We tried to remove subjectivity with the first questionnaire by focusing on the segments that need to be taken into consideration, but people didn’t like it. We also implemented professional standards used by the industry and proposed by Rosa to differentiate the type of mistakes but people did not like it. We pushed for more granularity to remove subjectivity and people did not like it. Utopian wanted more granularity but with fewer questions, this is clearly contradictory, even professional tools on the market can’t do that. On top of that, we were not able to work properly since our methodological way of working was broken for some reason by Utopian which made everything look like a traumatic event.

Some of your points are valid and we tried to implement them before. I personally stopped thinking and caring about the questionnaire when Utopian steeped in (vigilante style) and tried to please everyone. Because in my opinion 'criticized' doesn't necessarily mean that a change is needed. Because the next one will be 'criticized ' and the one after I will 'criticized' it ... being 'criticized' should never be the sole criterion to decide that something should be refused since a consensus will always be out of reach, and we may end up with something really bad just because people gradually lost interest in the questionnaire drama. Thus, it was never about common sense, it was more like about personal preferences, the situation, in my opinion, highlighted a high conflict of interest.

We received some wonderful feedback and suggestions from people in the translation category, their suggestions show a deep understanding of how things should be, and I am personally really proud to have people like this in our category. But the concept of feedback was misused/misunderstood in my opinion when some people started to consider all feedback as absolute truth.

Conclusion: Can't blame anyone … There were just too many cooks in the kitchen!