Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12] >
ProZ Find™ (new freelancer directory) released in alpha stage. Feedback sought.
Thread poster: ..... (X)
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 17:47
SITE FOUNDER
What about the algorithm, Katalin? May 22, 2018

Katalin Szilárd wrote:
TMs and trained MT engines.... ?
Henry, there is already a platform for those.
If there are clients who are interested in those then they should be directed to TM-Town.
Proz.com should not be the place of exchanging and selling TMs and trained MTs etc.

Hee hee. I included that bit about MT engines, knowing it might cause nothing else in the post to be noticed.
Back to the algorithm. Over the years this is a topic to which you have been very attentive, Katalin. Your input has been very helpful! Here we are starting out with a new platform for the next generation of ProZ.com. I'd love to have your thoughts on the concepts I just shared!


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 17:47
SITE FOUNDER
On a lighter note... May 22, 2018



Note the overturned cat.

Thanks to Alejandro of Mox's Blog for permission.


 
Katalin Szilárd
Katalin Szilárd  Identity Verified
Hungary
Local time: 22:47
English to Hungarian
+ ...
Some thoughts .... May 22, 2018

Henry Dotterer wrote:

Katalin Szilárd wrote:
TMs and trained MT engines.... ?
Henry, there is already a platform for those.
If there are clients who are interested in those then they should be directed to TM-Town.
Proz.com should not be the place of exchanging and selling TMs and trained MTs etc.

Hee hee. I included that bit about MT engines, knowing it might cause nothing else in the post to be noticed.
Back to the algorithm. Over the years this is a topic to which you have been very attentive, Katalin. Your input has been very helpful! Here we are starting out with a new platform for the next generation of ProZ.com. I'd love to have your thoughts on the concepts I just shared!



There have been a great fluctuation here recently. I talked with some great professional translators, who already left proz.com. Some of them left the industry as well, some just decided not to be on proz.com any more.

I think every job is different and a search depends on the person who is making the search.
A freelance translator or an end client who wants to create a team will make a search differently than a profit-orienting pm at a big translation agency.

You mentioned: faster. Hmmm ... Many agencies just love to accept impossible deadlines. They either cut the text among many translators, the result is catastrophic or they choose a translator who accepts the impossible deadline and they don't care about the quality.

My thoughts about the research cartoon.

Research is a very important part in translation since many times we are dealing with brand new products, services, approaches, methods, patent texts and many times agencies or companies don't give enough material.
Being a physician or a lawyer etc. and knowing perfect English (or other languages) won't make someone a professional and better medical and legal translator than someone who is not a physician or not a lawyer.
Translation is about being a linguist at first place. Having a PhD in a field can be a plus, but first you have to be able to translate accurately and that's where being a linguist at heart is needed.

I can show you an example for the research: https://www.proz.com/kudoz/english_to_hungarian/medical_instruments/6510713-dome.html

Whether you are a physician or not you would never know that in this context what "dome" means or how it should be translated in this specific product of the company without making a research.

This plus time, this plus value to provide accurate translation what high end clients are looking for.
And yes time is money.



[Edited at 2018-05-22 15:04 GMT]


 
Miguel Pérez
Miguel Pérez  Identity Verified
Spain
Local time: 22:47
Member (2016)
English to Spanish
Some thoughts on your questions, Henry May 22, 2018

My questions:

- Do you agree with the above?
- Think of the "combinations" that you know best, and check the results in Find. How is the algorithm doing at bringing the PBS's to the top of those combinations?
- Are there people who the algorithm is bringing to the top who are not PBS's in that combination? How do you know?
- Are there people that you think of as highly qualified in a certain combination, who the algorithm is not identifying? How do you know those people are PBS's in that combination?


Hi Henry,

Thank you for your message. It was very clarifying and useful. However, I still have some questions regarding the new directory:

* In this version of Find, selecting "Specialty or Working" in Field emphasis offers a very different picture than selecting just "Specialty", in most cases (at least the ones I've checked). I'll give you an example with my own ranking: if you select my pair (English to Spanish) and Transport as a field, I show up in place 13 if the user selects "Specialty", and in place 105 if the user selects "Specialty or Working". I understand this is because many more translators have included Transport as their Working field than their Specialty field, but there are almost 100 new translators on top of me, most of whom don't have any KudoZ points in the category. However, in specialty fields, KudoZ points may be important, since terminology command is key in finding the PBS that you are refering to.

