

Jared Tabor wrote:
Maija Cirule wrote:
And what about substantiation of a complaint?

Do you mean substantiation of non-payment when submitted by a translator, or substantiation of late delivery or quality complaints provided by an outsourcer?


FWIW, I think Maija means substantiation of the quality issues itself. According to Yasutomo, the client refused (or: failed to) give evidence of poor quality. The client simply said "quality was poor" and, based on that alone, decided to reduce Yasutomo's pay.

However, Maija's point appears to be irrelevant to the question of whether it was fair of ProZ.com to remove the BB entry, because it appears to me that the decision for removal is not affected about whether or not the client had acted reasonably in the way it communicated the quality complaint.


 
Yasutomo Kanazawa
Yasutomo Kanazawa  Identity Verified
Japan
Local time: 00:48
Member (2005)
English to Japanese
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Yes, correct. Sep 30, 2017

Jared Tabor wrote:



Yasutomo, from looking over the case you talk about here, it appears to me that the end client notified the outsourcer of issues 21 days after your delivery, and the outsourcer notified you the following day. The payment window stipulated in the PO was 45 days. Correct me if I've got that wrong.

I have to admit that in this case, I am not 100% sure, though most of what I have seen leads me to believe the entry was correctly removed. Leaving aside arguments of who should have done what and when, if I agree to payment within 45 days of delivery and my client comes back with issues in 22 days, is that a reasonable scenario? There are two main possible courses: the entry is allowed (and so are any replies/comments the outsourcer wishes to make on the matter), or the entry is not allowed. I'd appreciate input from those participating in or reading this thread. Depending on your input I may also decide to survey both translators and translation companies at large to get some more insight into this part of the process in normal translation projects. Thanks.

Jared


But I strongly believe that a complaint after 21 days after delivery of less than 4000 source words is NOT shortly after delivery, and payment term has nothing to do in this case, IMO.


 
Yasutomo Kanazawa
Yasutomo Kanazawa  Identity Verified
Japan
Local time: 00:48
Member (2005)
English to Japanese
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Negotiated and agreed before taking the job Sep 30, 2017

Samuel Murray wrote:


Yasutomo Kanazawa wrote:
1a. When payment was due, they sent me a message claiming that...
1b. Then one month later when payment is due...
2. ... agreed on a payment terms of 30 days from date of invoice.


Yasutomo, were you able to discover what it was that caused you to think that the payment term was 30 days, and that the client's complaint occurred only 29-30 days after delivery?

On my Proz profile, I clearly mention that I will not accept any claims or complaints after 7 days after delivery.
...
Assigning the job to me means that they have accepted my terms and conditions, and I too had agreed to theirs.


I'm afraid that even if they found you via ProZ.com, no terms and conditions stated on your ProZ.com profile page can be assumed to form part of the agreement between them and you.

Unfortunately, if a translator's unsigned/unacknowledged terms and conditions contradict the client's unsigned/unacknowledged terms and conditions, the terms and conditions that apply are the ones communicated most recently before the job was accepted by the translator. If they send you a PO before you start the job, and the PO says "45 days" and neither of you have signed, acknowledged or agreed to anything saying "30 days", and you go ahead with the job, then the agreed term is 45 days. However, if they send you the PO only after you've begun, then whatever extra terms are mentioned on the PO are not applicable.

I have asked them to submit some evidence to support their claim, but to no avail.


FWIW, I think that saying "we are dissatisfied with your translation, but we don't know why" is only a "quality complaint" by some stretch of imagination.


[Edited at 2017-09-28 21:30 GMT]


The PM in charge and I agreed on a 30 days payment terms, even though the PO says 45. As to why the complaint came when payment was due, I have no idea except to be skeptical and doubt that the outsourcer is trying to evade full payment.


 
Artem Vakhitov
Artem Vakhitov  Identity Verified
Kyrgyzstan
English to Russian
+ ...
Payment term doesn't matter, delivery date does Oct 2, 2017

Jared, as far as I understand, the rules in this case say nothing about payment term, just the delivery date, so the payment term doesn't matter. In addition, for a job this small—a couple of days to translate at most, leave alone editing—22 days can in no way be described as "shortly". Please reconsider.

 
Yasutomo Kanazawa
Yasutomo Kanazawa  Identity Verified
Japan
Local time: 00:48
Member (2005)
English to Japanese
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
And as expected... Oct 9, 2017

I haven't heard from them or received the re-translated version to support their claim.

 
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 16:48
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
So, what you must do... Oct 9, 2017

Yasutomo Kanazawa wrote:
I haven't heard from them or received the re-translated version to support their claim.


Well, I'm not sure what the BB rules say, but if I were you, I'd try to rate them again. Give them a "1", and don't say anything in the comments except "I had a very negative experience with this client".


 
Angie Garbarino
Angie Garbarino  Identity Verified
Local time: 16:48
Member (2003)
French to Italian
+ ...
Or Oct 9, 2017

Samuel Murray wrote:

Yasutomo Kanazawa wrote:
I haven't heard from them or received the re-translated version to support their claim.


Well, I'm not sure what the BB rules say, but if I were you, I'd try to rate them again. Give them a "1", and don't say anything in the comments except "I had a very negative experience with this client".


"Please contact me for information"


 
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 »

Removal of Negative Feedback Entry on BB due to Ambiguity of TimeFrame regarding Complaints







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! »
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 »