Suggestion: Deadline for quote selection Thread poster: Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz
|
|---|
The typical fate of a quote seems to be 'no action'. This isn't right.
While it's not unfair that translators lose any time invested in offering plus the time slot reservation necessitated by quoting on a job, it's unfair when they don't know what's going while still being tied up.
What's worse, rates and deadlines are quoted with the presumption of a reasonable decision time and reasonable start, while the job poster – in the current system – can take sweet time ch... See more The typical fate of a quote seems to be 'no action'. This isn't right.
While it's not unfair that translators lose any time invested in offering plus the time slot reservation necessitated by quoting on a job, it's unfair when they don't know what's going while still being tied up.
What's worse, rates and deadlines are quoted with the presumption of a reasonable decision time and reasonable start, while the job poster – in the current system – can take sweet time choosing the translator before expecting, say, 5000 words to be done within a single day and for the originally quoted price.
Since it's not really feasible to make the quoted rates fluidly respond to time left between quote selection and deadline, I believe it's necessary to include some other sort of safety valve so that job posters have to finish selection within a reasonable time-window or forfeit the rate and deadline quoted, thus freeing up the translator. This could even be a self-imposed deadline.
In short, just please force (and I mean 'force') job posters to specify a quote selection deadline, after which non-chosen offers are free. This really is necessary. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
If I don't get a reply after 2-3 hours, I consider the job closed, meaning I'm pretty sure I haven't been selected (having said that, I rarely bid)... if the poster then contacts me and I've taken another job on, then tough!
[Edited at 2014-03-17 13:06 GMT]
| | | | | Might not be as easy at law | Mar 17, 2014 |
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
If I don't get a reply after 2-3 hours, I consider the job closed, meaning I'm pretty sure I haven't been selected (having said that, I rarely bid)... if the poster then contacts me and I've taken another job on, then tough!
[Edited at 2014-03-17 13:06 GMT]
Might not be so easy without any official rule about quote expiration, if the client decided to try and enforce the contract allegedly formed by his acceptance of your offer (which will often reasonably take more than a couple of hours).
| | | | | you have a point... | Mar 17, 2014 |
I would then specify in my quote that after 3 hours my offer might not be valid anymore...
| | |
|
|
|
| Yeah, that would be useful | Mar 17, 2014 |
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
I would then specify in my quote that after 3 hours my offer might not be valid anymore...
| | | | Neil Coffey 
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:49
French to English
+ ...
| Impossible ideal | Mar 17, 2014 |
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
In short, just please force (and I mean 'force') job posters to specify a quote selection deadline, after which non-chosen offers are free. This really is necessary.
Unfortunately, I think it's also impossible. In reality, the amount of time that a poster will allow before 'making a final decision' will depend on how quickly they get good-quality candidates applying. At the time of posting a job it's really impossible to tell how quickly this will be.
What I think in reality would satisfy the situation you highlight would be:
- to have another level of granularity of job status: in between "open" and "closed", there needs to be a level of "closure pending" or in other words "in the final allocation stage": at this stage, the job poster has basically chosen their favourite candidate and there's *probably* no point in anybody else applying, but they might just have a small chance if the negotiation with the poster's favourite candidate falls through for some reason
- applications similarly need to have a status in between "Accepted" and "Rejected": a kind of "On my waiting list of second choices if no better candidate comes forward in the next hour or if the favourite candidate can't take on the job".
If this status existed, I think it would allow job posters to respond to an applicant very quickly with either "Rejected" or "On waiting list: keep checking your e-mail for the next couple of hours". With the present system, it's all-or-nothing and to the candidate, hearing nothing can either mean (1) poster hasn't started weeding out candidate yet, or (2) poster has started weeding out candidates and you're not their 1st choice, but there's still a chance you'll get the job.
[Edited at 2014-03-17 14:22 GMT]
| | | |
Neil Coffey wrote:
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
In short, just please force (and I mean 'force') job posters to specify a quote selection deadline, after which non-chosen offers are free. This really is necessary.
Unfortunately, I think it's also impossible. In reality, the amount of time that a poster will allow before 'making a final decision' will depend on how quickly they get good-quality candidates applying. At the time of posting a job it's really impossible to tell how quickly this will be.
So extend the deadline or apply rush fees. The current system is completely poster-centric.
Posters of jobs with tight deadlines shouldn't be allowed to wait until the last moment and still claim deadlines and fees offered with a more relaxed tempo in mind.
- to have another level of granularity of job status: in between "open" and "closed", there needs to be a level of "closure pending" or in other words "in the final allocation stage": at this stage, the job poster has basically chosen their favourite candidate and there's *probably* no point in anybody else applying, but they might just have a small chance if the negotiation with the poster's favourite candidate falls through for some reason
Sounds reasonable.
- applications similarly need to have a status in between "Accepted" and "Rejected": a kind of "On my waiting list of second choices if no better candidate comes forward in the next hour or if the favourite candidate can't take on the job".
'Shortlisted' sounds like it.