I believe that the PBS will be able to earn more (on a per-hour basis) on the job than a professional who is less well-suited to the job (and will therefore need to spend more time doing research.)


If I'm one of the translators with the most points in that category (10th according to the old directory), I'm not sure if I should appear in page 5 in the new one. And I'm probably not the only one in this situation.

* It seems that being Certified PRO is heavily favoured in the algorithm. If we take a look at the most crowded pairs (English to and from any mainstream language, like French, German, Chinese, Spanish...), most if not all of the top ranked translators are Certified PRO. This may be because top translators tend to be Certified PRO (it's correlation, not causation). However, if we select more obscure specialty fields, all top translators are Certified PRO, even if they don't have any KudoZ points in the field, or WWAs, or they are not especially experienced. This seems causation, not correlation: being Certified PRO gives you the edge to be at the top, because you are Certified PRO. And I kind of get it: in order to be part of the CPN, one has to be a good translator. However, if this sentence is true:

Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:

You also stressed that ProZ.com is not a middleman, only a marketplace, therefore it does not interfere with the business relationship of its users.


then there could be a conflict of interests: an organization that is supposed to be independent is giving away badges, and this same organization is using these badges to favour some people.

This point relates to my previous one: I think that in specialized fields, KudoZ points are more important than what the algorithm takes into account now. If an outsourcer seeks for a translator in one of these specialized fields, it's probably because the outsourcer wants a more specialized translator. KudoZ points gives you a somehow fair idea of how specialized a translator is in that field, since terminology is very important.

* Overall, I miss having more information. In the old directory, one could always know how many KudoZ points one needs to reach the first page in ranking X. Now we have no concrete ideas, only hints: if you get more WWA, or KudoZ points, or if you specialize, you'll get there. It would be great to know just how far we are from our goals. As an example, I'd like to know exactly what I need to reach page 1 in a given ranking: how many WWAs, KudoZ points, or whatever. I don't know how the algorithm works (Does it calculate a number of points for each translator and sorts them out? A percentage, maybe?), nor I know if there is a clear reason behind not showing all the information, but I would appreciate more transparency. Many paying members depend to some extent on the flow of new clients. This would also go along with the Cornerstones: Each site user is given the maximum degree of control over his/her workplace experience.

* Regarding experience: If translator X has 1 year of experience and translator Y has 10 years of experience, I understand that the algorithm should sort Y before X. But if translator Z has 20 years of experience, does the algorithm sort Z before Y, all other things being equal? If yes, I think this is wrong: although experience is a valuable trait, it shouldn't be the end in itself, since the translator with 10 years of experience can be better than the one with 20 years. Also, it creates a barrier that is impossible to break, since Y will never "out-experience" Z. So the question here is: how does the algorithm take experience into account?

Thank you, Henry

[Editado a las 2018-05-22 15:21 GMT]

[Editado a las 2018-05-22 15:26 GMT]


 
Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI
Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI  Identity Verified
Czech Republic
Local time: 22:47
Member (2008)
English to Czech
SITE LOCALIZER
I prefer not to turn the tables May 22, 2018

Henry Dotterer wrote:
Do you agree with the above?

Yes and no. "No" in regards to the part with linguistic resources. For example, how can ProZ know what glossary a PBS has in their library, or how extensive is their computer-stored TM? Or do you imply that providing these resources in (or linked to) a ProZ profile is somehow a sign of a better PBS, compared to a PBS who has the same resources only off-line?

And "no" in regards to field-specific knowledge/expertise. I specifically stated "without adding any other criteria" beyond language combination - for now, I would like to know about the "core ranking" factors.

Think of the "combinations" that you know best, and check the results in Find. How is the algorithm doing at bringing the PBS's to the top of those combinations?

