Mdthbs

I'm a in-house translator at a company. We sometimes test new freelance translators to help us when we are short of in-house resources.

One of our criteria for collaborating is to have the same tool as we have.

Lately, a potential freelance who has a different tool insisted to be tested by us, telling that she would get the same as ours if she succeeds in the test. Thus, I made an exception, asking her for specific file-formats for delivery.

She delivered one file in the right format but in a very different way as the source format and could not deliver one other format. Thus, we can see/test the translation but we cannot use it and we need a lot of extra work to fix it (although we wanted to save time by outsourcing).

When I asked her to deliver another format, she criticised our recruitment process and was very angry that the technical aspects are as important to us. She will not send us the bill and doesn't want to hear from us any more.

I fear for the reputation of my company and mine. I want her to understand that the point is not only the technical aspect, but the manner she deals with us as a client (not helping to find a solution). How can I answer her mail in a professional way?

I simply want to close up this encounter in a graceful manner.

Dmitry is right in his answer in that you allowed the candidate to submit the sample work in a different format without knowing what the consequence of that change would be.

This is something that you need to be proactive in admitting is your problem.

You also need to point out why this has resulted in the rejection of this candidate.

For the purposes of this trial, you requested to use a tool that isn't standard for our organization. We allowed this in your case as we wished to see the standard of your work. Unfortunately, our process is particularly technology-assisted and the file format of your submission was too incompatible to adequately assess your translation. For this reason, we have regretfully had to reject your candidacy.

We admit that we unintentionally misled you regarding the format of the submission and didn't realize that the result would be unworkable for us. We apologize for the conflict this has caused. Naturally, you deserve payment for the work you have done for us. If you don't wish to receive payment yourself, please feel free to nominate a charity of your choice.

You allowed this person to be tested using a different tool. To me, that would mean that you wanted to evaluate the quality of the translation, not the format of the submission. Perhaps that person assumed the same and felt that her time was wasted.

In any case, this person got angry dissatisfied with your recruiting process, and I don't think that explaining that you didn't like her manners will make it any better. The best thing would be to apologise that the test didn't work out (even if you don't think an apology is due), and move on.

You tested her and she failed, that’s it. Because she didn’t deliver what you needed, and because you can do without the drama.

You can reply that the technical aspects created you lots of costly extra work (that should explain to her why it is important to you), and that you will not be using her services in the future.

Or, you can go to your manager and ask them for advice. Your company’s reputation will not be negatively affected by this.

I coordinated translations for localization at one of my previous jobs, so I can commiserate.

We used QT for our translations, and it comes with a built in tool for doing the translations (QT Linguist). For our first round of translations, we allowed our contract translators to use any text editor they pleased as long as we got the XML from them. This turned out to be a big mistake, as we ran into constant errors with their translations that required me to fix them. The biggest mystery came about with line endings (DOS vs Unix) because it never occurred to us that it could be the problem. There were also constant errors with unclosed or missing XML tags, elements & attributes not correct, etc. Editing those same files in QT Linquist resulted in usable files.

So, when we sought bids for future translations, we stipulated that they must use QT Linguist for their translations. Some of the previous translators balked and we had to find replacements for them, most just accepted the change and carried on. We never heard from the ones who balked again, and never expected to.

The upshot is there's nothing to worry about with your company's reputation, it sounds like you're just dealing with someone who's difficult or insecure (or both!), neither of which are your problems. Let her contract expire and find someone who can deliver the product you need without drama.