I recently requested for one of my reviewed jobs to be re-reviewed and it came back with the exact same score. However, I noticed that the Senior Translator who had done the review was the same individual as the one who had done the original review. 


I have several concerns with this. I would be curious to know what the other translators in the community feel about Gengo's re-review system as well.



On the request form for re-review, it clearly states that "Your job will be sent to *a different reviewer* for a second review."

If this is Gengo's stated policy, why was my job sent to the same individual for re-review? And if it is not Gengo's policy, why does it say so on the request form?



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 do not mean to impugn anyone's motives in saying this. The reviewer is only human, and it's human nature to become defensive when your judgment is questioned. Presumably, this is precisely why it is Gengo's stated policy that the re-review should be conducted by a "different reviewer" in the first place. 



In the re-review, the Senior Translator only addressed the points that I specifically raised in the re-review request form. All other comments and errors marked in the original review were left-as-is verbatim. 

Now, I was led to believe that "re-review" means having *a separate review* being done on the same job. A different Senior Translator does another review from scratch, independently of the first Senior Translator (providing a "fresh pair of eyes", so to speak).  If the scores of the two independently conducted reviews match up, then you know the original score was fair.

This does not appear to be what happened in my case at all. What seems to have happened is that my job was sent back to the same Senior Translator, who then proceeded to *only* look at the points that I explicitly raised in the request form.

I do not think this is fair practice. I think "re-review" should mean just that -- having a differently Senior Translator conduct a separate review, to independently corroborate the original score.


So what do others think? What is your experience with the re-review process?


  • 5

    I agree with you, @KO. At least there should be a second evaluation session in re-review process, and I think the LS/reviewer's name or user ID should be noted in any comment. I think it builds up our trust in sometimes disagreeable judgements.
    In my experience, I recently made an re-review request for one of my anonymous job reviews and then it returned to me yesterday without any comment or specific information of the reviewer/LS. I only got revised score overwritten by an anonymous reviewer again, and even if it gave me some relief, I still feel disappointed about unclear policies and procedures of review system.

  • 0
    Lara Fernandez

    @KO - Re-review requests are processed differently depending on the options you chose on the form (I believe you were given 4 different options). Depending on these, they are sent to the same reviewer or a different one. If you believe you chose the correct option to have your request go to a second reviewer and this didn’t happen, could you please email me at lara.fernandez@gengo.com with the relevant details, including job number, etc, so I can look into this? Thanks! (Also please note that I won’t be able to sync with the team until we’re back in the office on the 6th)

    Lara Fernandezにより編集されました
  • 6

    Thank you Lara. I have sent you an e-mail notifying you of my job number.

    I agree nugunya.

    I feel the overall lack of transparency with regard to the re-review process is especially disheartening, because it is what Gengo mainly points to as guaranteeing the fairness and impartiality of the review system as a whole: "If you feel there were problems with the initial review, you can always request a re-review and a second reviewer will take a look at it" (this, for example, was essentially the response to your post here: https://support.gengo.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360038074374-Irrational-job-reviews-posted-by-anonymous-reviewer-made-my-qualification-revoked). The fact that this does not necessarily seem to be what happens in practice is worrying.

  • 0
    Lara Fernandez

    Hi @KO - just letting you know here that I have replied to your email explaining what happened with your request. I won't be disclosing details here regarding the reasons why your specific request was sent to the same reviewer, for the sake of your privacy. If you wish to, however, you are free to share :) 

  • 6

    Hello Lara,

    Thank you for your e-mail. I have written you a response.

    I must say with regret that I am very frustrated and disappointed at the all-around lack of transparency, clarity, and communication I have been experiencing on the part of Gengo with regard to the re-review process (starting with how the re-review form itself is unnecessarily complicated, and how the link to the form is not even included in the "Job reviewed" notification e-mail -- although that is a separate issue).

    I suspect that a lot of translators feel the same way. However, I think will wait for your reply before I gather my thoughts and share them here. 