I don't know, because I don't know how the PBS individuals score in regards to particular factors. I have no way of objectively assessing whether translator #1 works better than translator #2, or whether the "ProZ background" of translator #1 is better than that of translator #2.

By way of example, is a translator with 30 WWA, 0 KudoZ points, 50 USD hourly rate, 0 words uploaded into TM-Town, 5 years of experience and 5 years on ProZ better or worse than a translator with 0 WWA, 300 KudoZ, 25 USD hourly rate, 50.000 words uploaded into TM-Town, 20 years of experience and 1 year on ProZ? I don't know, does ProZ know? If so, how?

That is why I asked for details about which factors are actually considered, and what is the weight of these factors. Please can you now address my questions? Thank you.


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 17:47
SITE FOUNDER
The rules are being developed. Interested members are invited to give input. May 22, 2018

Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI wrote:
Think of the "combinations" that you know best, and check the results in Find. How is the algorithm doing at bringing the PBS's to the top of those combinations?

I don't know, because I don't know how the PBS individuals score in regards to particular factors.

I'm asking whether or not the people at the top of the list are good translators in that field. I'm assuming you know some of them.

That is why I asked for details about which factors are actually considered, and what is the weight of these factors. Please can you now address my questions? Thank you.

I think I understand what you and others are asking; I guess that, in a way, you want to know the "rules of the game", right?

If so, what I am saying is, the rules are in development. The algorithm is not in its final state; what you see is an initial pass. I'm inviting anyone interested to weigh in on the process of tuning it. I believe the appropriate place to start the discussion is with the high level objectives and assumptions.

For those not interested in taking time to give input on this, which I assume includes most members, we will give further guidance on the algorithm upon production release.


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 17:47
SITE FOUNDER
I meant only what I wrote May 22, 2018

Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI wrote:

Henry Dotterer wrote:
Do you agree with the above?

Yes and no. "No" in regards to the part with linguistic resources. For example, how can ProZ know what glossary a PBS has in their library, or how extensive is their computer-stored TM? Or do you imply that providing these resources in (or linked to) a ProZ profile is somehow a sign of a better PBS, compared to a PBS who has the same resources only off-line?

I wasn't implying anything beyond what I wrote. Basically, I think that in many cases a PBS will have such resources. Don't you? (This strikes me as something obvious, but I don't want to assume.)


 
Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI
Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI  Identity Verified
Czech Republic
Local time: 22:47
Member (2008)
English to Czech
SITE LOCALIZER
PBS May 22, 2018

I'm asking whether or not the people at the top of the list are good translators in that field. I'm assuming you know some of them.

I know many translators in my pair, but I know the work of not too many. (The same goes for translators listed on the first page of "Find" results in my language pair.) So I can't be of much help here. Besides, being a good translator doesn't have to correlate in any way with KudoZ points or WWA entries (or vice versa).

If so, what I am saying is, the rules are in development.

OK, but in the original post we were asked:
"In particular, we would appreciate feedback on how well you feel the sort algorithm is performing."

Which I understand as "how are the rules working now?" (not when the development is complete). And to that, I answer I'm able to say more only after I know more about the actual rules.

I probably kind of understand your intention for this discussion, but from my point of view asking/discussing publicly why person A has this ranking and person B another ranking (or trying to "guess" what affects that) would look somewhat "impolite" in regards to whoever would be compared - and discussing that privately would prevent others from following/commenting the line of thought.

Further, guessing whether a reliable translator being (just an example) only on page 3 of results means that they underestimated their ProZ presence (or some elements of it), or that the algorithm can be improved, or both, could be somewhat time-consuming, compared to if we can simply evaluate if the system works as intended.

So can we know what factors are reflected at the very moment? Then I will be happy to provide the desired input and say a) if the factors (or their weight) are reasonable in my opinion, and b) if the existing ranking makes sense based on these factors.

Thank you.

I think that in many cases a PBS will have such resources. Don't you?

Yes. But how does ProZ know (or would be able to know) they have these resources?
If ProZ doesn't know that, why did you mention them in relation to Find directory?