If this status existed, I think it would allow job posters to respond to an applicant very quickly with either "Rejected" or "On waiting list: keep checking your e-mail for the next couple of hours". With the present system, it's all-or-nothing and to the candidate, hearing nothing can either mean (1) poster hasn't started weeding out candidate yet, or (2) poster has started weeding out candidates and you're not their 1st choice, but there's still a chance you'll get the job.
[Edited at 2014-03-17 14:22 GMT]
Still, I think the tentative booking is a very significant benefit for the job poster while a serious concession on the offeror's part. It's something that should be taken lightly. In order to be somewhat commensurate, the chance of getting the job should be more concrete (even if low in probability terms), more tightly regulated.
And again, when you have something like 5K words, it makes a whole world of difference whether you end up having 1 or 2 days to complete the job. Also the rates should be significantly higher if it's 1 day and not 2. Job posters taking a long time choosing and being silent should be the ones bearing the risks and consequences of the time consumed by their selection process, not the offerors.
This is because the selection process is entirely for the poster's benefit, even to the point of the offeror needing to work within a shorter time-frame without receiving an urgency surcharge simply because the poster waited until the very last moment for a cheaper vendor to show up. This is far too one-sided.
(Sorry if I sound a bit too argumentative. I'm still slightly worked up by a recent situation of this kind and the frequency with which such situations happen in our industry, showing a lack of respect for our work.)
| | | | Neil Coffey
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:49
French to English
+ ...
| Largely agree but don't underestimate pressure on the poster too | Mar 17, 2014 |
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
Posters of jobs with tight deadlines shouldn't be allowed to wait until the last moment and still claim deadlines and fees offered with a more relaxed tempo in mind.
Well, I think it is (or ought to be) universally understood that any quote that you make as an applicant is subject to the poster accepting that quote within a reasonable amount of time. If between the quoting deadline and the delivery time, a job poster is taking half of the available time to confirm acceptance of the winning bid, then the applicant in question is well within their right to decline to accept the job, or to negotiate a higher fee/deadline extension.
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
Still, I think the tentative booking is a very significant benefit for the job poster while a serious concession on the offeror's part.
I wouldn't take it as a "tentative booking", and that would indeed be unfair on the candidate. It's more a general signal that "if you don't have any other job in the pipeline, keep an eye on your e-mail just in case". The intention would be to help the candidate, not disadvantage them.
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
And again, when you have something like 5K words, it makes a whole world of difference whether you end up having 1 or 2 days to complete the job. Also the rates should be significantly higher if it's 1 day and not 2. Job posters taking a long time choosing and being silent should be the ones bearing the risks and consequences of the time consumed by their selection process, not the offer ors.
I would agree. But from the candidate's point of view, if a 2 day deadline suddenly turns into a 1 day deadline, then you are well within professional practice to decline the job or negotiate different terms at that point.
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
This is because the selection process is entirely for the poster's benefit, even to the point of the offeror needing to work within a shorter time-frame without receiving an urgency surcharge simply because the poster waited until the very last moment for a cheaper vendor to show up. This is far too one-sided.
I'm not sure I agree with this. As a translator, I occasionally post jobs for colleagues to assist me on particular projects, e.g. where I need some specialist input on a particular theme, or to help meet a deadline. And I would say don't underestimate the pressure on the *poster*, who is also trying to meet a particular deadline, to sift through 50 applicants and make the most appropriate choice in a short time space with a job system which, from the poster's point of view, is also quite a blunt instrument.
| | |
|
|
|
Neil Coffey wrote:
Well, I think it is (or ought to be) universally understood that any quote that you make as an applicant is subject to the poster accepting that quote within a reasonable amount of time.
Yes, but what exactly constitutes reasonable time is a matter of opinion. A client might argue that as long as the deadline is physically doable everything is within limits.
If between the quoting deadline and the delivery time, a job poster is taking half of the available time to confirm acceptance of the winning bid, then the applicant in question is well within their right to decline to accept the job, or to negotiate a higher fee/deadline extension.
That's what we think, and what staff might think if the quoting translator got a negative WWA. But that's not necessarily what the job poster may think. I think including another intermediary date, i.e. quoting deadline – selection – delivery deadline total, or something like expiry date on quotes would send the message that the time spend selecting the right translator (i.e. optimum price/quality ratio, which is an economic variable) is not irrelevant, that the poster does not have until immediately before the deadline to select the chosen translator.
I wouldn't take it as a "tentative booking", and that would indeed be unfair on the candidate.
A 'quote' may not rise to the rank of a proper 'offer', but it's still a somewhat serious commitment. It's not just price information, it does imply some guarantee of availability. A court of law might see it this way too.
It's more a general signal that "if you don't have any other job in the pipeline, keep an eye on your e-mail just in case". The intention would be to help the candidate, not disadvantage them.
I think it's more serious than that, sort of like an offer on eBay.
