| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | Need some advice. The agency refuses to pay what they owe me! Thread poster: Marie-Ange West
|
|---|
| Everything is finally clear I think... hold your ground! | Dec 20, 2008 |
Per Magnus wrote: Marie-Ange WEST wrote:
I translated the 37000 words plus what was in duplicate ... The problem is they were not happy because the translation included the same texts twice. You see? ... I retract my earlier statement that you should invoice 70%. Because when the agency discovered the mistake they should have told you about it and asked you to correct it instead of spending “2 days reformatting your work”. I still say that you should have asked for clarification, so you should do the reformatting for free.
Well, I'm glad that the facts are finally clear. So essentially you processed 74,000 words and are billing 37,000 as agreed. The customer got TM resources in the form of a TTX which, if used with a competent TagEditor INI configuration for the XML file means that your lack of knowledge would have realistically cost the client an extra hour or two. I might be generous and offer them credit for three billable hours at the rate they would pay you, since they did not see fit to notify you and give you the opportunity to remedy the situation.
I assume you probably haven't put together your own general terms & conditions of business, but one rather common element I see in these is that in the event of deficiencies that the translator be given an opportunity to remedy these. You might want to think about this and start passing out defined terms of business to your customers. Even if you end up agreeing on something else, it will make everyone more alert.
In any case, I see any liability on your part as very, very limited - you are not supposed to be an expert in INI arcana, that's the gagency's job, and if the agency had half a clue what it is doing, the whole matter would have been sorted out very quickly. That said, if you had many repeated segments in that 37,000 where capitalization is significant due to context, some extra time in checking may have been necessary, but with tools like XBench that doesn't take forever either.
The main problem I see here is an apparent lack of technical knowledge on the part of the agency, which caused them to waste time. Not your problem. Bill them the full amount, or if you want to be nice, take off a few hours for what the extra effort on their part should have been. Not one cent more!
| | | | Paula James 
Spain
Local time: 06:11
French to English
+ ...
| Now I understand better | Dec 20, 2008 |
Sorry, I thought you had actually translated (or processed) 37,000 words in total, i.e. half of these were duplicates, and you were charging fully. In that case, I could understand that the agency might not be very keen to pay for an extra 18k + words (quite a lot of money!), but if you're only asking for what you actually translated, I certainly see your point.
Unfortunately, there seem to be plenty of agencies which don't understand the software they use themselves. It is frustrating... See more Sorry, I thought you had actually translated (or processed) 37,000 words in total, i.e. half of these were duplicates, and you were charging fully. In that case, I could understand that the agency might not be very keen to pay for an extra 18k + words (quite a lot of money!), but if you're only asking for what you actually translated, I certainly see your point.
Unfortunately, there seem to be plenty of agencies which don't understand the software they use themselves. It is frustrating when you don't get a chance to correct mistakes - I once accidentally sent the wrong version of a file, not the final version, and the agency didn't spot the very obvious indications at the time, then complained later, when I could have sent the right one in two minutes.
I hope you get it sorted out, 50% of that many words is a fairly substantial sum! ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Once again, the intermediate bears responsibility | Dec 20, 2008 |
Paula James wrote:
Unfortunately, there seem to be plenty of agencies which don't understand the software they use themselves... I once accidentally sent the wrong version of a file, not the final version, and the agency didn't spot the very obvious indications at the time, then complained later, when I could have sent the right one in two minutes....
Just because there is a lot of incompetence out there doesn't excuse any of it. The agency has an opportunity now to learn from this, and I hope they take it. From something that Marie said I have the impression that they deal with this sort of task repeatedly. Thus learning how to configure the INI file correctly now will save the agency and its translators time in the future and protect against such errors. That's the silver lining in the cloud if you will. But there is absolutely no call for asking for a 30 to 50% price reduction here. Not even if they did give her specific instructions, which it seems they did not. The real extent of the damage had the agency understood the technology would have been limited to a few hours of work. Even then if the proper INI wasn't supplied, I can't see that they actually have a right to be compensated for those few theoretical hours, though pity might move my heart to do that (if they are about to file bankruptcy or lay off my favorite PM). However, if I were the agency owner I would consider it "tuition" and try to do things right the next time. The agencies I work with regularly generally know what they are doing and never would have screwed this one up. Even the clueless ones I work with would have thought to ask one of their technosavvy translators.
| | | | | I see (I think) | Dec 20, 2008 |
Paula James wrote:
Sorry, I thought you had actually translated (or processed) 37,000 words in total, i.e. half of these were duplicates, and you were charging fully. In that case, I could understand that the agency might not be very keen to pay for an extra 18k + words (quite a lot of money!), but if you're only asking for what you actually translated, I certainly see your point.
