See also this post:
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?