Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10] >
Plus features: Announcing the SecurePRO™ program
Thread poster: Henry Dotterer
Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Empty post.
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 09:19
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
TRUSTe Dec 12, 2016

writeaway wrote:
Afaik, Paypal only requested my bank details and my name. And a phone number for security. But Paypal is governed by banking laws and it is hardly the same thing as a commercial website like Proz, which is governed by......?

We're doing this with third-party services; we're not storing the more sensitive data. We keep our privacy policy up to date, it covers this, and we get certification of that from TRUSTe.


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 09:19
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
You're reading too much into things, Toon Dec 12, 2016

Toon Theuwis wrote:
Henry Dotterer wrote:
You have considered the Plus video library, the CafeTran CAT tool, integration of real-time communications (priority messages and the "call me" button), dynamic widgets for inclusion in personal websites, the development work and partnership we have entered into to generate external opportunities for interpreters, "ProZ Talks", and the features yet to be released (such as TM-Town membership). You may have looked at all of this, and none of it interests you.

Guess what? We have no problem with that!

I'm sorry I'm jumping in this thread here. I find the tone in the above quote brutal and disrespectful, though it claims not to be. The reasoning you are using here is also known as the straw man fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). So it's not polite and it's a false argument.

"Brutal and disrespectful"? "Straw man"? Toon, you imagine me to be more sophisticated than I am. I meant only what I wrote: someone might not find anything of value for themselves in the Plus package. Just being honest there.

Well, ok, I am guilty of plugging the features. But there is no disrespect in there, only respect and the sincere knowledge that even if I think the package is great, to someone else it has no value. And I knew this going in, and that's why we've taken the road of providing choice.


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 09:19
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Don't worry, Sindy! Dec 12, 2016

Sindy Cremer wrote:

According to the video, the purpose of the programme is to “better assure confidentiality in translation.” Call me a skeptic, but I sincerely doubt that PROZ is going to be able to give that assurance.
...
Can you state that you are not overstepping your boundaries as a website of translators here?

This is no doubt that this is an ambitious program. And this is not the first time I hear that ProZ.com will not be able to do something. I've heard it for many of the services we have launched. The Blue Board is one example. ("You will never be able to do anything about payment practices in the industry.")

It is also far from the first time we hear that ProZ.com is "overstepping its authority". The first time I heard that argument was when the idea came up for powwows. "Not your place," the argument went (and got about 40% support), "ProZ.com is a WEBSITE and should not be getting into offline events, which are the realm of associations," was the logic. Seems a silly point now, I would say. Wouldn't you?

And yes, at the outset of the CPN program, people said ProZ.com would never be able to screen translators. That argument subsided abruptly as people applied and experienced the serious vetting process, taking note of the significant amount of data available to ProZ.com to aid in vetting. Even associations have admired and emulated aspects, and I have welcomed and assisted them in that. As a result, today, the Certified PRO badge is recognized, respected and used by translation companies around the world. Translators have even been certified, reliably, in pairs that no association certifies in.

There were similar arguments, similarly proved wrong, around ProZ.com doing things in training, contests, mentoring and much more.

Have we also failed in some initiatives? Absolutely. (Wikiwords?) But you don't succeed in any project you don't try.

Now, the ProZ.com staff would not be able to do much, if anything, alone. The services we offer, like the Blue Board, the CPN program, training and so on, typically leverage two things: the power of the internet and the power of our collaborative community. Will this program be successful in improving the situation with regard to confidentiality in the translation industry? We'll just have to see!

... I was appalled by how little concrete information you were able to give in your video presentation about a programme that has already gone live.

The video is 26 minutes of me talking, I am sure that that is more than enough for most people to put up with. But the program is not exactly live. You have to start somewhere, and in this program, that somewhere is with sharing the vision and then letting people see and manipulate the first piece of the puzzle, their SecurePRO cards. This is nothing but a start.

... as a paying member of your site I urge you to ensure that in no way will my reputation be affected by the fact that I choose not to subscribe to your SecurePRO™ programme. I also want the assurance that PROZ.com will not use MY profile page for promoting your new programmes, Plus members, SecurePRO™ subscribers, etc.

This is a program to try to improve the confidentiality situation in the industry. The direction will be led by ProZ.com staff members together with those who choose to participate. I would say that you have nothing to worry about--if you want no part of it, this is an initiative that you can safely ignore.


 
Michele Fauble
Michele Fauble  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 06:19
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
Remove unverified Dec 12, 2016

I'm not against the SecurePRO program in principle, but let us decide what information we wish to have shown as verified.

Jean-Pierre Crespo
 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 09:19
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Thanks, Michele Dec 13, 2016

Michele Fauble wrote:

I'm not against the SecurePRO program in principle, but let us decide what information we wish to have shown as verified.

This is the kind of detail we'll pick up in the sounding board discussions. How do you propose that to work, exactly?


 
Michele Fauble
Michele Fauble  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 06:19
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
Only verify what we choose Dec 13, 2016

Henry Dotterer wrote:

Michele Fauble wrote:

I'm not against the SecurePRO program in principle, but let us decide what information we wish to have shown as verified.

This is the kind of detail we'll pick up in the sounding board discussions. How do you propose that to work, exactly?


From the various items that you may wish to verify (and who knows what those may be in the future), you verify the ones we choose. If we do not want an item verified, or you are unable to verify it, leave that item off the badge. That way there is no "unverified", which does sound negative.


