| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | Should “native language” claims be verified? Thread poster: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Michele Fauble 
United States
Local time: 19:10
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Fooling clients | Sep 22, 2012 |
sony novian wrote:
In the end if you fake it people and your client will notice, you can fool a client once but but if the find out they will loose respect to you in an instant. And repetitive order is what personal (or at least me) count best
I just had a look at the profile and website of a translator who made the same point about clients noticing and not coming back if the translator claims to be native and delivers translations that show that the translator is not native. Well, guess what. That translator claims two native languages (one of which is English) and offers abundant evidence on his profile and website (especially the sample translations) that he is not native in English. And, according to the profile and website, that translator only offers translation into English, so he must be getting work into English. My guess is that clients are being fooled, and more than once.
[Edited at 2012-09-22 21:22 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:10
Hebrew to English
| Even though it's unlikely to be the route taken.... | Sep 22, 2012 |
Oliver Walter wrote:
Is this going to be significantly more difficult for languages not known by any ProZ staff members?
This wouldn't necessarily be a problem. It depends on whether they go down the route of universal verification, which I think most people agree isn't possible, logistically or otherwise.
I'd be surprised if there would be any difficulty for finding a handful of native speakers for most languages, if a language is that rare it's unlikely there's a problem with false and dishonest reporting of it as a native language. Are there hoardes of people claiming Zulu as a native language, for example? If such a verification system were to be implemented, not every language would have to be treated with equal vigour (cue the cries of 'discrimination').
In other words, the question of principle is: how are real native speakers of a language going to be found who can start the verification process? (and, possibly, will it be permissible and/or possible for natives in, for example, Amsterdam Dutch or Madrid Spanish, to verify Belgian Flemish or Mexican Spanish speakers?) That perhaps implies a question of what is a language, not only the already-discussed question of what is "native".
The original cohort could be found using similar or the same methods used to "recruit" the original cohort of Red Pees....and as for the second concern, I don't see why not. I (as a UK EN speaker) would have no problem in verifying someone else from America, New Zealand, Australia etc as a native speaker of English.
A further question, that has been hinted at a few times is: how will it be ensured that during the "test" the candidate is really the person undertaking the test and s/he does not have secret help in the background during the test? At a Powwow, that is presumably not difficult to ensure, but for people who will not or cannot attend a powwow and therefore have to be tested by online conferencing, Skype or something similar, that could be a problem.
If it's face to face spontaneous conversation, it'd be pretty hard to have help or use a cheat sheet...not without it being rather obvious. The one reason I prefer this over a written test (even though you can argue we should be more concerned about writing) is that the possibilities for fraud seem less likely using this method.
[Edited at 2012-09-22 21:27 GMT]
| | | | | there is a thread for that | Sep 22, 2012 |
Oliver Walter wrote:
If a verification process is defined, that involves using native-language peers to judge the "nativeness" of the candidate, how is this going to be started?
Good question, Oliver.
I would direct you to the "methods for verifying native language claims thread":
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/230297-methods_for_verifying_native_language_claims.html
To answer your question here: Proz.com should invite members who are willing to carry out these verifications and become judges. They would have to apply for that in English.
I would think that the people applying for the "position" would be the ones who want to do something against false claims and are probably indeed native speakers.
But they would have to be members with verified identities and have claimed only ONE native language.
I suggest they would need one or two supporting references confirming that they are native speakers and possibly have to submit a writing sample which Proz.com can have checked by other single-native-speaker members. Their profile page and resume should be thoroughly checked.
You can fade in this process by starting with the problem case English and eventually get to as many languages as possible.
Those are just a few ideas.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-22 23:46 GMT]
| | | | Paul Cohen
Greenland
Local time: 01:10
German to English
+ ...
| If you want verification, put your money where your mouth is | Sep 22, 2012 |
For the record, I think that "native language" claims on Proz should be "verified" – and I think that this should be done by a reliable third party using a test that requires the actual physical presence of each person being tested.
It's entirely unrealistic to assume that such testing can be done during Proz. powwows. I have met non-native speakers of English with seemingly flawless accents and an amazing command of the language, and I have met native speakers of English with bi... See more For the record, I think that "native language" claims on Proz should be "verified" – and I think that this should be done by a reliable third party using a test that requires the actual physical presence of each person being tested.
