Does anyone know about this new translation platform?

Robert Forstag wrote:
I see two main differences between hiring a translator through iLing.pro and proz.com:
1.
iLing.pro only accepts translators in its database who have at least one verified credential of some kind (while anyone can set up a profile at proz.com). Yes there is the red "P" and "verified credentials," but these require extra searching.
2.
The ratings system on iLing.pro seems designed to help translation buyers make their decision (and, in contrast to the WWA system but like its Blue Board, seems to allow the possibility of negative ratings).

Robert Forstag wrote:
The main problem is that, in those few instances where end clients (rather than agencies) have found me on proz.com, it has usually been for small one-off jobs (e.g., birth certificates, academic transcripts). This site is not set up to attract end clients, but agencies.

Mirko Mainardi wrote:

the proofreading (IF asked by the client) is physically done by another translator, not by "the agency", with yet another markup;

Robert Forstag wrote:

Other than securing end clients, agencies sometimes do not provide added value. When they do, it is a proofing job (that often is done by someone who does not know the source language, and that is designed to mainly detect missing text and obvious mistakes in the target language - it is not typically a thorough check against source).

Natasha Ziada wrote:

It is not my intention to wax lyrical about working with agencies in general, just to point out the difference between paying a marked-up price for an agency as opposed to for a broker.

Natasha Ziada wrote:

I actually went ahead and signed up with iLing as a customer, and there is really nothing to go by when looking for a reputable translator: all you can select are country and languages. The only things that are displayed on a translator's profile are their username, country of residence, 1-5 star rating (no comments), and a little symbol depicting the language combination(s) they hold credentials in. No introduction, no specialisations, no CV, no experience, no software used, no services provided, no actual proof of their credentials.

Who on earth would pay a 25% fee for something as basic as that?

Robert Forstag wrote:

Other than securing end clients, agencies sometimes do not provide added value. When they do, it is a proofing job (that often is done by someone who does not know the source language, and that is designed to mainly detect missing text and obvious mistakes in the target language - it is not typically a thorough check against source). Again, sometimes even this basic proofing is not done.

The other thing that agencies do is format the document so that it looks nice, sometimes even taking pains to closely replicate the appearance of the original (something that I myself don't do, and that I don't think is typically necessary).

The function of project managers is to assign projects within certain agreed budget parameters. They typically offer no assistance beyond that basic function.

In short, the "added value" that an agency offers an experienced translator is fairly limited. And in the main language pairs, the increasing tendency is to squeeze more and more work from the translator for less and less money.

Agencies would be the places to go to turnaround huge projects within a very short time (and for projects involving translation to multiple languages). But most translation projects fall outside these parameters.

Robert Forstag wrote:



1. Low rates.
2. Haggling over rates for each and every job.
3. Taking time to complete a form to "register in their database."
4. After which you may or may not receive actual work.
5. Insistence on submitting an unpaid test (for which you may or may not receive feedback, and which may or may not be assessed by a competent grader).
6. Preference (or exclusive consideration for) freelancers using particular CAT tools (or, increasingly, requiring use of an "in-house" CAT tool which takes time to learn).
7. Receiving offers in the form of group e-mails that may have been sent to dozens (if not hundreds) of other recipients, and
8. Meaning in practical terms that you cannot take too much time to review the proposed work, since someone else will surely be quicker on the draw and snag the job, and also
9. Meaning that, if you happen to be away from your computer/smartphone/tablet for a couple of minutes, you may lose the opportunity to be assigned the job in question.
10. Payment terms that may result in having to wait 45 days after completion of work (and in some cases much longer) for payment.
11. No real professional relationship with the person at the agency you deal with (typically a young PM not qualified to assess your work) and no real appreciation of the work that you do.
12. Dubious added value on the agency end. (Yes, sometimes there is the kind of careful and competent checking that you mention. Other times there is nothing. Sometimes the proofing is done by someone without knowledge of the source language. Sometimes, when real checking is done, the person doing it is not especially competent, and issues are flagged as "errors" that really represent nothing more than the proofer's own preferences.)



[Edited at 2017-07-26 14:30 GMT]

David GAY wrote:

focus on the best agencies...



...you'll avoid all these headaches.

Robert Forstag wrote:


My original post here reflects my general dissatisfaction with agencies, which in the typical scenario feature the following characteristics and requirements:

[list]

The real answer for translators is to secure direct clients and eliminate middlemen of any sort. The next best solution is the forming of some kind of consortium of qualified translators (grouped by language combination and/or field of expertise) with its own website to attract clients (and to which participating translators would pay dues). Then maybe a a third option would be the kind of brokerage represented by iLing.pro, if it can iron out the problems that have been identified.

In any event, I see reliance exclusively on agency assignments as increasingly unviable for many freelancers hoping to function as professionals.

Natasha Ziada wrote:
Collaboration between translators might be the best way forward - I fear that all other options will simply attract the entrepreneurially inclined, looking for easy profits.

Natasha Ziada wrote:
What I meant by my euphemistic 'entrepreneurially inclined' are those broker-type outfits, where someone sees a way to make an easy buck at the expense of quality, clients and suppliers (which seems to me is the case with iLing).

Perhaps naively, I figured this could be avoided when translators work together rather than joining a business run by outsiders who purely think of profits. In my experience, the best agencies are the smaller, boutique ones run by a former/current translator(s). You seem to have had some different experiences though, so it might not always hold true.

Robert Forstag wrote:

You make some good points. The main problem is that, in those few instances where end clients (rather than agencies) have found me on proz.com, it has usually been for small one-off jobs (e.g., birth certificates, academic transcripts). This site is not set up to attract end clients, but agencies.

And under prevailing conditions in the main language pairs, agencies are paying low rates and assessing high markups in exchange for limited added value.

The attractiveness of iLing.Pro is that it is geared to end clients. This doesn't mean that it will work in practice. I don't even know if the outfit is legitimate at this point. I myself highlighted some of its weaknesses in my last post.

But it does seem to offer a promising approach to accessing end clients while offering qualified freelancers rates that don't reduce them to sweatshop drudges.

Sheila Wilson wrote:


I'd say that a team of translators doesn't necessarily have to make for a better client. Who's going to be the "team leader"? Who's going to do the project management? Are they going to be paid for that work they do on behalf of the others? Don't they become rather like a one-person agency? And if they're anything like successful at running a freelance business then they must have entrepreneurial skills. It then boils down to whether, once they get used to "being the boss", they're (1) just looking for easy profits or (2) have a rather different view of society and their profession. I'm sure there would be a few in the first category, even if they were still active translators. In fact, I've had brief dealings with a couple of outsourcing translators who weren't very fair-minded at all (although most are: don't get upset, anyone I've worked with ). On the other hand, I regularly work with some highly ethical boutique agencies, who of course want and need to make a profit, but not at the expense of their suppliers or their clients.

It's odd (to me, at any rate), that the word "entrepreneur" sometimes seems to have negative connotations. I particularly found that to be the case in France, where it was very often said with a hint of a spit, despite (or because of?) its French-language origin. Coming from a "nation of shopkeepers" has something to do with my positive image of the average entrepreneur, I suppose. Even though I don't think anyone in my family ever ran a shop, we've almost all run businesses at some time.