[Edited at 2018-05-22 23:08 GMT]


 
Katalin Horváth McClure
Katalin Horváth McClure  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 17:47
Member (2002)
English to Hungarian
+ ...
@Henry - Fundamental question May 23, 2018

What is the problem that this new directory is trying to solve?
What is it that is wrong/unsatisfactory with the current directory: Regular or Advanced version?
(You know, why fix something if it is not broken?)

I am asking this because I have this nagging feeling that trying to get consensus on what parameters are important and with what weight should they be taken into consideration would be a quite impossible task.
We all have opinions and ideas, but we are all
... See more
What is the problem that this new directory is trying to solve?
What is it that is wrong/unsatisfactory with the current directory: Regular or Advanced version?
(You know, why fix something if it is not broken?)

I am asking this because I have this nagging feeling that trying to get consensus on what parameters are important and with what weight should they be taken into consideration would be a quite impossible task.
We all have opinions and ideas, but we are all also driven by our own bottom line, and we all would like to get a better "ranking", if that results in more/better jobs. Therefore, whatever you do, you will have some people happy and at least that many unhappy. Not a winning situation, to say the least.

Wouldn't it be a much better approach to leave it to the client (the person searching the directory) to select the criteria? The Advanced version of the old directory had checkboxes and pull-down menus, that already served that purpose, although the new ProZ Find has a much prettier interface. Therefore, isn't it possible that all you need is a better interface (with better explanations, perhaps a cool educational/demo video about what each parameter is) and you don't need to invent a new algorithm at all?

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the plan is that paying business members of ProZ would be able to adjust the weights of the parameters, why is that not the basic and only approach available to anybody?

That way you are not interfering with the flow of info, so you are keeping with the Cornerstones; we would not complain that you (ProZ, the system, the algorithm) is trying to decide who is a good translator or "PBS" in any given situation, because you would simply provide the tools to the client to communicate his/her criteria to the system, and then the system would provide the search results based on that. (If the client's criteria results in multiple people getting the same "rank", then they would be displayed in a random order.)

Katalin McClure



[Edited at 2018-05-23 04:28 GMT]
Collapse


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 17:47
SITE FOUNDER
Thanks for the feedback! Miguel Pérez's analysis is very useful for our current purposes May 23, 2018

Thanks for the feedback, folks. It is always helpful.

In particular, Miguel Pérez's recent analysis of the effect of Certified PRO in specialty fields is very useful for our current purpose.

Examples of other feedback in this thread that has led to changes or planned changes are Robin Levey's post on classification (and Thomas T. Frost's related point), Thomas's reference to WIWO, Katalin Horváth McClure noticing that she was left out in SecurePRO searches, Kay Denney
... See more
Thanks for the feedback, folks. It is always helpful.

In particular, Miguel Pérez's recent analysis of the effect of Certified PRO in specialty fields is very useful for our current purpose.

Examples of other feedback in this thread that has led to changes or planned changes are Robin Levey's post on classification (and Thomas T. Frost's related point), Thomas's reference to WIWO, Katalin Horváth McClure noticing that she was left out in SecurePRO searches, Kay Denney's points about profile bio content, her experience as a PM, and idea regarding experience outside translation, Kay and Tom in London's notes on KudoZ, Tom in London's point (and Giovanni Guarnieri's, Helen Shiner's, Mónica Algazi's and jyuan_us's agreement) about number of WWA's, Mirko Mainardi's point about the effect of keyword search on his ranking (and feedback on "stars"), Katalin Szilárd's "who would you hire?" question (and noticing of the issue with last activity), Lincoln Hui's question on working vs. specialty fields (and feedback concerning the degree to which Find was being promoted), Miguel Pérez's comments concerning his drop in position and the prospects for new translators, Ivana UK's noticing she was not found in certain interpreter searches, Natalie's investigation of SecurePRO/pools/names, Alistair Gainey's report concerning the same person coming up first in multiple English/French fields, Samuel Murray's "mysterious black arrow", Roman Karabaev's report (followed up on offline) of going from 3rd to 64th in his specialty field, Jo Macdonald's testing of the rate filter, Katalin Horváth McClure's ideas related to native languages (and more generally, defaults and saving of preferences), Andy Watkinson's (and Natalie's) report concerning the automated email, and more.