It's entirely unrealistic to assume that such testing can be done during Proz. powwows. I have met non-native speakers of English with seemingly flawless accents and an amazing command of the language, and I have met native speakers of English with bizarre accents and dubious writing styles. Some of them even work as translators. Personally, I'd rather be dipped in boiling oil than put myself in a position where I have to verify someone's "nativeness" at a meeting with colleagues or anywhere else.
I would also say that it's simply not our job to cobble together a solution to this problem – or to act as volunteer judges in an in-house testing program. There has to be a methodology behind it and it has to be done by trained professionals who have no direct connection with the site and its members, but are in a position to test language proficiency.
Although such proficiency is admittedly not the same thing as being a "native speaker," it is pertinent to one's ability as a translator, and thus pertinent information for our clients. It is, I'm afraid, also the closest we will ever come here to reliably "verifying" members' "nativeness."
I don't know what such testing would cost, especially for the more exotic languages on this site, but I think we should all be prepared to pay that price. It would go a long way toward separating the real "natives" from the site's many egregious wannabes.
And Henry: It could significantly boost the troubled reputation of your site.
Proz sells a service. If that service suddenly entails more work for site staff due to customer demands, then Proz is welcome to raise its rates accordingly – and charge fees for outside testing – if it meets site members' and users' demands.
A rating scheme such as the one proposed by Olly makes perfect sense to me. I've read Bernhard's objections to it and I think the solution lies in including an appropriate disclaimer about what does and does not constitute a "native language," at least for the purposes of this site.
Suffice to say, native-like proficiency does not make you a native speaker. As already eloquently stated by so many other contributors to this thread, even if someone manages to perform admirably in a language that they learned as an adult, it's patently obvious, at least to the vast majority of us here, that this is not – and never will be – their "native language." As an adult, you cannot acquire a new native language; you can only improve your proficiency in another language.
These basic recognitions along with other hallmarks of a "native language" already mentioned in this thread should be included in a comprehensive definition of "native language" officially adopted by Proz and prominently posted on this site.
Many people have argued here in favor of such a disclaimer concerning "native language" claims, but I think we should demand much more. Such a disclaimer would only instill a modicum of confidence in potential customers if it also makes reference to a dedicated verification program. Anything less would just be too typically toothless.
Why settle for less when Proz has been promising a verification system for ages?
If I were in Henry's shoes and had my eye on the bottom line, and I heard that the majority of the contributors to an epic thread like this would be satisfied with a simple disclaimer, it wouldn't exactly inspire me to go to the trouble of introducing a fundamental change in policy such as third-party testing or some other form of verification.
In view of the intense interest that this issue continues to generate, if enough people support the idea of testing, or some other form of verification, they should make this perfectly clear to site management. They should put their money where their mouth is.
I'll gladly be among the first to start: I've already discontinued paying for membership on this site over the controversial "P" badge scheme, so I can't withdraw any financial support to the site. But if Proz fails to introduce a satisfactory third-party language proficiency testing scheme by the end of 2013, I'll erase my profile.
On the other hand, if Proz adds a prominently displayed "native speaker disclaimer" and, more importantly, introduces a reliable testing scheme before this date, I'll renew my "platinum" status for at least a year in recognition of that achievement – and I'll take the test myself for my NL and my target languages the next time I leave the frozen, arctic wastes and travel to Europe or America.
Keep the debate alive, folks.
Paul ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| a few comments | Sep 23, 2012 |
Hey Paul.
Paul Cohen wrote:
For the record, I think that "native language" claims on Proz should be "verified" – and I think that this should be done by a reliable third party using a test that requires the actual physical presence of each person being tested.
Agree, except it will have to also be possible online, i.e. not requiring one's physical presence. Verification must take place. After a certain period during which a translator can display the "temporary "unverified native" status "N", one's no longer allowed to claim "nativeness" in one's profile. This would mean mandatory verification.
The only way to keep verification "voluntary" is to not give out the "unverified" native speaker "N" at all and only give out the yellow N after verification or take it away retroactively because we already have it. Otherwise there's no incentive to get verified.
That means at least the "unverified native language 'N'" would have to be terminated now. That would clear up quite a lot.
I'm not sure what I'd suggest for the ONE-native-language claimants.
I'd say tightening of the "declaration" procedure, bringing in a definition for "native language" and have everyone (even retroactively) go through a questionnaire by which "nativeness" will be established (just through questions, not documents) in order to keep or receive the yellow "N". But I know a lot of people want verification even for the yellow Ns. This needs to be addressed more.
