| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | standardize blue board comments Thread poster: Ronald van der Linden (X)
|
|---|
Ronald van der Linden (X) 
Mexico
Local time: 13:10
German to Dutch
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | no beauty contest | Aug 16, 2010 |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
Now, having said all this, by standardising the opinions and categorising different aspects (that after all will be emotional or at least preferential), you will probably kill the valuable between-the-lines information that any translator should be able to interpret and understand. The lack of a comment is also a very good indicator with any LWA number.
Everybody would be forced to describe the relationship and its outcome to a limit that could be close to violating NDAs and/or the wishes of an outsourcer. If I was an outsourcer, I would not like to be given points for each of my qualities (or lack of). Wouldn't that make me feel like I was in a beauty contest?
To me, the LWA number and a short comment are more than enough to know whether I should enter in negotiations with a new customer or not.
Thank you, Tomás.
My suggestion for a max of 3 questions are:
#1 Were you paid a) immediately/within 5 business days, b) within 15 business days, etc. #2 Was your communication answered a) immediately/5 mins, etc.
These are questions do not require emotions nor should they violate NDAs. However, they do require to be measurable indicators. And, no I am not in favor of beauty contest, rating every element 1-5, as I have already explained with my reply to another post in this thread.
| | | | | What is critical to know about a customer? | Aug 16, 2010 |
Ronald van der Linden wrote:
My suggestion for a max of 3 questions are:
#1 Were you paid a) immediately/within 5 business days, b) within 15 business days, etc. #2 Was your communication answered a) immediately/5 mins, etc.
But is this information that critical? These are things you will find out immediately and which are subject to negotiation with the customer. They could pay you in 15 days and another person in 60 days, and it would be perfectly OK if that is what each of you negotiated.
What I want and need to know from the Blueboard is whether I should be careful with a customer (LWA 3), there is some aspect that is a matter of concern (4), other people had no problem with them (5) or it is a prospect to forget about (1-2). All the rest is not that useful really, and it is information that could bring about legal problems or claims from the outsourcer. This intentional lack of information is at the core of the concept of the Blueboard, as a way to avoid problems of that kind.
| | | | Ronald van der Linden (X)
Mexico
Local time: 13:10
German to Dutch
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | transparency | Aug 16, 2010 |
Heinrich Pesch wrote:
IMO the BB ratings should only be yes or nor, are you ready to work with this outsourcer again or not. All these comments are to no real use.
Regards
Heinrich
Interesting point, and I'd agree if we were in the situation where all colleagues have the same background and set of game rules. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and to want to continue working for an outsourcer who only pays with PayPal, within 90 days upon invoice date, pays below-average fees, would be great for some, for others not.
This is why I call for transparency. I have already noticed that in different countries different sets of rules apply. Outsourcers in Spain, Italy and Belgium prefer to pay well after 45 days or standard 60 days after invoice date. If I were Italian, I'd probably make comments such as "fast payments" for outsourcers that pay within 30 days, and that would be the reason to rate an outsourcer with a 5, however in my case 30 days is a standard payment term, and for other colleagues immediate pay or payment in advance is standard practice, they could rate an outsourcer with a 1 or 2.
The current issue with the rating system is how to interpret comments like "nice PM", "fast payment" or "pays on time" together with a "5" rate, but according to the particular job ad, the outsourcer uses PayPal and pays within 60 days. Or, how do I interpret three "1" ratings while ten others rated the outsourcer with a "5"?
| | | | Thomas Pfann
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:10
Member (2006)
English to German
+ ...
| Not in favour | Aug 16, 2010 |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
Now, having said all this, by standardising the opinions and categorising different aspects (that after all will be emotional or at least preferential), you will probably kill the valuable between-the-lines information that any translator should be able to interpret and understand. The lack of a comment is also a very good indicator with any LWA number.
...
To me, the LWA number and a short comment are more than enough to know whether I should enter in negotiations with a new customer or not.
I fully agree with that. In fact, the short comments are what I often find more valuable than the actualy rating.
I fear that a standardization would make the comments less meaningful as users select one of the options simply because they have to select one. If users have to think of something to write the comment will be a lot more meaningful. For example, "Communication can be a bit slow - it's best to call if you need an answer urgently" is a fair enough comment and tells me a lot more than "Communication: replies within > 1 day". Also, people very often shy away from giving low ratings - in a free text comment it is much easier to mention potential problems without giving a low rating and without sounding too negative.
Even with regards to the payment terms I prefer a non-standardized approach. I am not really interested in whether colleagues were paid five days or fifty days after invoicing. The payment terms are something which is usually agreed along with rates and other formalities when starting to work together. I am interested in whether the client pays on time (ie. as agreed - be it after 15 or after 45 days), whether colleagues had to chase payment or whether the client is a notorious non-payer.