Yes, that was what I thought.
Yes, that was what I thought.
I thought you had a file that looked a little like this.
I thought you had a file that looked a little like this.
Hence my initial reaction and comments.
Hence my initial reaction and comments.
Seems like the 30% reduction asked for is purely for the formatting issue, which is entirely the agency's fault so, yeah - hang in there for the full whack
Just goes to show the importance of clear communication though, given it has taken 4 pages and 2 days for it all to become clear.... I think!
| | |
|
|
|
XX789 (X)
Netherlands
Local time: 06:11
English to Dutch
+ ...
I hope you don't mind if I quote you if necessary, without giving your name of course.
You can even give them my name if you want I have no problems with that, because I stand behind what I wrote.
Obviously there are other ways to accomplish what I wrote - the Excel method is just one of them.
| | | | | This is not an ideal world | Dec 21, 2008 |
Kevin Lossner wrote:
Just because there is a lot of incompetence out there doesn't excuse any of it. The agencies I work with regularly generally know what they are doing and never would have screwed this one up. Even the clueless ones I work with would have thought to ask one of their technosavvy translators.
Then you work with more technically competent agencies than I (and a lot of other translators) do. It would be nice if the translation agency had computer competence in-house, but most of the PM’s I have worked with know far less about the finer technical details than most translators who actually use the programs on a daily basis. Most agencies are too small to have any kind of computer specialist hired and will rely on service companies who set up their computers or they will mail technical questions to PC-consultants. Just as they don’t have translators and proofreaders hired, but mail the jobs out to freelancers.
That said, of course this particular agency should have caught the error and sent it back to the original translator for correction.
Regards,
PM
| | | | | Those with an inability to learn deserve oblivion | Dec 21, 2008 |
Per Magnus wrote: Kevin Lossner wrote:
Just because there is a lot of incompetence out there doesn't excuse any of it. The agencies I work with regularly generally know what they are doing and never would have screwed this one up. Even the clueless ones I work with would have thought to ask one of their technosavvy translators. Then you work with more technically competent agencies than I (and a lot of other translators) do... most of the PM’s I have worked with know far less about the finer technical details than most translators who actually use the programs on a daily basis.
Oh, I've dealt with my share of PMs who can't do a word count to save their lives, much less anything more complex. And even an in-house IT department doesn't guarantee competence; I eventually gave up on one very nice German agency whose PMs I like very much, but where the IT folks screw up the file preparation so consistently that they just create an unreasonable amount of work for me almost every time.
However, size doesn't seem to matter here. The most technically competent agency I know is a one-woman shop from which I continue to learn data migration tricks even after 7 years of working together. And the close seconds are all smaller agencies. The big players are usually pretty hopeless, so avoid them most of the time.
Ignorance in itself isn't a big problem as I see it. The real problem is the unwillingness to look for the necessary answers or ask for help when it's clear you're in a dead end. I am fortunate that the majority of the agencies I work with have enough confidence in themselves, trust in me or whatever that they are willing to ask if something isn't working right or they face a complex challenge for quotation. Since, as you pointed out, many translators have a deeper understanding of technical issues than many of the PMs with whom they work, an appropriate business strategy (not to mention simple human kindness) would be to share this knowledge with their business partners! If the relationship isn't good enough to do that, too bad - I would dump those customers and move on. I simply don't enjoy a business relationship in which there is not good trust and a willingness to share ideas. I learn as much as I teach or more from the really good partners, and even though my plate is pretty full, I keep an eye out for new ones that have a similar philosophy and try to make cross-connections where I can.