Paul Cohen wrote:
A rating scheme such as the one proposed by Olly makes perfect sense to me. I've read Bernhard's objections to it and I think the solution lies in including an appropriate disclaimer about what does and does not constitute a "native language," at least for the purposes of this site.
That disclaimer/definition would be attached to the yellow "N" as far as I'm concerned.
But without verification of native language(s), especially for two native languages, I don't really see the benefit. But I will think more about it.
Paul Cohen wrote:
Suffice to say, native-like proficiency does not make you a native speaker. As already eloquently stated by so many other contributors to this thread, even if someone manages to perform admirably in a language that they learned as an adult, it's patently obvious, at least to the vast majority of us here, that this is not – and never will be – their "native language." As an adult, you cannot acquire a new native language; you can only improve your proficiency in another language.
These basic recognitions along with other hallmarks of a "native language" already mentioned in this thread should be included in a comprehensive definition of "native language" officially adopted by Proz and prominently posted on this site.
Agree. I agree especially with your thought: "even if someone manages to perform admirably in a language that they learned as an adult, it's patently obvious, at least to the vast majority of us here, that this is not – and never will be – their "native language."
Paul Cohen wrote:
Many people have argued here in favor of such a disclaimer concerning "native language" claims, but I think we should demand much more. Such a disclaimer would only instill a modicum of confidence in potential customers if it also makes reference to a dedicated verification program. Anything less would just be too typically toothless.
Why settle for less when Proz has been promising a verification system for ages?
If I were in Henry's shoes and had my eye on the bottom line, and I heard that the majority of the contributors to an epic thread like this would be satisfied with a simple disclaimer, it wouldn't exactly inspire me to go to the trouble of introducing a fundamental change in policy such as third-party testing or some other form of verification.
In view of the intense interest that this issue continues to generate, if enough people support the idea of testing, or some other form of verification, they should make this perfectly clear to site management. They should put their money where their mouth is.
I have scanned the web for verification methods/organizations for native languages but have found nothing except what is proposed here. The problem is indeed that we want to verify "nativeness", not how well someone (possibly any non-native speaker) has mastered a language.
I am sure we are in uncharted waters here.
We need a verification method carried out by native speakers who check for nativeness, not testers looking for grammatical errors or attesting "excellent command of a language."
In light of the fact that we need to weed out the worst offenders, I offer the following thought:
If you introduce "verification" as a requirement to gain/keep the yellow native speaker badge, I believe that the egregious offenders will probably not show up for verification because they will easily be outed.
If true natives are going to talk with an applicant or look through their writing samples, and they had lied in their profiles, I don't believe they would have a problem telling such persons that they're not a native speaker.
Also, if you introduce my STEP 1, where one has to at least fulfill certain basic requirements (learned it from birth or during the critical period in a native-language environment and speaks it now = is one of the working languages) in order to be admitted to STEP 2 (actual verification), the likelihood of non-natives showing up to that "talk/eval" is again greatly reduced.
So, even though it would be great to have a professional third party native language tester carry out that verification, I'm afraid such organization doesn't exist. If anything, they're going to be an organization that will evaluate grammatical or pronunciation errors or attest excellent command of a language. Not really what I want.
So, at this point, I still stand by my suggestion for peer verification. Native language peers will only do one thing: meet, in most cases, true native speakers, recognize them easily and will be able to confirm the native language. If a non-native giving the impression of a native speaker slips through, I believe it would definitely not be very often.
Do I claim to have the perfect solution? No. Just telling you what I think.
Bernhard
[Edited at 2012-09-23 04:12 GMT]
| | | | Paul Cohen
Greenland
Local time: 01:10
German to English
+ ...
| Uncharted waters | Sep 23, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I am sure we are in uncharted waters here.
Agreed. And there are probably some very good reasons why the murky region of testing "native speakers" remains relatively unexplored -- aside of course from Hollywood films where a German spy is unmasked because he didn't know who won the 1938 World Series, or whatever obscure baseball terminology test a bunch of ingenious GIs managed to cook up.
It all sounds like quite a challenge for the ship's captain. I'm curious to hear what he has to say.
Sometimes I'm glad I'm just a lowly stowaway.
| | | | | Another Idea | Sep 23, 2012 |
I think for the time being, people should be required to write a short (under 100 words) explanation of why they are native in a particular language.
When prompting people to write their explanations, Proz could provide a list of things translators should keep in mind when declaring their native languages along with a warning that falsely declaring a native language is a form of deception and fraud that may result in one being banned from the site.