Jean-Pierre Crespo
 
Katalin Horváth McClure
Katalin Horváth McClure  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 09:19
Member (2002)
English to Hungarian
+ ...
Henry, see my comment on Page 2 Dec 13, 2016

Henry,
I don't want to violate your rule of not too many posts, but I am wondering if you saw my comment on Page 2. You replied to several comments made by others after that, but you skipped mine. Not that I want personal attention, it's just that the discussion seems to have come to the same point that I was making there.


 
writeaway
writeaway  Identity Verified
French to English
+ ...
I agree Dec 13, 2016

Michele Fauble wrote:

Henry Dotterer wrote:

Michele Fauble wrote:

I'm not against the SecurePRO program in principle, but let us decide what information we wish to have shown as verified.

This is the kind of detail we'll pick up in the sounding board discussions. How do you propose that to work, exactly?


From the various items that you may wish to verify (and who knows what those may be in the future), you verify the ones we choose. If we do not want an item verified, or you are unable to verify it, leave that item off the badge. That way there is no "unverified", which does sound negative.




This is what I meant when I said no one should be stigmatized for opting out of verification. Just leave all reference(s) to verification off the profiles pages of those who don't buy the super package and/or those who don't want to be part of the securepro product.


 
Tom in London
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:19
Member (2008)
Italian to English
What is it? Dec 13, 2016

I can't even understand what this "verification" thing is and why I would need it, after so many years not having it.

 
Yvonne Gallagher
Yvonne Gallagher
Ireland
Local time: 13:19
Member (2010)
French to English
+ ...
well said Dec 13, 2016

writeaway wrote:

Proz is a commercial, for-profit website open to any and all. It sells services, products etc. On a the-more-you-pay, the-more-you-get basis. Just like any business/going concern.
We've seen the "PRO" product, where those who pay (and are deemed to be acceptable site citizens) are allowed to sport the Proz "PRO" badge. It has no official recognition off the site but allows people with it to stand out on various lists (the red P is hard to miss). They also have other perks, like access to the members-only PRO forum, where they are treated as valued members. That's fine - it's business and businesses need to attract and hang onto customers.
BUT
Imo, this latest "offer" goes way beyond anything that goes with a commercial website. By what authority does Proz feel they are entitled to sell/offer security of any kind, to post our names, phone numbers, nationalities etc. For whom? I find this abusive and extremely invasive. Proz is going to verify citizenship? How -by everyone dutifully and cheerfully sending in copies of their passports/birth certificates? And Proz plans to store all this personal data where? Or will it just be sold on or used to attract advertisers? All this has little or nothing to do with translation but a lot to do with keeping a file on customers: loyal, more loyal and most loyal of all.
This is fine for those who want to join and revel in being part of it all, but I agree with others who want to opt out but without being stigmatized for doing so.


I also see no benefit to me in buying the Plus package and think the marketing for it has been seriously skewed and flawed, coming as it has in drips and drabs and lacking in detail (the small print!). I'm delighted to see members raising these questions.


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 09:19
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Please see the video Dec 13, 2016

Tom in London wrote:

I can't even understand what this "verification" thing is and why I would need it, after so many years not having it.

The video announcement is the best source of information about the rationale and objectives of the SecurePRO program. Verification is only a first step in what we imagine for the program.


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 09:19
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
To Katalin Dec 13, 2016

Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
I don't want to violate your rule of not too many posts, but I am wondering if you saw my comment on Page 2. You replied to several comments made by others after that, but you skipped mine. Not that I want personal attention, it's just that the discussion seems to have come to the same point that I was making there.

Hi Katalin, thanks for participating in this thread. I did read your post. I believe that I had addressed, previously, the point(s) you made. As I wrote, I consider the main question to be whether or not this program is important enough to be included in the standardized portion of the profile. Since the only way to know that is to see how people use it, as I said, and as you asked, I'll watch and consider.


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 09:19
SITE FOUNDER
TOPIC STARTER
Thanks, Michele Dec 13, 2016

Michele Fauble wrote:
From the various items that you may wish to verify (and who knows what those may be in the future), you verify the ones we choose. If we do not want an item verified, or you are unable to verify it, leave that item off the badge. That way there is no "unverified", which does sound negative.

OK, this is a reasonable suggestion, but of course it is a balancing act. Maybe the way to go about this is simply to list information that has been verified. Thank you.


 
Katalin Horváth McClure
Katalin Horváth McClure  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 09:19
Member (2002)
English to Hungarian
+ ...
No, Henry, you still don't get it Dec 13, 2016

[quote]Henry Dotterer wrote:

Since the only way to know that is to see how people use it, as I said, and as you asked, I'll watch and consider.


Henry,
When you introduced the verified identity feature (that little checkmark) you did not wait, watch and consider how it was going to be used. You did not think even for a split second "marking" those who did not go through the verification in any way, did you? There is no crossed out checkmark or "unverified" or "verification declined" note on the profile of those who did not get verified. Of course not, because it is not right. This is what I am talking about.

I have nothing against the existence of this option, nothing against charging for it, but I am strongly against denying the ability to completely hide (without a trace) of that row in our profiles, if we wish to do so.
Since it has a lot to do with private information, we have every right to decide whether we want to participate or not. You are not a bank, you cannot make it a required item, and you have no right to stigmatize those who opt out.

Wait and see how it is used will give you NO information about those who DO NOT WANT (or not able) to use it. Enabling the full hide of this feature is not detrimental in any way to those who want to use it and display it, so why are you against it?

What I cannot comprehend, is that you listened to us when we requested the ability to completely hide the TM-Town link field in our profiles. (Thank you.) This SecurePro field has much more significant consequences then TM-Town (as it creates an impression about our reliability), yet, you are not listening.


 
Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10] >


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Plus features: Announcing the SecurePRO™ program






Anycount & Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000

Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.

More info »
CafeTran Espresso
You've never met a CAT tool this clever!

Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer. Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools. Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free

Buy now! »