7

Gengo takes pride in its QA system armed with GoCheck and LS's. And we, translators, are evaluated with the GoCheck score in this system. Gengo has many advantages including a good support system - they are quick responsive and kind as well. Also I understand reviewing isn't an easy job so that I believe Gengo named them as specialists and I believe many of them will work as best as named. However, I don't feel as such in my pair.

I sincerely hope that this won't be the case in your language pairs — indeed.

One re-review was requested on Feb. 1. Two days later, one error was corrected but the other two errors were not corrected, where one error was explained with a grammar that I have never heard or seen before and the other one was simply repeating the same explanation in the original review with disregarding my claim. On the same day, I wrote to the support team another long e-mail explaining the correctness of my translation and requesting any reliable source of the grammar that was based on the error; this time I didn't request re-grading. On Feb. 8 - aside from some absurd communicating-, what I had was another score, with one error changing from major to minor with ANOTHER standard unlike the original review's standard, and with the other error not explaining the bizarre grammar and not providing any source of the bizarre grammar but claiming ANOTHER new theory. I requested the explanation again through the support team, and have not been hearing for a week.

This is just one instance showing review gradings without any clear standard, re-review results with the same repeating explanation in the original review or with non-rational explanation, and cutting off the communication. I had a lot more cases so I often feel like that this QA system wields their power from way over the ivory tower.

We work for clients and Gengo as well. However, if the re-review is simply repeating the same claim in the original review without explaining and resolving our arguments, if the re-review is creating a new grammar or theory for them to justify the score of the original review, if original reviews are graded without any standard criteria so two different jobs are reviewed and scored on a different basis but they don't give a clear instruction upon our request and give only reasons or only alterative sentences, if we, genuine, "independent" translators, should work for the non-interpretable scores, not for the benefits of clients, if the review is based on some intuitions and the re-review is justified on some bizarre theories and the quest for them is being completely disregarded in the environment that the score is all we are judged upon, where would we find democracy in this QA system?

 

5件のコメント

  • 2
    Avatar
    Willy

    I finally received an email through the support team, but just repeated, "re-review has been processed with additional feedback from the LS," disregarding my requests for the explanation when the re-review had been requested. I have been experiencing this tiring ping-pong more than two weeks by now.

     

    Is it a democratic way of communication?

     

     

     

  • 1
    Avatar
    Willy

    Now three weeks have passed from the day I requested the explanation regarding the re-reviewer's bizarre grammar s/he claimed. And since Feb. 16 I received this email from the support team, "Thank you for clarification. Let me ask the team to check the details again and hopefully this time around the reviewer team can provide a clear answer to your question. I requested AGAIN the A week has passed since my last request for explaining," I have not been hearing anything by now. That kind of response hasn't been the first time for this three week period, and I had experienced it before as well.  

     

    I am not that surprised because this is the way they have treated on the raising of QA issues. They just want us - genuine, independent translators - to be tired and not to raise any doubt on their ivory tower.

     

    Whenever the support team reply to me, "I will ask the team," I even doubt whether there is an actual QA team that we generally think of, or whether the support team refers to a group of LS's. 

     

    I have been asking for one reliable source that the re-review's bizarre theory or grammar explains. Would the explanation be so difficult, or am I making the highest beings of being special too uncomfortable? Would that be a democratic community?

     

    I will keep this updated and see what is going on.   

  • 1
    Avatar
    Lara Fernandez

    Hi Willy,

    I appreciate you bringing up your case here :) 

    I have checked with our Quality Team and they've informed me that they've processed not one but two re-review requests for your job, as you describe in your initial post indeed. Please do understand that this is an exception and normally we'd only be able to process one re-review request. The fact that the team was willing to make an exception for you and process an extra re-review to ensure that we were giving due importance to your claims and appeal should already speak volumes. However, once this is done, we kindly request that you accept that latest review as final. As I understand, both from looking at your post and from what has been communicated to me by our Quality Team, changes have been made to your review and the score has raised quite a lot from the initial GoCheck received. 

    At this point, we kindly request that you accept the latest review as final.