Generally I think that because no two jobs are the same, it is very difficult to standardize the feedback on those jobs.
So why select a standardized phrase which "best describes" your experience, when you could just as well describe it in your own words exactly as it happened?
| | |
|
|
|
Ronald van der Linden (X)
Mexico
Local time: 13:10
German to Dutch
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | key question | Aug 16, 2010 |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
What I want and need to know from the Blueboard is whether I should be careful with a customer (LWA 3), there is some aspect that is a matter of concern (4), other people had no problem with them (5) or it is a prospect to forget about (1-2). All the rest is not that useful really, and it is information that could bring about legal problems or claims from the outsourcer. This intentional lack of information is at the core of the concept of the Blueboard, as a way to avoid problems of that kind.
What should one know about a prospect? In my experience as an accountant, usually a company would have a set of rules whether to accept a client or not and what credit limit should be provided based on credit rating, debtor analysis, and other factors such as (tax) registration numbers, annual accounts, etc.
Credit rating: one could imagine the overall rating of the blue board 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 being some sort of credit rating.
Debtor analysis: would be related to the questions: when does this client/outsourcer pay you a) immediately/within 5 business days, b) etc.
I do not see any legal issues with responding to these questions, as I'd be simply stating the facts, and blue board comments are only visible to proz.com members.
Also, with this type of information you could investigate what the normal set of rules is per country, and this information would be helpful with outsourcers that do not have a rating: benchmarking.
Thomas Pfann wrote:
So why select a standardized phrase which "best describes" your experience, when you could just as well describe it in your own words exactly as it happened?
An "additional comments" box could still be part of the BB system. My suggestion is not against the comments box. The suggestion is to improve quality of the current BB system.
Thank you all for replying, and please don't stop I have found it most refreshing to communicate this way with the proz-community.
| | | | | I wish we had more concrete data | Aug 16, 2010 |
on the Blue Board than we have now, so I cannot but agree with Ronald.
We are individuals with different conceptions and expectations concerning this business. Payment terms are but one side of the coin. Don't also forget newcomers (but not only them) who take an LWA of 5 as the absolute low-risk and easily let the wool be pulled over their eyes by statements like: "Although now and then there were delayed payments in the past, now they are really very quick. The agency is professional and... See more on the Blue Board than we have now, so I cannot but agree with Ronald.
We are individuals with different conceptions and expectations concerning this business. Payment terms are but one side of the coin. Don't also forget newcomers (but not only them) who take an LWA of 5 as the absolute low-risk and easily let the wool be pulled over their eyes by statements like: "Although now and then there were delayed payments in the past, now they are really very quick. The agency is professional and absolutely reliable." (LWA 5)
It has often happened to me that agencies rated only with LWA of 5 contacted us. We agreed on details, but a few of those agencies wouldn't stick to those details shortly after the beginning of our collaboration, explaining that payment terms in their countries do not correspond to those in ours.
So, at least where the payment term is concerned, I wish we replaced this vague "on time" by a precise indication.
Christian ▲ Collapse
| | | | | What's the average client? | Aug 17, 2010 |
Susanna & Christian Popescu wrote:
We are individuals with different conceptions and expectations concerning this business.
The problem is that a "standard" has developed in a way that all standard, run-of-the-mill clients get an endless stream of 5s. Some translators won't consider working for a client having a 4.5 BB average score. A translation agency getting a 3 from me would feel insulted, and fight for a 5.
The system was devised with the intention of 3 being the average score, 4 and 5 being reserved for those extraordinary clients for whom a translator would go respectively one and two steps beyond the call of duty.
Nevertheless, I see many all-5ers with comments to the tune of though their rates are too low..., in spite of their payment being on the last day of the second month after delivery..., though they only pay after the umpteenth reminder..., so only hardcore delinquents get less than 5.
Okay, while the BB still helps us to avoid scammers, the original intent was lost. We must face reality.
The idea would be to include, in addition to the comments, objective information. possibly color-coded on:
Rates:
a) too low, unacceptable
b) somewhat lower than mine
c) my standard
d) higher than my standard
e) tops
Payment term promised:
a) 60 or more days
b) 30-60 days
c) 2 weeks - 30 days
d) up to 2 weeks
e) COD
Actual payment
a) They don't pay
b) They pay late, if prompted
c) They pay on time
d) They pay before the time agreed
e) They pay faster than I can count the money
Communication
a) They don't care what I'm expected to do
b) They don't know what I'm expected to do
c) They give clear instructions
d) They quickly get me any information I need
e) They support me all the way through
... then the text field will be left for more subjective comments.
