Proz-bashing on FB and elsewhere

Lisa Simpson, MCIL MITI wrote:



That just about sums it up.

Charlie Bavington wrote:

Most of the people who are most critical of this site seems to be doing just fine, as far as I can tell.

I have seen people say stuff along the lines of "I've been on this site for ages and still can't get any work" but usually on here. Not elsewhere. The advice offered often contains statements to the effect proz isn't the be-all-and-end-all, and being elsewhere is good, too.


Not that it was always thus. There was a time when it had a proper professional community feel to it. But now it seems the priority is merely traffic and the money it brings. Which is a decision the owner is perfectly entitled to make. And possibly not the way he saw things heading when it started. But we all gotta eat, I suppose.

But to get to the main point, perhaps. One reason people criticise this website elsewhere is simply that it's pretty difficult to criticise proz on proz itself. Again, a decision site management is perfectly entitled to make. But I do know that some fairly draconian moderation decisions have driven many people away (sometimes to leave, sometimes just to keep their own counsel).

Again, this was not always the case - I recall brisk discussion about several site-related issues some years ago. Some of the criticism voiced elsewhere is generated by frustration about what this website could have been, and the direction is has taken in the last few years. But once again, if you place your online activities into someone else's hands, you have to take management decisions on the chin or go elsewhere.

And many have gone elsewhere. Many of the people I see making robust criticism of this website are either ex-members or silent members. This place could have been the only place any of us ever needed to be members of, because if those people were still here and active, it would meet the needs of most of us. But proz has chosen its route, so people have gone elsewhere, and proz won't allow robust criticism of that route on here (fair enough), so criticism has to be voiced elsewhere. QED as far as I'm concerned.

Charlie Bavington wrote:

Most of the people who are most critical of this site seems to be doing just fine, as far as I can tell.

I have seen people say stuff along the lines of "I've been on this site for ages and still can't get any work" but usually on here. Not elsewhere. The advice offered often contains statements to the effect proz isn't the be-all-and-end-all, and being elsewhere is good, too.

Not that it was always thus. There was a time when it had a proper professional community feel to it. But now it seems the priority is merely traffic and the money it brings. Which is a decision the owner is perfectly entitled to make. And possibly not the way he saw things heading when it started. But we all gotta eat, I suppose.

But to get to the main point, perhaps. One reason people criticise this website elsewhere is simply that it's pretty difficult to criticise proz on proz itself. Again, a decision site management is perfectly entitled to make. But I do know that some fairly draconian moderation decisions have driven many people away (sometimes to leave, sometimes just to keep their own counsel).

Again, this was not always the case - I recall brisk discussion about several site-related issues some years ago. Some of the criticism voiced elsewhere is generated by frustration about what this website could have been, and the direction is has taken in the last few years. But once again, if you place your online activities into someone else's hands, you have to take management decisions on the chin or go elsewhere.

And many have gone elsewhere. Many of the people I see making robust criticism of this website are either ex-members or silent members. This place could have been the only place any of us ever needed to be members of, because if those people were still here and active, it would meet the needs of most of us. But proz has chosen its route, so people have gone elsewhere, and proz won't allow robust criticism of that route on here (fair enough), so criticism has to be voiced elsewhere. QED as far as I'm concerned.

Charlie Bavington wrote:

Not that it was always thus. There was a time when it had a proper professional community feel to it. But now it seems the priority is merely traffic and the money it brings. Which is a decision the owner is perfectly entitled to make. And possibly not the way he saw things heading when it started. But we all gotta eat, I suppose.

But to get to the main point, perhaps. One reason people criticise this website elsewhere is simply that it's pretty difficult to criticise proz on proz itself. Again, a decision site management is perfectly entitled to make. But I do know that some fairly draconian moderation decisions have driven many people away (sometimes to leave, sometimes just to keep their own counsel).

Again, this was not always the case - I recall brisk discussion about several site-related issues some years ago. Some of the criticism voiced elsewhere is generated by frustration about what this website could have been, and the direction is has taken in the last few years. But once again, if you place your online activities into someone else's hands, you have to take management decisions on the chin or go elsewhere.

And many have gone elsewhere. Many of the people I see making robust criticism of this website are either ex-members or silent members. This place could have been the only place any of us ever needed to be members of, because if those people were still here and active, it would meet the needs of most of us. But proz has chosen its route, so people have gone elsewhere, and proz won't allow robust criticism of that route on here (fair enough), so criticism has to be voiced elsewhere. QED as far as I'm concerned.

Charlie Bavington wrote:
One reason people criticise this website elsewhere is simply that it's pretty difficult to criticise proz on proz itself. Again, a decision site management is perfectly entitled to make. But I do know that some fairly draconian moderation decisions have driven many people away (sometimes to leave, sometimes just to keep their own counsel).

