Makes me think of The Miller's Tale, mills, grist, ground and millstones. And not to forget - the run of the mill...

Read on: http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/miller.htm

Nanna

Freelancing is a business form, translating is a skill. In both situations tho old adagio goes: you are never too old to learn. Granted, some are too stubborn to learn, but that is an entirely different story .

Personally I prefer feedback and peer review, even if it is bad news, because through constructive critiscism I can learn from my mistakes. The keyword here is constructive. I don't learn much from unfounded critiscism, but maybe that is something I have to learn to cope with, I don't know. I usually am grateful for comments on my work. As a relative newcomer in the industry I take all business opportunities I can get and as a former salesman I have learned to see opportunities in negative critiscism. Maybe I am a bit too naïve... but that is also an entirely different story .

Theo, Dutchman in France

Personally I prefer feedback and peer review

I am the same way.  I think to some degree this can be found in the HFS, but not at all in the "stars".  I have disabled my own feedback for that reason.  Here are some scenarios.

Often when there is a problem between translator and agency, neither of them has prepared properly in the initial steps.  Very frequently these things are in the context of the "auction atmosphere" of bidding, which is a kind of thing I don't do.  The whole premise is wrong in my eyes.  As I have worked, a client will come with a proposed translation, and I will look at what the requirements are, what turnaround time is optimum, and whether I am the person suitable for this kind of work.  We discuss these details in terms of a handcrafted job created by an expert in the field.  By contrast, the auction atmosphere treats it like orders of ketchup bottles or newspaper boys.  How fast and how cheap.  Immediately this sets up failure.  Since the majority of the feedback is within this flawed scenario, it's a first reason not to want to look at statistics of a graph.

It may be that the translator did not estimate his ability and turnaround time.  It may be that the agency has unusual and incorrect expectations.  It may be that both parties made assumptions (very frequently the case).  It may be that the agency is inexperienced, and that an experienced and competent translator can guide the agency through the process if permitted, so that it will go smoothly.  The stars and graphs don't tell us any of these things.

Furthermore, we see both parties using the clout of these ratings for other purposes.  They know the person cares about the "reputation" so they stick in low stars in order to get the other party to react as they want.  Or they get their colleagues to co-rate each other with 5 stars so that the statistics are there for all and sundry.  It's meaningless.

When I see how they actually interacted, that tells me something.

When I see how people present themselves on TCTerms, that tells me a lot.

There are also other things you might not think about.  How clearly and coherently does this person present his ideas when chatting in a forum such as this one?  How careful is his writing?  How does he get along with his peers?  Does he accept correction, and even thank others for it?  If so, this person will be a problem-solver and cooperative when working with someone else.  Does he refuse to take advantage of weaknesses being pointed out?  What if there is a misunderstanding or wrong premise while working together?  Will this person stick to his guns and refuse to solve the problem?  Does he show a sense of responsibility?

There are those who are bothered when told a suggestion they made in TCTerms is wrong.  They worry that their reputation as a professional will suffer.  In my mind, professionals know that mistakes can happen, and the real mark of the professional is not unending perfection, but the willingness to correct a mistake, and accepting that they exist.  What impresses me about a person is not how correct they are, but what they do if their entry is questioned in an intelligent manner.  There are a few of my colleagues who will take a second look, sometimes learn from the new thing offered, and express gratitude instead of defensiveness.  These are the people that I would want to work with, or hire.  I can expect a certain attitude if we run into problems, and also high standards.

I guess these thoughts are somewhat random.

Maxi

Not sure I like any type of criticism. We can add constructive, helpful, and a bunch of others to the list, but in the end we are back to passing judgment on others. Why criticize at all? The act of criticizing someone is, imho, used solely to make one feel superior to another. On the other hand, I welcome when someone offers me help, points me in the right direction, tells me the proper use of a word, and so on.