[Edited at 2010-08-17 21:05 GMT]
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 11:10
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | Blue Board diminished to mere credit report? | Aug 18, 2010 |
Please, don't. I get more information about a company from individual comments. Timely payments are such a basic requirement (such as: "Hey, the soccer player has two legs! Cool!") that the Blue Board should not base its entire information on stuff like that. There is more to business relationship than payment methods.
BTW, I am also ticked off by the automated reference requests that I am receiving. Instead of writing a statement such as "He is simply brilliant in the field of XXXX... See more Please, don't. I get more information about a company from individual comments. Timely payments are such a basic requirement (such as: "Hey, the soccer player has two legs! Cool!") that the Blue Board should not base its entire information on stuff like that. There is more to business relationship than payment methods.
BTW, I am also ticked off by the automated reference requests that I am receiving. Instead of writing a statement such as "He is simply brilliant in the field of XXXXXXX but shows some weakness in the field of XXXX", I am supposed to click on: "Yes, I have worked with this that translator", "Yes, I am willing to work with this translator again".
Recently a colleague mentioned the beautiful term: "macdonaldization" regarding our industry.
So true. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ronald van der Linden (X)
Mexico
Local time: 13:10
German to Dutch
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Nicole Schnell wrote:
Please, don't. I get more information about a company from individual comments. Timely payments are such a basic requirement (such as: "Hey, the soccer player has two legs! Cool!") that the Blue Board should not base its entire information on stuff like that. There is more to business relationship than payment methods.
Exactly my point. It's a basic requirement to know about a future clients whether he will pay (on time), especially in a global environments. The blue board in the end is a credit report, as nobody will do business with a company rated 1.
Besides, the blue board will not only be based entirely on 2 or 3 questions, the majority's feed back insists on the "additional" comment box.
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 11:10
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | Credit report | Aug 18, 2010 |
Ronald van der Linden wrote:
Exactly my point. It's a basic requirement to know about a future clients whether he will pay (on time), especially in a global environments. The blue board in the end is a credit report, as nobody will do business with a company rated 1.
Besides, the blue board will not only be based entirely on 2 or 3 questions, the majority's feed back insists on the "additional" comment box.
Credit reports are six pages long, filled with all kinds of detailed information of which the score is only a summary.
I read the Blue Board very carefully and I dismiss entries such as: "Did a small job for this company and they paid the ($ 30.00 or something) on time." If such a person could influence the overall score by adding a "5" for every tiny first-time job that was paid from petty cash, the true value of the Blue Board would be rendered useless. Just my concern.
Personally I give Blue Board ratings after 1 year of collaboration and / or US $ 10,000 of revenue from a client. Mixing such ratings with some kisser-uppers would water down and falsify the final score.
| | | | Ronald van der Linden (X)
Mexico
Local time: 13:10
German to Dutch
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | I wouldn't dismiss any information | Aug 18, 2010 |
Nicole Schnell wrote:
I read the Blue Board very carefully and I dismiss entries such as: "Did a small job for this company and they paid the ($ 30.00 or something) on time." If such a person could influence the overall score by adding a "5" for every tiny first-time job that was paid from petty cash, the true value of the Blue Board would be rendered useless. Just my concern.
Personally I give Blue Board ratings after 1 year of collaboration and / or US $ 10,000 of revenue from a client. Mixing such ratings with some kisser-uppers would water down and falsify the final score.
I wouldn't dismiss small jobs. Currently, I'm having a problem with a client over a "lousy" EUR 30.00, where the finance department simply does not honor my payment schedule, while I have the PM's consent about honoring my payment schedule in writing.
So, in this case, if I were to rate the outsourcer with a 1, would you still dismiss it? I wouldn't.
The only thing I would like to see from the BlueBoard is 2 or 3 standard questions, that will require standard answers, in order to provide information, 3 key indicators; i.e. so that I can see whether a client would honor my payment schedules, by asking within what time frame a client generally pays; a standard answer "according to my payment scheme" is not what I'm looking for, as the payment scheme is not measurable. I'm then specifically looking for 1-5-15-30-45 or more days.
This information, in time, will offer benchmarking material. If then a client from Japan tells me that he would pay me within 60 days, while the benchmark would mention that Japanese clients generally pay within 15 days, then I can probably negotiate/reject the offer. Or, when my payment term is 21 days, and I work with clients from a geographic location prone to paying later, I could be already forewarned. My idea is to gather information, especially when dealing with customers from territories and who work with business frameworks I'm unfamiliar with.
