Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16] >
Complimentary TM-Town membership for ProZ.com members
Thread poster: Jared Tabor
Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI
Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI  Identity Verified
Czech Republic
Local time: 09:00
Member (2008)
English to Czech
SITE LOCALIZER
For Henry May 5, 2016

Henry Dotterer wrote:
My own answer would be that proper management of the content that we are entrusted to (as translators) is very important and nothing about what ProZ.com and TM-Town are doing here is intended to, nor does it, undermine that in any way. We don't want your highly confidential content, we really don't.

Just to make sure, I haven't been trying to imply in any way that you actually do. :)

My concern about confidentiality is that in some cases the use of TM Town may, even if not intentionally, lead to confidentiality breach - either because it is used without a second thought (it is ProZ = it is good/safe etc. - and the "translation unit competition" concept of TM Town could actually prompt some users to share more than they would do otherwise, to achieve better ranking), or because confidentiality as such isn't considered as much as I think it should.

To prevent any misunderstanding, from my perspective this seems not to be so much about what a particular translator does as about the overall strict x loose approach, about the fate of the translation information itself, and about the attitude and seriousness our clients IMHO deserve.

to put in simple terms how I am thinking about it, you should not upload work that should not be uploaded. The determination is case by case and best made by the translator, in consultation with clients where appropriate...

I can agree with this, with a small addendum - how I see it - that the default determination should be "no upload" unless circumstances (e.g. a text from Wikipedia) or the client suggest/allow otherwise; and that would rather be a kind of "external" determination than something to be made by the translator. Unfortunately it would seem that consultation with clients is sometimes not the first option.

...and on top of that, we would of course accept our challenge and responsibility to do what we can to encourage proper use of the service and discourage misuse.

To that effect, it would be nice if TM Town e.g. warns/informs the user in a dialog appearing before uploading any TM, or also in the Terms, that they should submit TMs only when the client authorized sharing these with third parties or if the source text is not protected by a copyright.

Because when Kevin earlier said that public domain TMs are to be uploaded only as reference TMs (not included in translation unit [TU] count), then I can't help but thinking that confidentiality is sometimes violated when sending TMs to TM Town - but if there is a plausible eplanation for how in various (not one or two) cases there were e.g. 500,000 TUs uploaded to TM Town without violating confidentiality as defined in the previous post, I'd like to hear it.


 
Michael Beijer
Michael Beijer  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:00
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
There is no way in hell Google could get away with any of that. May 5, 2016

Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI wrote:

There will be a few posts in a row from me now so if anyone intends to react to something, please read everything first for the context as the posts are interlinked in a way.
Michael J.W. Beijer wrote:
I doubt there is much financial value in our TMs in terms of using them to feed MT engines.

TMs from one translator are indeed not so "nice", but it gets interesting with a big picture, input from hundreds or thousands of translators, diverse data that are often not in public domain.
(That is not meant to say in any way that I expect TM Town would try to sell anything, rather that it could - like any storage or pool of this kind - be temtping for hackers.)

Then there is of course the point that I always make when people say we shouldn't use Google Translate because Google might be doing evil things with our data. Google would be insane to do so. If they got caught, they would be in a whole world of pain. It just doesn't make sense from a risk perspective.

Google can do more or less whatever they want with anyone's data - without getting caught or without any pain, because users agreed to their terms:

"When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."
https://www.google.com/policies/terms/

I'm not sure what those "evil things" should be in your interpretation, but they can:
a) [MT context] take any bilingual document sent via Gmail and use it to train GT;
b) [confidentiality context] publicly display any confidential text sent via Gmail.
("Operating the services" can cover about everything a company does.)


I will respond to all your posts more fully tomorrow, but let me just say that what you just wrote is patently untrue. You said Google can:

I'm not sure what those "evil things" should be in your interpretation, but they can:
a) [MT context] take any bilingual document sent via Gmail and use it to train GT;
b) [confidentiality context] publicly display any confidential text sent via Gmail.
("Operating the services" can cover about everything a company does.)