Dan Lucas wrote:

One of my posts was deleted because it included the words "I'm somewhat alarmed to find myself partly agreeing with Mr. A ", where Mr. A was another user who - as I verified by email - had taken no offence. Who in their right minds would construe that as offensive anyway? But deleted it was.

Dan Lucas wrote:

I find moderators quick to act and heavy-handed when they do act, often snuffing out comments that moderators on most other forums would let stand....

I've seen other, equally innocuous messages struck out. In nearly all cases these were posts that the man or woman in the street would not consider to be problematical. Maybe it's because management (New York-based, right?) is a bastion of political correctness. Maybe it's because many moderators are not, as far as I can see, native speakers of English and may be unable to accurately assess tone in written English.

Whatever. Contrary to the stated aims of one of the site staff in a recent post, heavy-handed moderation does not give the impression that ProZ is a professional site for mature people. Heavy-handed moderation gives the impression that ProZ is run by prim busybodies who do not trust their paying users and who would rather drive them away than risk giving offense to some imaginary "sensitive reader".

Allowing only milquetoast discussions is not the way to build an energetic and thriving community. People will go elsewhere to talk and maybe one day elsewhere to pay for access to job listings.

Regards
Dan

Dan Lucas wrote:
Maybe it's because management (New York-based, right?) is a bastion of political correctness. Maybe it's because many moderators are not, as far as I can see, native speakers of English and may be unable to accurately assess tone in written English.

Contrary to the stated aims of one of the site staff in a recent post, heavy-handed moderation does not give the impression that ProZ is a professional site for mature people. Heavy-handed moderation gives the impression that ProZ is run by prim busybodies who do not trust their paying users and who would rather drive them away than risk giving offense to some imaginary "sensitive reader".

Charlie Bavington wrote:

There was a time when it had a proper professional community feel to it. But now it seems the priority is merely traffic and the money it brings. Which is a decision the owner is perfectly entitled to make. And possibly not the way he saw things heading when it started. But we all gotta eat, I suppose.

But to get to the main point, perhaps. One reason people criticise this website elsewhere is simply that it's pretty difficult to criticise proz on proz itself. Again, a decision site management is perfectly entitled to make. But I do know that some fairly draconian moderation decisions have driven many people away (sometimes to leave, sometimes just to keep their own counsel).

Again, this was not always the case - I recall brisk discussion about several site-related issues some years ago. Some of the criticism voiced elsewhere is generated by frustration about what this website could have been, and the direction is has taken in the last few years. But once again, if you place your online activities into someone else's hands, you have to take management decisions on the chin or go elsewhere.

And many have gone elsewhere. Many of the people I see making robust criticism of this website are either ex-members or silent members. This place could have been the only place any of us ever needed to be members of, because if those people were still here and active, it would meet the needs of most of us. But proz has chosen its route, so people have gone elsewhere, and proz won't allow robust criticism of that route on here (fair enough), so criticism has to be voiced elsewhere. QED as far as I'm concerned.

José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:

lets rogue agencies hide their intent behind an aura of "purchased" high Blue Board scores;

misleads translators into wrong solutions by letting bad answers be chosen on Kudoz;

However the unsuccessful translator who:
failed (...) ... will experience soothing relief as soon as they can blame Proz entirely for their failure.

Charlie Bavington wrote:

But to get to the main point, perhaps. One reason people criticise this website elsewhere is simply that it's pretty difficult to criticise proz on proz itself. Again, a decision site management is perfectly entitled to make. But I do know that some fairly draconian moderation decisions have driven many people away (sometimes to leave, sometimes just to keep their own counsel).

Jared Tabor wrote:

Yesterday in another thread I posted about ProZ.com's scope and rules, and how they limit what can be discussed on the site, and how those things can be discussed. Staff and moderators work to uphold the scope and rules in the forums. The scope and rules are not arbitrary.

Criticism of ProZ.com on ProZ.com is not a problem. Constructive criticism of ProZ.com is welcome and appreciated, though not all of it gets implemented.

Those who have constructive criticism or want to propose changes can reach site staff directly with ease, and do.

Fiona Peterson wrote:

I too find ProZ bashing extremely annoying, and I'm not quite sure what drives it, maybe the simple reason that Christine mentioned - anger that ProZ is not the "magic bullet" some hoped it would be in terms of generating work.

Building a freelance career and client base is hard work, and perhaps some are simply frustrated that a paid ProZ membership does not equate to a magic wand.

Charlie Bavington wrote:

Not that it was always thus. There was a time when it had a proper professional community feel to it. But now it seems the priority is merely traffic and the money it brings. Which is a decision the owner is perfectly entitled to make. And possibly not the way he saw things heading when it started. But we all gotta eat, I suppose.