 Track this topic | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10] > | | User | Thread poster: Henry D Clients / large translation companies now talking about pooling linguistic data. Should we be there? |
|---|
mediamatrix
Chile
Local time: 20:45
Spanish to English
+ ...
| | On being pro-active | Jul 27, 2008 |
AFLSSInc wrote:
Well, it's back then 
Hope I won't be eaten alive
|
|
Fear not, Paul. I prefer my steak medium-rare
That said...
AFLSSInc wrote:
But lets go back to the 3 major issues that dominate us:
a) Others deliver bad translations that subsequently I have to deal with in some form |
|
Of course - re-hashing past work is part of the job today - and will be for eternity, regardless of how the technology develops. In just the same way as many of our authors deliver bad original texts that we have to deal with. Ever since I got involved in translation I have found this to be a profession for massochists. For everyone I have ever worked for as a translator, translation has always been seen as a 'necessary evil'. Worse, for many years my bread-'n-butter work was the translation of endless reports of meetings - stuff that was a boring drudgery also for most of the authors - and it showed in the quality of the stuff I had to translate. Nonetheless, for me it was an opportunity to double my salary overnight by abandoning hands-on engineering and taking up translation. (That was 30 years ago - I doubt that the same jump in income could happen today!)
AFLSSInc wrote:
b) Agencies and big corporations have nothing in mind but getting more and paying less |
|
And of course exactly the same can be said of free-lance translators. Time and again we read in the forum stuff like "I need software to do XYZ task - preferably freeware!". There is a clear reluctance on the part of many people here to invest in the tools of the trade - which suggests to me either that they have no business sense, or they are really only working on the fringe of the profession with little likelihood of ever getting a return on even the most modest of investments.
AFLSSInc wrote:
c) My TMs are what makes me unique, they give me an edge in the market, they are my work
...
the intellectual property rights transfer to the buyer.
...
I think that this strong attachment [to one's 'own' TMs] is misguided sentiment.
|
|
I agree entirely with that third line. And that is precisely why the major initiators of the TAUS project are big clients - not people from the translation industry (by which I mean CAT-tool manufacturers etc.) and less still from among the translator community. As it happens, being largely from the IT industry, they are also clients who have a good perception of what IT 'should be able to achieve if we throw enough money at it', especially with source texts of the kind they themselves most-often need to publish in multiple languages. And as it happens, a lot of their stuff is, or should be, amenable to 'text-crunching'. And as TAUS moves forward I am sure other global industries will see the advantages and move in the same direction.
It stands to reason - and all the more so in today's global economy - that those who have most to benefit from a project such as TAUS, that is to say in an 'industry association' context, are the owners of information - i.e. those who possess the IP in the source texts and the translations, regardless whether the latter are in the form of flowing text, TMs or anything else.
AFLSSInc wrote:
To sum it up, do I believe that ProZ.com should be involved in TAUS? - you bet I do, as a matter of fact, I believe it is vital. |
|
But there, Paul, I must disagree. Your conclusion does not, I believe, follow on logically from what you wrote before.
Henry D's question at the start of this thread was
Henry D wrote:
2. Should ProZ.com join as a company, ... ?
|
|
You seem to agree that Proz.com - the company - cannot 'represent' the free-lance community. So if Proz.com gets involved in TAUS it must be because it is in some way a worthwhile activity for the company in its own right. But, by its own admission, Proz.com is not a translator, nor an agency; not without reason it calls itself a 'venue'. And as far as I can tell from information published on this site, Proz.com quite possibly does not even have the in-house expertise necessary for it to make a worthwhile impact on TAUS.
And even if Proz.com did have a mandate from its paying members (i.e. customers) to represent them in TAUS (or anywhere else, come to that), and even if it does have the necessary skills and financial resources, it would be extraordinarily difficult to do anything worthwhile in view of the diversity of views held by the membership - especially on matters such as those you raised in points a), b) and - above all - c). It would be a wise man indeed who could find consensus regarding any kind of pro-active involvement in TAUS with the permament risk of alienating large sections of Proz.com's paying customers. Think about it a moment and ask yourself, Paul: "What percentage of Proz.com's paying members would be likely to not renew their subscription if the company decided to defend views in TAUS that ran counter to their own views on the matter?" And a second question:" If the company decided to go ahead anyway, and get its hands dirty in TAUS, what proportion of its paying customers would be willing to support that specific activity with an increase - of let's say (purely hypothetically and merely by way of example) 25% - in their annual subscription, for the next 5, 10 ... 15 years?".
AFLSSInc wrote:
We can not defy basic market dynamics and will have to live with the fact that the demand makes the supply and not the other way around. |
|
Yes. But when you write 'We...' we should interpret that very broadly as meaning 'free-lancers, in-house translators (and their employers), agencies ... and all their/our clients'. And if 'We' want to be pro-active in TAUS or in any other initiative tending towards removing the unremitting drudgery and unwelcome cost of an increasingly large proportion of the world's current translation workload, then 'We' should either represent ourselves in those schemes or persuade our properly-representative professional associations, at national or international level, to do that on our behalf.