Which you base on the oft-quoted snippet from https://www.google.com/policies/terms/

There is no way in hell Google could get away with either:

a) [MT context] taking any bilingual document sent via Gmail and using it to train GT
or
b) [confidentiality context] publicly displaying any confidential text sent via Gmail.

Let me put it another way: have you ever heard of even one lawsuit against Google based on anything like what you have just sketched? Of course not. Guess why? Because you are wrong.

Do you honestly believe that Google could, e.g.,
1. take a .docx attachment from one of my private emails,
2. publish it online, and then
3. successfully defend their behaviour in a court in e.g. the US or UK based on that snippet you cited from https://www.google.com/policies/terms/

???

I admit that they probably have access to some of the best lawyers on the planet, but there are limits to anyone's abilities.

Michael


 
Bernhard Sulzer
Bernhard Sulzer  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 04:00
English to German
+ ...
Question May 6, 2016

Michael J.W. Beijer wrote:

I admit that they probably have access to some of the best lawyers on the planet, but there are limits to anyone's abilities.

Michael


A bit off-topic because it relates to another business advertising here on this site with the word TM in their name - they actually say you can make money selling your TMs while you sleep. Are you familiar with it? I just thought "IP rights" right away.


 
Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI
Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI  Identity Verified
Czech Republic
Local time: 09:00
Member (2008)
English to Czech
SITE LOCALIZER
Google May 6, 2016

Michael J.W. Beijer wrote:
Let me put it another way: have you ever heard of even one lawsuit against Google based on anything like what you have just sketched? Of course not. Guess why? Because you are wrong.

Michael, I think this debate would flow much better if more of your responses contained also constructive elements - for example saying what is the "right" version - rather than only (like here) saying someone/something is wrong etc. (Or if it was without you repeatedly speaking on behalf of others before actually waiting for their answer.)

Either way, I'm not sure why there should be a lawsuit. The discussion was about what Google can do, not what Google was or would be sued about.

Their Terms (edited here to the core message) say: "When you upload content to or through our Services, you give Google a worldwide license to use, publicly display and distribute such content for the limited purpose of operating our Services."

If a user gives Google, by accepting their Terms, a license to use his content, what else does it mean - in terms of English language - than that Google can (not necessarily does) use that content? (In other words - if I give Google a license to perform some action, does it mean that Google actually cannot perform such action?)

Do you honestly believe that Google could, e.g.,
1. take a .docx attachment from one of my private emails,
2. publish it online, and then
3. successfully defend their behaviour in a court in e.g. the US or UK based on that snippet you cited from https://www.google.com/policies/terms/

It is their Terms what is important, not my belief.

Step 2 would need to be linked with "the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones" - whatever that means.

When the Terms say what they say and the user accepts them, how (on what merit) could he then sue them? "I allowed them to use my content, but I don't like they used my content"? They can do (only) what he agrees with, and at the same time they are not asking him for approval of them committing a crime against him. (And if he doesn't like the Terms, no one forces him to use the service.)

If you suggest that such scenario could never happen, or if it did that it couldn't be succesfully defended in a court, fine, but then why Google's capable lawyers wrote such Terms at all if they are useless (e.g. because of some collision with the US or UK law), instead of simply not including that section at all?

I don't need to insist for good on that Google can use or publish this or that - but before I eventually reconsider I'd like to read a reasonable explanation of the real purpose of that section, or actions it actually allows.


 
Meta Arkadia
Meta Arkadia
Local time: 15:00
English to Indonesian
+ ...
TMX or database? May 6, 2016

[Kevin, please correct me when I'm wrong]

It seems that for all practical purposes, TM-T uses an indexed database (like in rDBMS) rather than a TMX. An uploaded TM on TM-T's website looks like this:



And a search in CafeTran:



That means that all metadata have been deleted, and it explains why a search in your TMs in TM-T is blistering fast.

In TM-T, you can anonymise (or something) your TMs. I see no reason why Kevin couldn't develop a tool for that purpose you can use on your own computer. After all, he's mr. NiceGuy. And he has a lot more patience than I have with some posters here...