Anyway, getting back to the topic... Marie might want to look into some of the technical approaches discussed in this thread and be prepared for the next time she encounters something like this.
| | | |
Per Magnus wrote: Marie-Ange WEST wrote:
I translated the 37000 words plus what was in duplicate (but of course I didn't know that because I translated lots ans lots of files and I couldn't check the word count). So, what they owe me is one translation not two. The problem is they were not happy because the translation included the same texts twice. You see? Yes, Marie-Ange, I understand it now. I retract my earlier statement that you should invoice 70%. Because when the agency discovered the mistake they should have told you about it and asked you to correct it instead of spending “2 days reformatting your work”. I still say that you should have asked for clarification, so you should do the reformatting for free. In short: You made a mistake; the agency should have caught it and asked you to fix it. Magnus
| | |
|
|
|
| Thanks very much Debs! | Dec 22, 2008 |
Lawyer-Linguist wrote:
If I understand correctly what Kevin is saying now, the file you received was wrongly formatted from the outset, and the fault for that can only lie on their side.
Stand by your invoice for the 37,000 words.
[That all said and done - and by your own admission - yes, you should probably have clarified what was going on as you effectively ended up processing an additional 37,000 words, albeit duplicates, for free and unnecessarily. Had you done so, this whole issue may well have been avoided. Hindsight is a valuable thing however, it's easy for us all to say now what you 'should have done'. All that remains, after collecting what you're owed, is to learn from it for the future].
Good luck, let us know what happens
Debs
| | | | | Thanks Kevin. I will definitely think about putting together my own terms and conditions now! | Dec 22, 2008 |
Kevin Lossner wrote: Per Magnus wrote: Marie-Ange WEST wrote:
I translated the 37000 words plus what was in duplicate ... The problem is they were not happy because the translation included the same texts twice. You see? ... I retract my earlier statement that you should invoice 70%. Because when the agency discovered the mistake they should have told you about it and asked you to correct it instead of spending “2 days reformatting your work”. I still say that you should have asked for clarification, so you should do the reformatting for free. Well, I'm glad that the facts are finally clear. So essentially you processed 74,000 words and are billing 37,000 as agreed. The customer got TM resources in the form of a TTX which, if used with a competent TagEditor INI configuration for the XML file means that your lack of knowledge would have realistically cost the client an extra hour or two. I might be generous and offer them credit for three billable hours at the rate they would pay you, since they did not see fit to notify you and give you the opportunity to remedy the situation. I assume you probably haven't put together your own general terms & conditions of business, but one rather common element I see in these is that in the event of deficiencies that the translator be given an opportunity to remedy these. You might want to think about this and start passing out defined terms of business to your customers. Even if you end up agreeing on something else, it will make everyone more alert. In any case, I see any liability on your part as very, very limited - you are not supposed to be an expert in INI arcana, that's the gagency's job, and if the agency had half a clue what it is doing, the whole matter would have been sorted out very quickly. That said, if you had many repeated segments in that 37,000 where capitalization is significant due to context, some extra time in checking may have been necessary, but with tools like XBench that doesn't take forever either. The main problem I see here is an apparent lack of technical knowledge on the part of the agency, which caused them to waste time. Not your problem. Bill them the full amount, or if you want to be nice, take off a few hours for what the extra effort on their part should have been. Not one cent more!
| | | | | Thanks Paula, I hope I get it sorted to. I have not heard from the agency since last Tuesday. | Dec 22, 2008 |
Paula James wrote:
Sorry, I thought you had actually translated (or processed) 37,000 words in total, i.e. half of these were duplicates, and you were charging fully. In that case, I could understand that the agency might not be very keen to pay for an extra 18k + words (quite a lot of money!), but if you're only asking for what you actually translated, I certainly see your point.
Unfortunately, there seem to be plenty of agencies which don't understand the software they use themselves. It is frustrating when you don't get a chance to correct mistakes - I once accidentally sent the wrong version of a file, not the final version, and the agency didn't spot the very obvious indications at the time, then complained later, when I could have sent the right one in two minutes.
I hope you get it sorted out, 50% of that many words is a fairly substantial sum!
| | | | | Thanks! You are right, I need to improve my communication skills in English... | Dec 22, 2008 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Paula James wrote:
Sorry, I thought you had actually translated (or processed) 37,000 words in total, i.e. half of these were duplicates, and you were charging fully. In that case, I could understand that the agency might not be very keen to pay for an extra 18k + words (quite a lot of money!), but if you're only asking for what you actually translated, I certainly see your point.