David

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criticism

Main Entry:

crit·i·cism

Pronunciation:

\ˈkri-tə-ˌsi-zəm\

Function:

noun

Date:

1607

1 a: the act of criticizing usually unfavorably criticism> b: a critical observation or remark criticism> c: critique2: the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature ; also : writings expressing such evaluation or analysis criticism>3: the scientific investigation of literary documents (as the Bible) in regard to such matters as origin, text, composition, or history

By criticism I do not mean a negative thing, nor do I mean an academic or aesthetic appreciation.  I mean something practical.  If I have holes in my approach to translation or business, I want to know about it so that I can improve myself.  If, for example, somebody says "You are translating medical terminology but you seem to have no medical dictionaries, and have not tried to get any background in medicine" then I can get myself medical dictionaries and maybe bet a background in medicine.  My translations will improve in quality.  Or someone may say, "You do not seem to plan well in the negotiating stage of a contract, you're too quick on the trigger, and that's why you're having difficulties with some of your clients, because you then can't deliver - Then I can bone up on my procedure, alternate means of doing things etc.  Being told "Ooh, you're a wonderful translator." does not give me anything except maybe some confidence.

Your cited definitions of criticism and critique leave out the only valuable form which is the one above. The criticism must come from a place of expertise or knowledge or experience.  It must come from wnating to help someone to improve, and the person must want it (That's the tricky part).  It should not be done to put the other person down, or to boost your own ego or to soapbox your own personal philosophies.  If it's done in the right way, it is valuable.

Maxi

Originally written by D. T. on November 24, 2008 9:49 AM ...Why criticize at all? The act of criticizing someone is, imho, used solely to make one feel superior to another. On the other hand, I welcome when someone offers me help, points me in the right direction, tells me the proper use of a word, and so on.   David

Hi David, I think there is a difference in semantics here. I agree with you that critisizing often gives the critic a sense of superiority (although I do not always see that as a bad thing because aiming to be superior, I think, is part of human nature). What you call someone offering to help you or to point you in the right direction, I very often see as constructive critiscism. After all, the need to tell me how to use a word properly does imply I used it incorrectly in the eyes of the critic. In the end it is always my choice (nobody else's) wheather I do something with the cristiscism or not.

Also, the 'packaging' of critiscism means a lot to me. If it comes across as insulting then it probably says mote about the critic than about what it criticized, I certainly would be more inclined to dismiss critiscism as irrelevant, even if the critiscism has merits. But the answer to your question "Why criticize at all?" is in my eyes: because if one perceives an error one can try and amend it. 

Regards,

Theo, Dutchman in France

Here is evidence:

I dunno

Howler Spotting

Also, there is an interesting twist in the Is freelancer a poor quality translation provider? thread which seems to suggest that it is not freelancers who are poor quality translation providers but the agencies for which those freelancers are working.

Jacek

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on November 24, 2008 10:06 AM By criticism I do not mean a negative thing, nor do I mean an academic or aesthetic appreciation.  I mean something practical.  ...The criticism must come from a place of expertise or knowledge or experience.  Maxi

I agree with you, Maxi. Unfortunately the act of criticism is used, too often, in a negative context and is far from practical. And, when criticism comes from that of expertise, knowledge or experience it is usually not criticism at all (in the sense of putting down the work of another), but a desire to help the other succeed. TCT terms is a great example of this, which by the way I commend you for the efforts you make at turning negative criticism into useful and practical dialog concerning term questions.

David

Originally written by Theo Bernards on November 24, 2008 10:06 AM Also, the 'packaging' of critiscism means a lot to me. If it comes across as insulting then it probably says mote about the critic than about what it criticized, I certainly would be more inclined to dismiss critiscism as irrelevant, even if the critiscism has merits. But the answer to your question "Why criticize at all?" is in my eyes: because if one perceives an error one can try and amend it.    Regards,   Theo, Dutchman in France

The packaging, as with most forms of personal evaluations of others, makes a big difference. I completely agree with you Theo. And yes, it is semantics, but as I mentioned earlier criticism is basically a means of putting down someone. The adding "constructive" is to make it more palatable. I, though, do take it all -good and bad, and use it to improve, even if the packaging is less than desirable.

David

Can we say, then, that it is TCT (which I hardly ever visit) that is the primary implied backdrop to this poll?

I must admit that you are a bigger person than I am, David, because I instinctively react very hot-headed when the packaging is negative or downright insulting. My temperament has cost me in the past (I tend to raise the volume in conversations  when insulted) and although I have learned to curb it a bit, I have no doubt it will cost me in the future. I think it has to do with my reluctance to compromise, at least, that is what my wife occasionally says but whenever she says that I find an excuse to do something solitary for the next few minutes. I take great solace from the adagio "The sweetest victory is the avoided fight" but find it sometimes difficult to live up to that adagio. Maybe I am a bit primal in my wiring .

OK, back to work, no doubt I will join in the discussion later

Theo, Dutchman in France