Analysis like that given by Miguel Pérez, in your own top combinations, should anyone care to share it, will be greatly appreciated and carefully scrutinized.
Collapse


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 17:47
SITE FOUNDER
Thanks, Tomas May 23, 2018

Tomas said:
I know many translators in my pair, but I know the work of not too many. (The same goes for translators listed on the first page of "Find" results in my language pair.) So I can't be of much help here.

OK. We are finding that the degree of familiarity with the work of "combination peers" varies. Thanks for checking.

I probably kind of understand your intention for this discussion, but from my point of view asking/discussing publicly why person A has this ranking and person B another ranking (or trying to "guess" what affects that) would look somewhat "impolite" in regards to whoever would be compared - and discussing that privately would prevent others from following/commenting the line of thought.

Yes, you're right. Of course, people need not be identified as individuals. The algorithm gets adapted as light is shed on the effect of the sorting in different combinations.

So can we know what factors are reflected at the very moment? Then I will be happy to provide the desired input and say a) if the factors (or their weight) are reasonable in my opinion, and b) if the existing ranking makes sense based on these factors.

I'm obviously struggling to express the distinction clearly, but our focus now is not on confirming that the weights, etc., *sound* reasonable to industry professionals, but rather, that they are effectively bringing the right people to the top. That's where we most need help.


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 17:47
SITE FOUNDER
What we are discussing here is the default sort May 23, 2018

Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:

What is the problem that this new directory is trying to solve?
What is it that is wrong/unsatisfactory with the current directory: Regular or Advanced version?

I've made this point already in the thread, but to repeat, the KudoZ approach to sorting has worked very well; nothing is broken. But I think that if we consider more factors (more information is better, right?), we can come up with an algorithm that does an even better job of sorting professionals.

Is it possible to find qualified professionals who don't happen to participate in KudoZ, for example? We do have a bunch of other data to look at...

I am asking this because I have this nagging feeling that trying to get consensus on what parameters are important and with what weight should they be taken into consideration would be a quite impossible task.

Agreed. I'm looking for input, but am not aiming for consensus.

We all have opinions and ideas, but we are all also driven by our own bottom line, and we all would like to get a better "ranking", if that results in more/better jobs.

Of course. But at the same time, you are making fair and reasoned proposals. Thank you.

Wouldn't it be a much better approach to leave it to the client (the person searching the directory) to select the criteria?
...
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the plan is that paying business members of ProZ would be able to adjust the weights of the parameters, why is that not the basic and only approach available to anybody?

... you would simply provide the tools to the client to communicate his/her criteria to the system, and then the system would provide the search results based on that.

You know from the "guiding principles" that I am all for choice. So yes, clients can customize. But it would not be practical or user-friendly to require a client who has arrived at ProZ.com for the first time to build an algorithm from scratch (no defaults, right?) before being shown a list of, say, Czech translators. What we are discussing here is the default sort.


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 17:47
SITE FOUNDER
That's the question, Tomas May 23, 2018

Tomas Mosler, DipTrans IoLET MCIL MITI wrote:
By way of example, is a translator with 30 WWA, 0 KudoZ points, 50 USD hourly rate, 0 words uploaded into TM-Town, 5 years of experience and 5 years on ProZ better or worse than a translator with 0 WWA, 300 KudoZ, 25 USD hourly rate, 50.000 words uploaded into TM-Town, 20 years of experience and 1 year on ProZ? I don't know, does ProZ know?

This is the question, really. Or more precisely, which translator is better suited for the particular job that the client is now trying to get done?

It is a challenging question.

Search engines had a similar question. This page on the internet has such and such a title, such and such terms within the page, and that one has a different mix -- which should come up first?

Google had an idea that turned out to work well: look at links to the page.

ProZ.com similarly came up with an elegant solution that worked well. Basically, the thinking went, if a person is able to help other professional translators in a given combination, that person may be qualified in that field. In other words, sort by KudoZ.