Yes, that was what I thought. Yes, that was what I thought. I thought you had a file that looked a little like this. I thought you had a file that looked a little like this. Hence my initial reaction and comments. Hence my initial reaction and comments. Seems like the 30% reduction asked for is purely for the formatting issue, which is entirely the agency's fault so, yeah - hang in there for the full whack Just goes to show the importance of clear communication though, given it has taken 4 pages and 2 days for it all to become clear.... I think!
| | |
|
|
|
| Thanks a lot! | Dec 22, 2008 |
Loek van Kooten wrote: I hope you don't mind if I quote you if necessary, without giving your name of course. You can even give them my name if you want I have no problems with that, because I stand behind what I wrote. Obviously there are other ways to accomplish what I wrote - the Excel method is just one of them.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 06:11
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Not an hour's work | Dec 23, 2008 |
Loek van Kooten wrote:
It does not take two days to correct this fault. Actually, it should have taken the agency not more than an hour. Anyone who knows a little about IT ... could have corrected the mistake by building up a TM based on your translation and then using the same TM to retranslate the XML file using the correct filters.
Only if there are no duplicate source text segments translated in different ways.
One way to do this would be converting the original XML to Excel, as the order of all sentences stays exactly the same. They could have done the same with your translation and kill all superfluous columns, so that you get a nice Excel file in which the source and target are neatly aligned. Feed that to the TM and use the same TM to retranslate the original XML files.
There is a name for this: hacking. The problem with this approach is that if something goes wrong, and there is a misalignment somewhere, the agency (who may not be able to speak one of the languages) won't notice it. A single misalignment in the middle of the file would result in incorrect translations from that point onward. Besides, the problem with Excel is that it is not a simple CSV editor -- it tries to be intelligent, which is a bad thing for hacking.
If you know of a good CSV editor that can be as dumb as the user wants it to be, let me know.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 06:11
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Did the agency ask that you use Trados? | Dec 23, 2008 |
Marie-Ange WEST wrote:
I translated 37000 words in xml files for an American agency, using Tageditor and Trados. ... So, when I translated the text using trados ans tageditor the text appeared in French in duplicate, as the original did.
1. Did the agency require Trados? If so, they should have provided you with the correct INI file for the XML file, or they should have provided you with the TTX file already created.
By providing you with the XML file only, they were relying on your level of Trados expertise being sufficiently high to tinker with Trados until the XML file looked right and worked right. Very dangerous, IMO.
But the question is -- did the agency require Trados? Or were the agency aware that you'd be using Trados for the translation?
No one asked me to translate only one of the texts in duplicate; so I translated both texts.
Quite a few respondents here felt that you should have known that since the texts were duplicated, you should not have translated both. But I think it all depends on your logic and what you're used to and what kind of experience you have. It is not absolutely logical that if segments are duplicated, that only the second one should be translated, even if it is marked "target".
He also said the following: "xml files usually have the same text twice, one as the source text, the second time as the target text;
He is making assumptions about XML files that apply only to the XML files that he usually works with.
HTML is also XML, after all, and you don't translate HTML by leaving the source text in it. In addition, some XML files contain more than one language. And, in some multilingual XML files, you should overwrite the English, but in others, you should leave the English and simply add your own language.
Apparently, the proofreader didn't notice the problem...
My guess is that the proofreader thought that the translator knew what he was doing so he didn't complain.
...and the translation was sent to the client in the original format (i.e source and target texts in the same language);
The agency should have checked the file before sending it to the proofreader, and the agency should have checked the file before sending it to the client. Even if they don't speak the language, they should have checked it.
I sent them an e-mail saying that I was "prepared to accept the proposed 70% payment offer if their findings suggest some fault with my use of the software, and would prefer to wait until this becomes clear.
It is already clear (to them). How much longer will you wait?
What can I do? Do you think I am in the wrong?
Learn from the experience. You were not negligent, but you acted in ignorance. I believe the fault lies with the system that trains translators (whatever that is).
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Need some advice. The agency refuses to pay what they owe me! | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