Since you can upload your TMs to TM-T in a variety of formats, including TXT (SL and TL only), I'd suggest the following for the Very Important Translators bound by very important NDAs:

  • Anonymise your TMX file
  • Sort it alphabetically rather than naturally
  • Export it to TXT, SL and TL only
  • Upload it to TM-T

    I even bet Kevin is prepared to develop an app for your computer that can do the above in one go.

    Cheers,

    Hans

     
  • Heinrich Pesch
    Heinrich Pesch  Identity Verified
    Finland
    Local time: 10:00
    Member (2003)
    Finnish to German
    + ...
    All goes to spam folder now May 6, 2016

    After registering they sent me every day some mysterious mail. Now I got tired of this and all will go to spam automatically. I simply cannot see any use for TM-town. Why on earth should I upload my tm to tm-town?

     
    Tom in London
    Tom in London
    United Kingdom
    Local time: 08:00
    Member (2008)
    Italian to English
    Oh no? May 6, 2016

    Michael J.W. Beijer wrote:

    ....There is no way in hell Google could get away with either:

    a) [MT context] taking any bilingual document sent via Gmail and using it to train GT
    or
    b) [confidentiality context] publicly displaying any confidential text sent via Gmail.



    Oh no?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36191546


     
    Gabriele Demuth
    Gabriele Demuth  Identity Verified
    United Kingdom
    Local time: 08:00
    English to German
    Exactly my sentiment May 6, 2016

    Heinrich Pesch wrote:

    After registering they sent me every day some mysterious mail. Now I got tired of this and all will go to spam automatically. I simply cannot see any use for TM-town. Why on earth should I upload my tm to tm-town?


    I have signed up, read through this thread, but still cannot see how this should benefit me? I am not particularly technically minded, so some of this goes over my head anyway, but I am sure TM-Town does know exactly how all this benefits them. Soon after signing up I got spammed with daily e-mails, which have gone to the spam folder now.

    [Edited at 2016-05-06 11:18 GMT]


     
    Michael Beijer
    Michael Beijer  Identity Verified
    United Kingdom
    Local time: 08:00
    Member (2009)
    Dutch to English
    + ...
    It's really quite simple, Tomas May 6, 2016

    Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI wrote:

    (There were three posts from me within the past few minutes, but the last one is pending moderation as references to one translation association are, ahem, censored [I quoted various definitions of confidentiality]. I'm not sure how fast the moderation is, so I try to re-submit the last post again now, slightly modified.)

    Let's try to define and "reconsider" confidentiality.

    I.
    Michael J.W. Beijer wrote:
    As such, I see no problems regarding confidentiality clauses/provisions in NDAs being violated, or even implied confidentiality re clients.


    ISO 27000:2014: "Confidentiality - property that information is not made available or disclosed to unauthorized individuals, entities, or processes".
    http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c063411_ISO_IEC_27000_2014.zip

    ITI: "Members shall maintain complete confidentiality at all times and treat any information that may come to them in the course of their work as privileged information, not to be communicated to any third party without prior written authority."
    http://www.iti.org.uk/attachments/article/154/Code%20of%20professional%20conduct%2008%2009%202013_Final.pdf

    CIOL: "Members/Chartered Linguists will take all reasonable precautions to keep information and material provided by clients/employers confidential and secure."
    http://www.ciol.org.uk/images/Membership/CPC15.pdf

    ATA: "...to hold in confidence any privileged and/or confidential information entrusted to us in the course of our work"
    "Clients expect their information to be held in strict confidence. This includes information conveyed in a translation or during interpreting, as well as the very fact that the translation or interpreting has taken place. This holds even for published material."
    http://atanet.org/governance/code_of_ethics_commentary.pdf

    An international T&I association: "Respect confidentiality with regard to any and all materials received from their clients. This shall be taken to mean not disclosing any part thereof without permission from the client and not making use thereof in benefit or to the detriment of themselves or third parties, except in cases in which disclosure of such information becomes unavoidable by reason of force majeure."
    (link not included to avoid moderation, but you can look up the source based on the quotation)

    Further definitions: https://www.atis.org/glossary/definition.aspx?id=6609

    Based on these definitions, it seems quite clear to me that confidentiality is a default value for any information (rather than only for those explicitly labelled as confidential), and that permission/authorization should be seeked before providing the information to third parties.

