|This is Swampyank's copy of "The Jury" by John Morgan, painted in 1861, and now in the Bucks County Museum in England. More information about the painting can be found here: [http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/bcc/museum/ea_The_Jury.page|inline= (Photo credit: Wikipedia)|
Definition of TRIAL according to Meriam Webster:
1a: the action or process of trying or putting to the proof; TEST
b: a preliminary contest (as in a sport)
2: the formal examination before a competent tribunal of the matter in issue in a civil or criminal cause in order to determine such issue
3: a test of faith, patience, or stamina through subjection to suffering or temptation; broadly : a source of vexation or annoyance
4a: a tryout or experiment to test quality, value, or usefulness - compare clinical trial
b: one of a number of repetitions of an experiment
Related to TRIAL
Synonyms: cross, crucible, fire, gauntlet (also gantlet), ordeal, baptism of fire
Well, let's assume, that the translation "trials" are supposed "4a: a tryout or experiment to test quality, value, or usefulness" and NOT what the majority of synonyms suggest: cross, crucible, fire, gauntlet (also gantlet), ordeal, baptism of fire - thereby presuming the "good intentions" of the company requesting the trial.
But, as can be seen from the dictionary definitions, the meaning of the word itself suggests more strongly the notion of "ordeal" instead of a simple test of skills.
That aside there is also the second definition: "the formal examination before a competent tribunal of the matter in issue in a civil or criminal cause in order to determine such issue".
In that case I am the "accused" and the company the prosecutor.
I have to "stand trial", or "face a trial".
As the accused I produce evidence to show my innocence - openly visible for the judge, jury and everybody else.
The prosecution (represented by the jury) however hides its evidence against me.
It just delivers its verdict: you are guilty ("of not being good enough at translation").
Once the verdict has been reached, the accused gets NO CHANCE to defend him/herself, since the evidence against him/her must be for some reason kept secret.
While I laid open my evidence,
the prosecution "covers up" its evidence.
The need to "cover up" = hide, keep secret, itself is VEEERY SUSPICIOUS!
The accused is simply sentenced to death without any evidence and without chance of defending himself.
So much for a "fair trial".
I am sure the people on the prosecution side would LOVE to be treated this way, if they were "in my shoes" ...
The other day I did a trial for a certain company, where it took THREE MONTHS!!! to reach the verdict = "you are not good enough".
Naturally, when I asked whether I may see the actual evaluation indicating all my mistakes, I was told, that information cannot be disclosed.
Below I take the liberty of quoting from a mail correspondence with the coordinator in charge.
Well - no offense, but ... - if it takes them THREE MONTHS to evaluate something like 2 pages of text AND the results much be "covered up" allows me ONLY to conclude, that "they" are neither confident about their work, not competent.
Otherwise they would/should be proud showing their evidence against me.
"Not only do I understand, but from a personal standpoint, I more than agree. It is indeed my personal opinion that the amount of time it took on the reviews, regardless of the reasons, is outright ridiculous, and I will say, from a freelancer's perspective, that your evlauation is correct, no matter what company is conducting the trial/review.
As for your results, as you might have guessed, I'm not actually allowed to give out information regarding the review. Unfortunately, they seemed quite adamant about not giving out any information ..."