To answer your question, then, according to this approach, the one with 300 KudoZ should come up higher.

Over time, Google found that the usefulness of search results could be improved by looking at other factors (such as age of the page).

Now, we're similarly looking at other factors.


 
Katalin Horváth McClure
Katalin Horváth McClure  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 17:47
Member (2002)
English to Hungarian
+ ...
Well, what if you use the current method* as the default? May 24, 2018

Henry Dotterer wrote:

I've made this point already in the thread, but to repeat, the KudoZ approach to sorting has worked very well; nothing is broken.

That is great news. That means you do have a solid base to build on.

But I think that if we consider more factors (more information is better, right?), we can come up with an algorithm that does an even better job of sorting professionals.

I think the trick is that you really should limit yourself to using objective, quantifiable data. Anything that is subjective, is problematic, because you know, "ProZ.com is not a linguistic authority".


You know from the "guiding principles" that I am all for choice. So yes, clients can customize. But it would not be practical or user-friendly to require a client who has arrived at ProZ.com for the first time to build an algorithm from scratch (no defaults, right?) before being shown a list of, say, Czech translators. What we are discussing here is the default sort.


OK, I get that, so, here are some ideas:
The current directory (both Regular and Advanced) ranks people by KudoZ and Experience. The user can click on those column headings and switch the ranking criteria. In addition to that, paying members are listed first, and Certified Pros get preference, too. (These two things should stay as is, IMHO, because putting paying members first is sort of a contractual obligation of ProZ, and the second one (P-badge) is a fairly objective metric. I think this is good as the default (as you said, it has been working well), but perhaps you could introduce a few slight modifications (that is what the asteriks indicates in the title of this post) to how the number of KudoZ and years of Experience are used for comparing people and assigning a "rank" to them.
KudoZ:
One problem is that it is very hard for a fairly new ProZ member to break into the top tiers of KudoZ, or sometimes even into the middle band, simply because of some members (like myself) have been around longer and naturally had a longer period to collect points. It is especially true in language pairs with less KudoZ questions in general. So, I think the idea of capping of KudoZ points (this idea was hinted earlier) for comparison purposes is a good idea - and where to draw the line would be a good statistics problem, but not too difficult. (I would look at the KudoZ distribution in each language pair and find a level that could be considered "enough" to indicate expertise and that would be the upper limit. This could be adjusted periodically, if the distribution started to get skewed.) In addition to the capping, I think defining "bands" would also be a good idea. What I mean by "bands" is ranges of KudoZ points where people within the same "band" would be considered equal. So, a 10 points difference would not mean a different ranking. Again, the width of these bands would depend on the actual distribution in the pair.)
Years of Experience:
Similar to what I discussed above for KudoZ, a system of "bands" may be reasonable, with an upper limit (over a certain number of years everyone is considered a seasoned professional, getting the same rank).

If you want to include WWA in the default criteria:
It seems to me that the number of WWAs may be a good candidate for this system, too (bands, and upper limit), rather than just using the raw numbers.

In any case, when people end up with identical "rank", they would be displayed in a random order within those rank spaces.

Sidenote: Last week I contacted a few of my past clients and asked them if they would provide me WWA feedback. (Now, you should know that this was the first time I did this, for various reasons I did not, and still do not feel comfortable requesting this from clients.) I explained that ProZ is considering a new search system where these are likely to get more emphasis. One of my clients said "Gee, are they turning this into a popularity contest??? SMH"

So, anyway, I think all the other stuff may be better to be left for the client to define. I have seen other systems where criteria parameters were not specified by checkboxes (On/Off) but with sliders to indicate the relative importance of them. It is very cool visually and easy to understand, I think.

Katalin


 
Henry Dotterer
Henry Dotterer
Local time: 17:47
SITE FOUNDER
Thanks, Katalin! May 24, 2018

Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:

OK, I get that, so, here are some ideas:
...

Thanks very much!


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


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


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

ProZ Find™ (new freelancer directory) released in alpha stage. Feedback sought.






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 »
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 »