  • 15

    Today I received an update on my situation. It appears that since I had worded some of my requests in the re-review application form as demands for further explanation, the team decided unilaterally to send the job to the original reviewer, despite my having correctly selected the option to have my job sent to a different reviewer for a second look.

    Lara has already notified me that Gengo will make an exception in my case and have my review sent to a different reviewer for yet another review (I should also mention that Lara has been very helpful and empathetic throughout all of this, a consummate professional).

    Meanwhile, here are some brief thoughts regarding Gengo's re-review process. I thought it would be worth sharing them so that others can also share their experiences and also reference my case in the future.


    1. Lack of adequate communication

    If the team had thought I had made a mistake in selecting the options, then they should have contacted me first in order to clarify that I had indeed made a mistake. Now in personal communication, Lara pointed out to me that Gengo "receive[s] a number of requests daily, and we can't possibly contact everybody who is seemingly making a mistake in their request".
    However, with all due respect, and I do not know how to put this without seeming curt or rude (which is not my intention), this would appear to be Gengo's problem, not that of the translators. I think it is Gengo's responsibility to maintain an adequate line of communication with the translators, especially with regard to important (potentially qualification-threatening) matters regarding reviews and scores. If the Quality Control Team is so overwhelmed by the influx of re-review applications that not a single person could even bother to send me a short, one-line message to clarify that I had indeed chosen the correct option, then there would seem to be something wrong with the way that the system is set up in the first place.

    2. Lack of transparency/accountability

    It was brought to my attention that before the job is sent (or not sent) to the second reviewer, the content of the request is reviewed by the Quality Control Team. In effect, the re-review request is itself the subject of a review before it is decided whether it is really worthy of re-review! 

    Now my issue with this is that the standards and expectations as well as the decision process behind this "meta-review" by the Quality Control Team is totally opaque to the translator making the request. At least with ordinary reviews, we get comments from the Language Specialist explaining the grounds of their decision.

    For example, nowhere on the form does it state that, if one's requests are not worded in a way that makes it unambiguously clear that one wants a review by a different reviewer, there is a possibility that the request will be sent to the same reviewer -- again, even if one has expressly and correctly selected the option to have one's job sent to a different reviewer!


    3. All-round lack of understanding/empathy

    My main impression, however, is the sheer level of dissonance that seems to exist between the perspective of Gengo's Quality Control Team and those of the translators.

    Of course, Gengo's first responsibility is to provide quality translations to the clients, and the interests of translators rightfully come second to this. However, from the translators' point of view, the review process is not something to be taken lightly. It can lead to removals of qualifications and have a real impact one's income and even livelihood. Although it is a cliche, I am sure some of us even have families that the work we do here helps support.

    From this perspective, it seems to be a matter of simple courtesy and basic human decency to maintain a minimum level of transparency and communication with us throughout the review process. I do not think that this minimum level was met in my case.

    This dissonance also shows itself in other ways. Apparently, the Gengo Quality Team were unsure whether (1) I wanted a further explanation of the intentions of the original translator, or (2) a re-review by a different translator, and made a judgment call in favor of the former (again, without contacting me).

    However, if you put yourself in the shoes of the translator for even one second, I think it would be fairly obvious to basically anyone that the overwhelming probability is that I wanted the latter option, since it is the one that is more likely to substantially affect my score, qualifications, and ultimately, financial bottom-line. This is a job, after all, not a hobby or a school (as I think Lara once reminded us translators on these very forums, if I remember correctly).

    Why, I wonder, would Gengo think that I would be spending valuable time and energy (time and energy that could be spent working on Gengo to earn money, for instance) in order to request option (1) --- Out of sheer curiosity? A desire to know more about the thought-processes of the original translator? Of course it is much more likely that I wanted option (2), since this is the only option that would have any chance of affecting me financially. With all due respect, this would appear to be simple common sense, and again, the level of dissonance is shocking to me.