    ---

    II. My opinions

    a) In my opinion, confidentiality is an objective value, a professional standard, not something that should (would) happen only when I decide to or when the client requests it. (After all, if there would be various confidentialities or rules, how could a client expect that translator A understands confidentality strictly and translator B loosely, or why should he make queries about that to find out.)

    b) In my opinion, unless clear from client's own actions (e.g. the use of e-mail) or unless explicitly approved/authorized by the client, I'd consider the confidential zone to be only the "communication tunnel" between me and the client (e-mail/fax etc.), and the devices etc. I have under my direct & exclusive control; the resources that are necessarily needed to receive and deliver the (translated) text and to write/dictate a translation (including any off-line backup).

    This zone doesn't cover sending the translation information to any unapproved third party. If the client wants or tolerates that, he can say so. If he doesn't say so (either because I don't ask him, or because he disapproves), who am I to decide that something "outside" is OK? I have no authority - unless otherwise agreed - from the client to decide about distribution of his materials.

    c) It seems to me that for some discussion opponents confidentiality applies only when verbatim requested by the client. In other words, the dilemma seems to be:
    Confidentiality always, unless explicitly waived (by the client or on request)
    vs.
    confidentiality never, unless explicitly requested (if a translator would ask what constitutes an authorized use, confidentiality would likely be explicitly requested more often).

    I see a few problems with the latter approach:
    - Clients, at least based on comments above, are not always asked for approval of the use of third party services so they have no choice. (If it really isn't any problem for them, as it would seem from some statements here, it would be interesting if someone using TM Town could get their answers re TM Town use.)

    - Earlier, trust was mentioned. But isn't it so that the clients simply expect us - in line with definitions above - not to share the data with third parties? Why should they think that part of this trust could mean the information is shared without authorization, rather than them thinking that this isn't happening?

    What is your (not necessarily only Michael's) take?


    Confidentiality is still guaranteed, while uploading TMs to TM-Town, because they have sufficient guarantees in place re data security.

    Also, personally, I upload TMs to TM-Town in order to search them via the CAT tool plugin, so I upload them to TM-Town for a reason directly related to performing my work.

    Michael


     
    Michael Beijer
    Michael Beijer  Identity Verified
    United Kingdom
    Local time: 08:00
    Member (2009)
    Dutch to English
    + ...
    the key is: "for the limited purpose of operating our Services" May 6, 2016

    Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI wrote:

    Michael J.W. Beijer wrote:
    Let me put it another way: have you ever heard of even one lawsuit against Google based on anything like what you have just sketched? Of course not. Guess why? Because you are wrong.

    Michael, I think this debate would flow much better if more of your responses contained also constructive elements - for example saying what is the "right" version - rather than only (like here) saying someone/something is wrong etc. (Or if it was without you repeatedly speaking on behalf of others before actually waiting for their answer.)

    Either way, I'm not sure why there should be a lawsuit. The discussion was about what Google can do, not what Google was or would be sued about.

    Their Terms (edited here to the core message) say: "When you upload content to or through our Services, you give Google a worldwide license to use, publicly display and distribute such content for the limited purpose of operating our Services."

    If a user gives Google, by accepting their Terms, a license to use his content, what else does it mean - in terms of English language - than that Google can (not necessarily does) use that content? (In other words - if I give Google a license to perform some action, does it mean that Google actually cannot perform such action?)

    Do you honestly believe that Google could, e.g.,
    1. take a .docx attachment from one of my private emails,
    2. publish it online, and then
    3. successfully defend their behaviour in a court in e.g. the US or UK based on that snippet you cited from https://www.google.com/policies/terms/

    It is their Terms what is important, not my belief.

    Step 2 would need to be linked with "the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones" - whatever that means.

    When the Terms say what they say and the user accepts them, how (on what merit) could he then sue them? "I allowed them to use my content, but I don't like they used my content"? They can do (only) what he agrees with, and at the same time they are not asking him for approval of them committing a crime against him. (And if he doesn't like the Terms, no one forces him to use the service.)