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 11:10
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | There is still more to rating a client. | Aug 18, 2010 |
Ronald van der Linden wrote:
I wouldn't dismiss small jobs. Currently, I'm having a problem with a client over a "lousy" EUR 30.00, where the finance department simply does not honor my payment schedule, while I have the PM's consent about honoring my payment schedule in writing.
So, in this case, if I were to rate the outsourcer with a 1, would you still dismiss it? I wouldn't.
The only thing I would like to see from the BlueBoard is 2 or 3 standard questions, that will require standard answers, in order to provide information, 3 key indicators; i.e. so that I can see whether a client would honor my payment schedules, by asking within what time frame a client generally pays; a standard answer "according to my payment scheme" is not what I'm looking for, as the payment scheme is not measurable. I'm then specifically looking for 1-5-15-30-45 or more days.
This information, in time, will offer benchmarking material. If then a client from Japan tells me that he would pay me within 60 days, while the benchmark would mention that Japanese clients generally pay within 15 days, then I can probably negotiate/reject the offer. Or, when my payment term is 21 days, and I work with clients from a geographic location prone to paying later, I could be already forewarned. My idea is to gather information, especially when dealing with customers from territories and who work with business frameworks I'm unfamiliar with.
For example: I take being paid on time and in full for granted and I don't see why I should waste any word of praise about something that is simply - normal.
What makes an agency special is the way how they are rated by their clients. There are agencies that work off random jobs as they come in, and there are the truly excellent ones who attend to their clients for many years and if you are the go-to-translator, both, you and the agency, must have done something right.
I also rate agencies by the know-how of their PMs.
I rate agencies by the degree of flexibility when I don't reply to a request right away, but will rather write: "I knew that you would pop up at some time" five hours later instead of hiring another translator.
The few agencies that I rated 5 in the Blue Board are dream clients. To rate them by a point system based on payment methods would feel odd, additional comment field or not.
But that's just my personal view.
Edited for typo.
[Edited at 2010-08-18 03:40 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 11:10
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | One more thing | Aug 18, 2010 |
With approximately 45 more or less regular clients in my client base, none of which having ever failed in regard to payments at any time, I would have to swamp a payment-based Blue Board with "5", correct?
No way...
Made a typo.
[Edited at 2010-08-18 10:52 GMT]
| | | | Lingua 5B
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Local time: 20:10
Member (2009)
English to Croatian
+ ...
Nicole Schnell wrote:
For example: I take being paid on time and in full for granted and I don't see why I should waste any word of praise about something that is simply - normal.
Very good point, being paid on time should be a norm that doesn't require any praising.
Unfortunately, it's the kind of market where service providers believe they are lucky if they are being paid on time, or that they are dealing with a very generous client for that matter.
[Edited at 2010-08-18 11:34 GMT]
| | | | Ronald van der Linden (X)
Mexico
Local time: 13:10
German to Dutch
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | What information do you look for in the BlueBoard section? | Aug 18, 2010 |
Nicole Schnell wrote:
For example: I take being paid on time and in full for granted and I don't see why I should waste any word of praise about something that is simply - normal.
I think we are discussing different issues here. I'm talking about any rating, meaning 1-5, while you talk about praise (rating 4-5). I'd like to clarify, that I'm not talking about praising, but measuring and in the end information would provide benchmarking material.
I also rate agencies by the know-how of their PMs.
I rate agencies by the degree of flexibility when I don't reply to a request right away, but will rather write: "I knew that you would pop up at some time " five hours later instead of hiring another translator.
It's perfectly fine to have your own set of rules for rating an agency/client/etc. But everybody has a different framework to rate an outsourcer, which is the reason for my suggestion, because I'm not getting the information I like to see from the BlueBoard.
From my square-minded point of view, ratings are set by a standard framework, which is non-existent, in my opinion, with regards to the BlueBoard. This framework should include measurable questions/answers. This would mean answering 30 questions, but as I understand that would be a terrifying thought, I would just include 2 or 3 key questions. And 1 key question for rating any outsourcer is "were you paid?"
I gave a few suggestions for 2-3 questions in my initial posting, which from your point of view (4-5 rating) are not relevant. And, I totally agree with you, but again, I'm talking about ratings 1 through 5 and not "praising" alone.
In addition: from my point of view, an outsourcer rated with a 3 should mean: "this client pays on time, communicates on time, no hassles, no problems", in other words, a fine, steady client. This is the information I would like to see from the BlueBoard, when I am about to submit a quote to a prospect, and I think that, and that alone is the mere purpose of the BlueBoard.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » standardize blue board comments | 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 » |
| | Pastey | Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