I would agree. But from the candidate's point of view, if a 2 day deadline suddenly turns into a 1 day deadline, then you are well within professional practice to decline the job or negotiate different terms at that point.
True, but the poster is not unequivocally out of bounds when insisting on the original rate and deadline and insisting the quote should still be a binding offer where his acceptance completed the contract.
I'm not sure I agree with this. As a translator, I occasionally post jobs for colleagues to assist me on particular projects, e.g. where I need some specialist input on a particular theme, or to help meet a deadline. And I would say don't underestimate the pressure on the *poster*, who is also trying to meet a particular deadline, to sift through 50 applicants and make the most appropriate choice in a short time space with a job system which, from the poster's point of view, is also quite a blunt instrument.
See, the point is that posters sometimes spend a lot of time looking for the cheapest translator, then rejecting the notion of an urgency surcharge or pleading for the waiver of it, when the chosen translator ends up with a very tight deadline. The proper way to save costs while optimising the quality would be to choose a reliable translator reasonably fast with the benefit of a relaxed deadline (this meaning time for proofing, editing, research etc.).
Imposing a formal constraint wouldn't be necessary for informed and disciplined clients but clients these days aren't quite so (and probably getting worse).
| | | | | Poster-centric... | Mar 17, 2014 |
you said it... that's why it will never be changed...
| | | | | It should because... | Mar 17, 2014 |
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
you said it... that's why it will never be changed...
It should, because translators are still the ones paying membership fees here and being primary users of the forums, webinars and more. They aren't less important than job posters.
| | | | Neil Coffey
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:49
French to English
+ ...
| Łukasz - I think you may be misunderstanding something | Mar 18, 2014 |
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
A 'quote' may not rise to the rank of a proper 'offer', but it's still a somewhat serious commitment. It's not just price information, it does imply some guarantee of availability. A court of law might see it this way too.
If you reply to a job posting on ProZ with a 'quote', there's nothing legally binding about it. You're simply indicating in an informal, non-binding way that, a priori and subject to a more formal agreement being set up, you believe that you could in principle take on the job under the terms that you state.
After all, at the point of submitting a quote on ProZ, you probably haven't even seen The Damn Document at that stage, let alone got into the finer details of deadlines, final price, etc. How could you possibly make a binding offer at that point?
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
That's what we think, and what staff might think if the quoting translator got a negative WWA.
If you have a concrete specific case of receiving a negative WWA and you feel this is because of the client 'shifting the goalposts' in terms of allocated time or some other job spec, then I would contact ProZ support and report your specific example.
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
It's more a general signal that "if you don't have any other job in the pipeline, keep an eye on your e-mail just in case". The intention would be to help the candidate, not disadvantage them.
I think it's more serious than that, sort of like an offer on eBay.
Well, under the system I'm proposing, it wouldn't be.
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
I would agree. But from the candidate's point of view, if a 2 day deadline suddenly turns into a 1 day deadline, then you are well within professional practice to decline the job or negotiate different terms at that point.
True, but the poster is not unequivocally out of bounds when insisting on the original rate and deadline and insisting the quote should still be a binding offer where his acceptance completed the contract.
Again, I think you're possibly getting confused: there exists no actual "contract" at this stage!
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
Imposing a formal constraint wouldn't be necessary for informed and disciplined clients but clients these days aren't quite so (and probably getting worse).
I think that's really a different issue. Clients are within their right to mismanage their time or be otherwise incompetent at recruiting if they wish. I don't think it's appropriate to add potentially inconvenient and impractical constraints to the job system as some kind of subliminal form of time management lessons for idiot project managers.
But in any case, a translator is only bound to take on a particular job under particular terms at the point of explicitly agreeing to take on the job under those terms.
[Edited at 2014-03-18 05:29 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Give the job-offerer a deadline | Mar 18, 2014 |
When replying to job offers or "demandes de disponibilité" (availability enquiries), I always reply with something like "as my work load stands at the moment, I could deliver the translation by (time, date). For this delivery date, I'd need definite confirmation from you by (time, date)". Thus, I hope I've made it clear that my availability could change and I haven't committed myself to the job if it takes a day or more for the job offerer to make his/her decision.
Doesn't that make sense?
| | | | Adam Jarczyk
Poland
Local time: 10:49
Member (2009)
English to Polish
+ ...
| It does. A whole lot of sense. | Mar 18, 2014 |
Jenny Forbes wrote:
When replying to job offers or "demandes de disponibilité" (availability enquiries), I always reply with something like "as my work load stands at the moment, I could deliver the translation by (time, date). For this delivery date, I'd need definite confirmation from you by (time, date)". Thus, I hope I've made it clear that my availability could change and I haven't committed myself to the job if it takes a day or more for the job offerer to make his/her decision.
Doesn't that make sense?
This is exactly the way I deal with my offers to take on a certain assignment as well. So my potential partners know what to expect and until when they can count on my work for them under the offered conditions. For me that has worked very well in the past.
Adam
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Suggestion: Deadline for quote selection | Pastey | Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
| | 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 