In my case, I would ... See more I think for the time being, people should be required to write a short (under 100 words) explanation of why they are native in a particular language.
When prompting people to write their explanations, Proz could provide a list of things translators should keep in mind when declaring their native languages along with a warning that falsely declaring a native language is a form of deception and fraud that may result in one being banned from the site.
In my case, I would probably write something like: Born, raised, and educated to degree-level in the United States.
If I write this regarding English (my native language), I am obviously not going to be able to write the same thing regarding Arabic (my second language). I would have to come up with something else that would explain why I consider myself a native of that language, something like: Spent childhood summers with Arabic-speaking relatives in the Middle East where I took formal lessons in Modern Standard Arabic. (Please note that this is not my actual situation, but a mere example).
These explanations could be placed as mouseovers that become visible when you move your mouse over the native-language icons.
Some people will undoubtedly shoot themselves in the foot by providing explanations that are either grammatically incorrect or outright bizarre. The other day, for example, I discovered a colleague proclaiming in his profile that he had achieved native proficiency in English by surfing the Internet and participating in on-line chats.
Regardless of what people write, it will give clients an idea of what translators have in mind when they say they are native speakers of English and other languages.
If Proz wants to crack down on this, they can eventually come up with a list of things that definitely do NOT make one a native speaker (such as surfing the Internet, moving to the U.S. when you are 25 years old, etc.). Requiring people to explain their nativeness will at least help a bit to identify some of the more outrageous claims. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 10:10
Chinese to English
| A different tack | Sep 23, 2012 |
Perhaps we've been thinking about this the wrong way.
Has Proz ever been known to take action under Rule 6 (or whichever number it is that says no misrepresentation) about *anything*?
Credentials, hobbies, parentage, claimed clients... anything at all?
If we knew what sort of thing Proz is inclined to take action on, then we could start to think about how to convert nativeness into an actionable datum.
So, for example, if a client complained th... See more Perhaps we've been thinking about this the wrong way.
Has Proz ever been known to take action under Rule 6 (or whichever number it is that says no misrepresentation) about *anything*?
Credentials, hobbies, parentage, claimed clients... anything at all?
If we knew what sort of thing Proz is inclined to take action on, then we could start to think about how to convert nativeness into an actionable datum.
So, for example, if a client complained that they found a person on Proz who claimed X Y and Z, but was in fact A B and C, would that prod Proz into action? ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Kirsten Bodart
United Kingdom
Local time: 04:10
Dutch to English
+ ...
| You are ignoring the issue though | Sep 23, 2012 |
The issue is still 'how will we do it' and that is what I, Paul and Samuel have been saying all along.
You don't just need a bad text. As Paul said, that can have been written by a native as well.
You need a reliable authority beside Proz that can verify this and is confident that its tests are very accurate. I.e. close to 100%.
It is not about, 'You are not allowed to lie. Take it off.' (Although there are some perfectly acceptible reasons in some cases li... See more The issue is still 'how will we do it' and that is what I, Paul and Samuel have been saying all along.
You don't just need a bad text. As Paul said, that can have been written by a native as well.
You need a reliable authority beside Proz that can verify this and is confident that its tests are very accurate. I.e. close to 100%.
It is not about, 'You are not allowed to lie. Take it off.' (Although there are some perfectly acceptible reasons in some cases like José Enrique has so nicely explained.) It is about, 'How are you going to do this reliably?'
Colleagues doing it at meetings is asking for trouble. You'd at least want them to show you they are qualified to do this. My husband hears the smallest little accent, even in other languages. I don't, not in Dutch. So I would not be confident I could do this and would probably turn it down.
Anyway, if my fellow Dutch speakers have to assess me as a Flemish person, and they can't understand me, it's gong to be difficult isn't it. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 10:10
Chinese to English
| Where's the professionalism? | Sep 23, 2012 |
WRT what Kirsten says above, I'm going to both agree and disagree, confusingly!
Firstly, I agree that face to face meetings would end up being a logistical nightmare.
But secondly, I'm a bit dismayed by all this talk of "What if a someone had a different accent to me, they might mark me down."
If you ask a trusted, professional Proz colleague to check someone's native language, they should be able to do that without running into difficulties over accents or... See more WRT what Kirsten says above, I'm going to both agree and disagree, confusingly!
Firstly, I agree that face to face meetings would end up being a logistical nightmare.
But secondly, I'm a bit dismayed by all this talk of "What if a someone had a different accent to me, they might mark me down."
