Evaluation processes for translation agencies - hello, frustration!

MaV

You were there in your corner, looking at a pretty flower. Out of the blue, a translation agency contacts you, asks you to do some tests to get included in their database of people working for little money. Since the public relations person is nicer than average, you say “ok” and do the tests, only to find out that some reviewer thinks your work was a disaster. (The last time this happened to me, at least they sent their “correction”, so I could tell which things would be useful for me to learn - there’s always something positive! - and which things showed that the reviewer was really terrible. I enjoyed having access to that. I would have preferred if it were a humbling experience from which to learn a lot.)

Right, we need to learn to deal with rejection, even when we thing it’s unfair. It’s a useful skill to have even in our primary school days.

But it makes me wonder what do you think of evaluation processes for translation agencies.

Do you prefer when it’s one reviewer? a) that gives feedback; b) that only says you’ve passed or not?
Do you prefer the new trend of having a pool of other translators giving stars (as is the case with those translation-mills where people only get to do segments and other follies like that)?
What do you consider a fair evaluation?

eleonorang

MaV Quite a thorny subject you've got there. As translators, we are used to working alone and avoid comparisons and direct competition, and this usually implies we have a certain ego ? So it's naturally hard for us to receive feedback. BUT we can and should adjust to that, see it as an opportunity for growth and for precious insights from the outside, so to speak (unless the reviewer clearly shows they're not competent, of course).
It's always best to be provided feedback because we can always learn. A formulation that we think works fine may not work just as much for another person, and that stylistic or preferential change should not be perceived as a personal offense or as a critic. Too often that 'sentiment' kicks in without us even being aware.
It's always useful to get feedback from the reviewer of an agency you work with because, after performing 4 or 5 translations on the same subject, you'll start to understand how their mind works and what the agency's standards are.
It'd be nice if corrections were always classified in 'objective mistakes', such as meaning, terminology, etc. and in 'preferential changes' because translators cannot really be held accountable for the latter.

MaV

eleonorang this usually implies we have a certain ego

It certainly does. ? Hence I hesitated mentioning a recent case. I too, try to swallow the ego part and learn something from each reviewer. This particular case, though, the person was simply wrong.

eleonorang It'd be nice if corrections were always classified in 'objective mistakes', such as meaning, terminology, etc. and in 'preferential changes' because translators cannot really be held accountable for the latter.

I completely agree. ?

What I dislike the most, really, are those translation agencies, usually with little respect for the translator (some even brag that they are the ones who pay the less to translators), who have points and stars systems for translators to evaluate their colleagues and grading them to earn more or less in a scale of salary. The education for competition they are trying to do is for a kind of competition that really doesn't interest me - I don't want to give or receive a bad note in order to get more work! (It's a bit the case as well with Proz Kudoz, but there it's not your payment in question).

Of course, we can argue that does are not serious agencies and that direct clients never do that kind of thing (mostly don't even do a test - building a working relationship is what reflects our skills).