12

See also this post:

https://support.gengo.com/hc/ja/community/posts/360038160474-Re-review-sent-to-the-same-reviewer-

So recently I made a re-review request where I gave detailed reasons for why I believe that the original reviewer was mistaken. I also requested explicitly that I would like the job to be reviewed again by a different Langauge Specialist.

Despite this, I received a re-review from the *same* reviewer. The tone of the messages was very defensive (and frankly, passive-aggressive bordering on unprofessional: "Oh, by the way, I should have marked you for this error as well...").

I have two things to say about this.

 

First, the point I made in my original post stands. I think it is just common sense that the second review should be done by someone other than the individual who did the original review, in order to keep the re-review process fair. Obviously, the original reviewer will feel inclined to be defensive about their choices, and this will likely bias them in favor of the original score. I think "re-review" should mean just that -- having a different Language Specialist conduct a separate review, to independently corroborate the original score.

This point is especially concerning as according to a support article by Gengo:

"If . . . an LS receives many re-review requests from different translators and the results of the second reviews often turn out to be very different from the original one, we further investigate to see if any retraining is necessary."

If this is the case, how on earth can it possibly make sense to allow the same LS to conduct the second review? What incentive would the LS have to make changes to his/her original score, if any changes are going to negatively impact his/her own evaluation? I hope that someone can give us a logical explanation of this point.

 

Second, I have noticed that a lot of big changes were made to the re-review system right after (and presumably as a response to) the concerns I raised in the post I linked to above. The main changes I have noticed are:

(1) It is no longer possible for us translators to see who is conducting the reviews (previously, the comments the LS left on the review displayed their translator number, but this has since been removed).

(2) There is no longer an explicit option available on the re-review request form that allows translators to request that their job be evaluated by a different reviewer.

So basically, it appears that what Gengo has done is to respond to my concerns about the transparency of the re-review process by lowering their transparency and making sure translators have less say in the process, rather than more.

Now I find these changes by Gengo very concerning, bordering on the downright disingenuous. I have noticed that people like Katrina and Lara are making an effort these days to create a sense of community within Gengo translators, but how can we translators continue to trust Gengo if this is how they respond to our very real concerns?

2 comments

  • 0
    Avatar
    Lara Fernandez

    Hi @KO,

    Thanks for bringing this up :) 

    I believe I've explained this before in other threads, but allow me to clarify once again: the option to explicitly request that a second reviewer takes a look at the job was removed for two reasons:

    1) Some language pairs have only one LS and it's not possible for us to have a second reviewer routinely look at re-review requests. For specific strong cases and/or if we have reasons to suspect something is amiss, we may bring in a third-party reviewer on a case-by-case basis, but this shouldn't be taken as standard procedure.

    2) For languages that have more than one LS, unfortunately translators were routinely making mistakes in their re-review requests, marking they wanted a second reviewer to look at the job while addressing their questions regarding the first review to the first reviewer (questions which the second person would not be able to answer, since they are not the first reviewer) and viceversa, marking they wanted the same reviewer to look at the job while in the comments mentioning they wanted the job to be reviewed from scratch. In a nutshell: the options were being widely misused and causing a lot of unnecessary back and forth. 

    Based on the above, we removed that option and left it at the discretion of the Quality Team to carefully read through the requests and redirect them to the first or second reviewer based on the actual comments and claims left by the translator. In your specific case, I haven't taken a look at your re-review yet, but I will double check with the team on the reason why the job was sent to the same reviewer even if you had explicitly in the comments request that someone else look at it. I will get back to you once I have more clarity on this :)

    I wasn't aware of the LS # being removed from reviews, so I will check on this for you as well :)

    Now, as for this point: 

    "If . . . an LS receives many re-review requests from different translators and the results of the second reviews often turn out to be very different from the original one, we further investigate to see if any retraining is necessary."

    If this is the case, how on earth can it possibly make sense to allow the same LS to conduct the second review? What incentive would the LS have to make changes to his/her original score, if any changes are going to negatively impact his/her own evaluation? I hope that someone can give us a logical explanation of this point.

    I believe this was also explained in some other thread in the past. First and most importantly, this is not the only data that we look at to monitor LS performance, this is one among many other indicators, so you shouldn't take it as the absolute only reason why we would investigate or review performance. As I mentioned above as well, for example, if an LS receives an inordinate amount of re-review requests, showing a spike of incidences, we may bring in a third-party to review their work even if they have never changed scores. If we were to find an LS was deliberately producing inaccurate reviews in order not to change the scores, we would take immediate action towards termination, so it is in their best interest to change the scores when applicable. 

    Thanks!

    Lara

  • 0
    Avatar
    Lara Fernandez

    Following up from my previous post -- @KO, I've spoken with our Quality Team and it seems that there was a misunderstanding. The member of the staff who redirected your request does not speak Japanese, and they relied on Google Translate, for which they apologize. I have taken a look at your re-review request myself, confirmed that you had asked explicitly for someone else to look at the job, and have requested that they trigger a new re-review accordingly for you. You should expect to receive your new re-review within the next few days :)

    Thank you for your patience,

    Lara

Please sign in to leave a comment.