If you ask a trusted, professional Proz colleague to check someone's native language, they should be able to do that without running into difficulties over accents or dialects. I know that the Dutch are a clannish lot (aren't we all?), but I'd like to believe that a reasonable Dutch person (like you yourself, Kirsten) could look past dialect-group loyalty and take a professional attitude toward this question. If I meet an American, I'm not going to work myself into knots over whether their accent sounds the same as mine. I'm going to have a conversation with them, ask a couple of questions about their background, then put a big tick in the native box (where appropriate).
Now, obviously this problem has arisen because there are some out there who are not professional in their attitudes. But they wouldn't be chosen as checkers.
I think the accent-related and integrity-related difficulties are being exaggerated a bit here; but I think the logistical difficulties would be very significant. ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:10
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | The "verifiers" | Sep 23, 2012 |
If we stick as closely as possible to the information in the FAQs, which has been in place since year dot and is therefore most likely to be what is accepted (it is after all what we all signed up to), then a native speaker will be found to be one if other native speakers are in agreement. I see that there is an aversion to having a "panel of judges” taken from ProZ site members, but can someone please explain why? Eligibility of a professional association is usually judged by other accredited... See more If we stick as closely as possible to the information in the FAQs, which has been in place since year dot and is therefore most likely to be what is accepted (it is after all what we all signed up to), then a native speaker will be found to be one if other native speakers are in agreement. I see that there is an aversion to having a "panel of judges” taken from ProZ site members, but can someone please explain why? Eligibility of a professional association is usually judged by other accredited professionals within the same association. Would this be this any different? What if the “judges” had to be members of a professional association? They could be rewarded for their time and trouble in the form of Browniz or some other method (I confess to being completely ignorant of ProZ’ various methods of “remuneration").
While I see that Jenny's proposed disclaimer is certainly the simplest solution, I’m afraid I do see it as the kiss of death for the site. ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:10
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Which other languages are affected? | Sep 23, 2012 |
Does misrepresentation regarding native language apply (in large numbers) to any language other than English? In all these discussions, has an example been put forward of widespread misrepresentation in any other language? I'd like to know if anyone has examples. If this primarily applies to English then how many "native English" speakers are there to verify?
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 10:10
Chinese to English
| Plus the fact of verification will work on its own | Sep 23, 2012 |
Also worth noting that in the vase majority of cases, there will be no difficulty or controversy, because the mere fact of verification will discourage speculative claims of nativeness like we see today. The people we're most concerned about excluding - those with poor language skills - are highly unlikely to even bother going to a verification meeting, as it's obvious they won't pass.
That doesn't mean that we can ignore what happens in the case of a borderline case, but it does m... See more Also worth noting that in the vase majority of cases, there will be no difficulty or controversy, because the mere fact of verification will discourage speculative claims of nativeness like we see today. The people we're most concerned about excluding - those with poor language skills - are highly unlikely to even bother going to a verification meeting, as it's obvious they won't pass.
That doesn't mean that we can ignore what happens in the case of a borderline case, but it does mean that the number of difficult cases is going to be very very small. It's not the major problem that some seem to be worried about. ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:10
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Phil Hand wrote:
Also worth noting that in the vase majority of cases, there will be no difficulty or controversy, because the mere fact of verification will discourage speculative claims of nativeness like we see today. The people we're most concerned about excluding - those with poor language skills - are highly unlikely to even bother going to a verification meeting, as it's obvious they won't pass.
That doesn't mean that we can ignore what happens in the case of a borderline case, but it does mean that the number of difficult cases is going to be very very small. It's not the major problem that some seem to be worried about.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:10
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Due diligence | Sep 23, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote: sony novian wrote:
In the end if you fake it people and your client will notice, you can fool a client once but but if the find out they will loose respect to you in an instant. And repetitive order is what personal (or at least me) count best
I just had a look at the profile and website of a translator who made the same point about clients noticing and not coming back if the translator claims to be native and delivers translations that show that the translator is not native. Well, guess what. That translator claims two native languages (one of which is English) and offers abundant evidence on his profile and website (especially the sample translations) that he is not native in English. And, according to the profile and website, that translator only offers translation into English, so he must be getting work into English. My guess is that clients are being fooled, and more than once. [Edited at 2012-09-22 21:22 GMT]
This is where the "due diligence" and the "market is self-regulating" arguments fall down. I'm not in favour of placing the onus on the clients, who come to this site after all in the belief that it is a directory of "professionals" (the name being somewhat of a misnomer).
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