    If you suggest that such scenario could never happen, or if it did that it couldn't be succesfully defended in a court, fine, but then why Google's capable lawyers wrote such Terms at all if they are useless (e.g. because of some collision with the US or UK law), instead of simply not including that section at all?

    I don't need to insist for good on that Google can use or publish this or that - but before I eventually reconsider I'd like to read a reasonable explanation of the real purpose of that section, or actions it actually allows.


    The answer is in that phrase: "for the limited purpose of operating our Services"

    That means that they are not allowed to just publish your private data. The whole clause just means they can move data around in such a way as to allow their technical systems to function as required. This has been discussed many times already elsewhere online.

    My point re the lawsuits was: if Google's terms really said what you say they do, there would by now already have been a lawsuit. Many in fact. However, there have been NONE, so I suspect your reading of their terms is incorrect.

    Michael

    [Edited at 2016-05-06 08:02 GMT]


     
    Michael Beijer
    Michael Beijer  Identity Verified
    United Kingdom
    Local time: 08:00
    Member (2009)
    Dutch to English
    + ...
    jeez May 6, 2016

    Tom in London wrote:

    Michael J.W. Beijer wrote:

    ....There is no way in hell Google could get away with either:

    a) [MT context] taking any bilingual document sent via Gmail and using it to train GT
    or
    b) [confidentiality context] publicly displaying any confidential text sent via Gmail.



    Oh no?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36191546


    Read the article. The data remains encrypted. Plus, it's for a good cause.

    "[…] It plans to use the data to develop an app known as Streams that will alert doctors when someone is at risk of developing acute kidney injury (AKI).

    The data remains encrypted, meaning that Google employees should not be able to identify anyone, according to the Royal Free Trust." […]


    Michael



    [Edited at 2016-05-06 08:09 GMT]

    [Edited at 2016-05-06 08:09 GMT]


     
    Tom in London
    Tom in London
    United Kingdom
    Local time: 08:00
    Member (2008)
    Italian to English
    Disputable May 6, 2016

    Michael J.W. Beijer wrote:

    Read the article. The data remains encrypted. Plus, it's for a good cause.



    Anyone who does read it will note the concerns expressed in various quarters.

    There are numerous other articles dealing with same concerns, e.g.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-google-medical-records-data-sharing-16-million-a7011891.html

    As for the "good cause": there seems to be some doubt about that.

    Note: I'm not in the habit of posting links to articles I haven't read.


    [Edited at 2016-05-06 09:00 GMT]


     
    Jennifer Forbes
    Jennifer Forbes  Identity Verified
    Local time: 08:00
    French to English
    + ...
    In memoriam
    The patients' consent? May 6, 2016

    Tom in London wrote:

    Michael J.W. Beijer wrote:

    Read the article. The data remains encrypted. Plus, it's for a good cause.



    Anyone who does read it will note the concerns expressed in various quarters.

    There are numerous other articles dealing with same concerns, e.g.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-google-medical-records-data-sharing-16-million-a7011891.html

    As for the "good cause": there seems to be some doubt about that.

    Note: I'm not in the habit of posting links to articles I haven't read.


    [Edited at 2016-05-06 09:00 GMT]


    Thanks for pointing out this article - which I have read!! Interesting to note that it was, apparently, the hospitals which "consented" to Google's use of their patients' data for this (allegedly) good cause. The patients themselves appear not to have been consulted, although the article says that patients could OPT OUT by writing to some address or other. Surely, with something as personal as their health data, patients should OPT IN rather than be expected to OPT OUT. Did they even know their health data were being used in this way?
    At least - at present - Proz members have to opt in to this TM-Town thingy rather than having to opt out of it.


     
    Michael Beijer
    Michael Beijer  Identity Verified
    United Kingdom
    Local time: 08:00
    Member (2009)
    Dutch to English
    + ...
    excessively paranoid vs eminently reasonable May 6, 2016

    Tom in London wrote:

    Michael J.W. Beijer wrote:

    Read the article. The data remains encrypted. Plus, it's for a good cause.