    Thank you for your understanding,

    Lara

    Lara Fernandezにより編集されました
  • 0
    Avatar
    Willy

    Hi Lara,

     

    It's very unfortunate to hear that, but this seems to show well that the communication is not democratic.

     

    Let's recap with an analogy; In the math test, I answered, "1+1=2" and "2-1=1". But the test result showed that one is majorly wrong and the other is minorly wrong. So I requested a re-review but the result was that they are still wrong, because "1+1=3" that claimed in the original review and "2-1=0" that I have never heard about, supporting with a bizarre theory.

     

    At this point, I NEVER requested them to be re-reviewed or re-graded, but requested them to be EXPLAINED in a clear manner because I provided all the reasons that "1+1=2" and "2-1=1". This is the part of email I wrote to the support team then on Feb.3.

     

    => and I tried to find that grammar or theory but I couldn't do so anywhere. Please ask the re-reviewer to give me one reliable source that explains the grammar or theory.

    I would like to get the clear feedback this time; please help me to do so.

     

    And on Feb. 4,

    =>Something was misunderstood. My previous maiI didn't seem to be correctly read. I am not asking about the grading or grading system; my question is the following:

    As you read, it isn't about the grading but questions about "how" and "why."  I hope to get correctly answered.

     

    However, unlike my request, they were re-reviewed and re-graded on Feb. 8, but without any explanation on my provided reasons, the first question's grading changed from major to minor, with another ground of "1+1=2.0" and the other question remained lowly wrong with another ground of "2-1=0.5".

     

    I didn't even raise the issues of "1+1=2.0" and "2-1=0.5" after that (because that would take another long, long way), but I kept requesting any explanation on my provided reasons why and how "2-1=1" is wrong and "2-1=0" is right.

     

    I wrote to the support team on Feb. 8.

    => This time I clearly asked why and how the re-reviewer had graded the job, with the request of evidence of the theory in which the re-reviewer had explained for the grading, as you are well aware as shown below:

    But now, another reviewer re-garded it, with one major error changing to minor and with ANOTHER "NEW" theory, and DISREGARDED my questions in this email chain.

    WHAT WOULD THIS DISREGARD MEAN? .... they don't want to reveal SOME facts.

     

    Now today on Feb. 25, you answered me back with "Please do understand that this is an exception and..." and "changes have been made to your review and the score has raised quite a lot from the initial GoCheck received." Those remarks could be very insulting on me, because I didn't ask for the exception and I didn't ask for the second re-grading.

     

    You can revert my score back at the end of the re-review; I didn't want to take a piece of bread that I hadn't asked for, from the ivory tower or non-democracy. But your remarks could be misunderstood, "the ivory tower kindly gave you enough bread so just do shut up. That's final."

     

    Again and INDEED, I am asking for the explanation why "2-1=0", and asking whether we, genuine and independent translators, are being treated in a democratic way under this QA system and communication.

     

    Thank you.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Lara Fernandez

    Hi Willy,

    The purpose of our re-review request process is to conduct a re-review, for which a different score may or may not result. With the size of our translator community, we cannot individually process requests for "why and hows" to individual translators one on one whenever they don't agree with their GoCheck review. In such instances, the standard process of a re-review request is followed. In your specific case, it was followed not only once, but twice, with comments provided upon each re-review.

    I do understand that even the last re-review may not be to your satisfaction, and I would also request that you understand that in this specific case, both of our LSs have at this point looked at your translation and agreed on the final existing review. 

    There's a lot of insistence on this thread regarding democracy, but I don't think there's anywhere in our Support articles or Translator Agreement where we explicitly say that the QA system is a democracy. I am afraid that this may sound blunt, but maybe this is a good opportunity for a reminder that, while we do take feedback into account and try to incorporate it to improve the system and translator experience when it is fit, justified, and as long as it aligns with the business vision and strategy of the company, this doesn't mean that we can operate as a "democracy" in the sense that "the majority rules". We manage a growing community of 25,000+ and, as such, rules and processes have to be put in place in a scalable manner. Yes, sometimes the rules and processes won't please everyone, and yes, there's bound to be a few edge cases that we look at individually (or for which we are able to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis). However, this is inevitable with such a large community.

    Thank you for your understanding and patience,

    Lara

サインインしてコメントを残してください。