    Anyone who does read it will note the concerns expressed in various quarters.

    There are numerous other articles dealing with same concerns, e.g.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-google-medical-records-data-sharing-16-million-a7011891.html

    As for the "good cause": there seems to be some doubt about that.

    Note: I'm not in the habit of posting links to articles I haven't read.


    [Edited at 2016-05-06 09:00 GMT]


    This is all very interesting, but has very little to do with the Google terms quoted by Tomas, which people always cite when worrying about Google doing evil stuff with our data.

    What's the point though? There are obviously two types of people in this world: the excessively paranoid, and the eminently reasonable. The latter can argue all they want, but the former will continue to refuse to use any of the latest interesting services in the world of IT, etc., delete all their old emails, worry excessively and write miles and miles of highly detailed posts here on Proz.

    I've got work to do, and a one-year-old baby, so I will just happily continue using Google Translate, uploading my TMs to TM-Town, using Dropbox, and … get back to work. Have fun with the rest of the thread you poor sods. Over and out from Hastings.

    Michael

    [Edited at 2016-05-06 09:42 GMT]


     
    Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI
    Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI  Identity Verified
    Czech Republic
    Local time: 09:00
    Member (2008)
    English to Czech
    SITE LOCALIZER
    everything May 6, 2016

    Michael J.W. Beijer wrote:
    Confidentiality is still guaranteed, while uploading TMs to TM-Town, because they have sufficient guarantees in place re data security.

    I wrote - in the very same post you replied to with this - that security is not confidentiality. As I understand it, confidentiality is violated already when sharing the data with an unapproved third party, not "only" with an insecure - no matter if approved or not - third party.

    I also provided various external references to definitions of confidentiality in the translation and IT profession, and their common element seems to be they prohibit sharing the data with third parties (regardless of how secure) unless agreed with the client.

    If you know for example any professional body (or similar - simply something to support your claims) you can refer me to and which would say something along the lines that as long as third parties claim security, everything is fine, I would be interested in reading this.

    The answer is in that phrase: "for the limited purpose of operating our Services"

    Yes, I quoted that myself. Maybe you are overestimating the word "can" in my previous comments - I nowhere wrote that they do it all the time, or that it applies to every operation of theirs. Perhaps they never published anything. I'm not freaked out because of their Terms. I'm only trying to see some logic or purpose in what these say. "You give us a license to publish..." seems to give them more options than if the Terms simply and clearly said "we won't publish...". Why such padding, as you seem to put it, when it only confuses the readers.

    That means that they [Google] are not allowed to just publish your private data. The whole clause just means they can move data around in such a way as to allow their technical systems to function as required.

    OK. If this is true, then there is one thing in haze: If the only purpose of the whole extensive clause are some internal transfers of data, then why the Terms refer to "publish" and "publicly displaying" the content at all?

    In other words, why does someone, for the purpose of operating the services (which, as you say, has only the form of moving data around internally), seek a license to publish the content?

    My point re the lawsuits was: if Google's terms really said what you say they do, there would by now already have been a lawsuit. Many in fact.

    Yes, and I asked on what merit that lawsuit would have happened, when that restricted use or publishing seems to be approved by the user in the first place. No answer.

    There are obviously two types of people in this world: the excessively paranoid, and the eminently reasonable.

    I'm afraid your vision seems to be more black and white than the world and people actually are. It is certainly easy to "solve" any concern by labelling it or its author as paranoid, but I think this is a professional platform, not a sandbox. Your ad hominem comments add zero to your factual arguments, and actually say more about you than about those you are trying to ridicule.

    By the way, as I wrote: "I don't need to insist for good on that Google can use or publish this or that - but before I eventually reconsider I'd like to read a reasonable explanation of the real purpose of that section, or actions it actually allows."

    write miles and miles of highly detailed posts here on Proz.

    People are discussing in a discussion forum. What a disgrace.


     
    Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16] >


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


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

    Complimentary TM-Town membership for ProZ.com members






    Protemos translation business management system
    Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!

    The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.

    More info »
    Wordfast Pro
    Translation Memory Software for Any Platform

    Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users! Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value

    Buy now! »