MediaMatrix
  | | | | Ralf Lemster 
Germany
Local time: 00:45
  Member (2003)
English to German
+ ...
| | Deep specialisation vs. pooling of data | Jul 27, 2008 |
Hi Henry and all,
Sorry for the delay in re-joining the discussion.
I'm glad to see my concerns regarding this discussions were unfounded. It's rare that I'm really happy to be proven wrong!
| Just considering the general prospect of end clients and large translation companies pooling a large amount of linguistic data, is there a chance that it would benefit your business to have access to that data? (I think you are finding TM technology useful today... would access to leverage-able data for it, pooled by clients and large players, have any value to you?) |
|
I don't think so.
If I look at reference material provided on complex topics (credit derivatives, structured products, etc.), frankly, I can see the benefits of sharing - but not for my business.
Best, Ralf
| | | | Paul Greer
United States
Local time: 15:45
English to Arabic
+ ...
| | On businesses, associations and self-regulating markets PART I | Jul 27, 2008 |
Thank you for your response mediamatrix. I found it stimulating and it made me reflect on my post.
It actually opened up a whole new bundle of "lines of thought", so I address them top to bottom best as I can. So in this "ACT I", I'll only address the business aspect.
Attention Deficit Disorder here I come
| You seem to agree that Proz.com - the company - cannot 'represent' the free-lance community. So if Proz.com gets involved in TAUS it must be because it is in some way a worthwhile activity for the company in its own right. But, by its own admission, Proz.com is not a translator, nor an agency; not without reason it calls itself a 'venue'. And as far as I can tell from information published on this site, Proz.com quite possibly does not even have the in-house expertise necessary for it to make a worthwhile impact on TAUS. |
|
The Business Aspect
Absolutely, however, this is the beauty of self-regulating markets and Tier interdependencies. For this paragraph, lets view ProZ as it is per self-definition, and first and foremost as a business entity providing paid services to subscribers. A venue, a platform, a host (not necessarily the ultimate status quo but lets assume so for now).
Also, let us assume TAUS will provide a centralized TM repository categorized by industry/specialization/whatever on a fee-basis (dues will hardly cover the admin and technical costs, so it should be a safe assumption).
So now let's answer the question, should ProZ join not based on my previous, more....hm... philosophical approach, but from a business standpoint, and can we make an ark over to will it still benefit the LSP/Freelancer community.
In my opinion, from a sole business standpoint:
a) ProZ delivers, period. ProZ has often been misunderstood, misinterpreted, undervalued, overvalued, etc. etc. etc. Regardless of all that, as a "platform provider" it has consistently lived up to it's promise. As such a vendor, ProZ has continued to evolve. Best example, ProZ Connect. A beautiful, beautiful development/evolution from the initial directories, in sync with customer demand.
Also, ProZ, despite exponential growth over the years has steered a true course adhering to its initially set set of values and principles. If you consider ProZ solely as platform provider, these are remarkable trades especially since we talk a decade here.
(Of course often people projected their being displeased with the "use" of the platform on the "platform provider" and not the "platform users", but that's a different story entirely).
b) Let's assume, that TAUS, based on it's major participants will quickly grow a repository filled mainly with industrial content, and lets assume that access levels will be tiered in some form or another.
c) Further, lets assume that part of the freelance community could gain access to market segments through such venue. By this I mean for example SAP, automotive and all those nice fields of specialization where buyers perceive a lack of resources because the job requirements are so detached from standard translation procedures that they have to resort to the same resources over and over again with limited or no influx of new talent. Effectively, a limitation of the supply chain.
Now, if these assumptions were right, then from a business point of view it would be absolutely vital for ProZ to join TAUS. Why? The potential of a new, marketable value added service to ProZ. There is undoubtedly a large amount of freelancers at this very moment that would certainly appreciate that boring, painstakingly repetitive automotive parts catalogue, that is undoubtedly sitting somewhere in the production queue because the handful of translators that are frequently utilized are already busy.
Further, I dare to assume that the direct pricing structure of such a repository will most likely not appeal to most in the freelancer community.
Solution -> TM-TGB.
Now, if one were to apply a more narrow-minded view, it would be easy to argue that now the initial group of translators does not benefit but actually lose jobs. However, that is indeed very narrow minded. The "language aspect" is rapidly turning into a bottle-neck in many organizations working on large-scale and global levels. Thus, the limited supply chain actually is in the way of more work, in a larger economical context.
To this effect, I found the following a very interesting argument:
| And even if Proz.com did have a mandate from its paying members (i.e. customers) to represent them in TAUS (or anywhere else, come to that), and even if it does have the necessary skills and financial resources, it would be extraordinarily difficult to do anything worthwhile in view of the diversity of views held by the membership - especially on matters such as those you raised in points a), b) and - above all - c). It would be a wise man indeed who could find consensus regarding any kind of pro-active involvement in TAUS with the permament risk of alienating large sections of Proz.com's paying customers. Think about it a moment and ask yourself, Paul: "What percentage of Proz.com's paying members would be likely to not renew their subscription if the company decided to defend views in TAUS that ran counter to their own views on the matter?" And a second question:" If the company decided to go ahead anyway, and get its hands dirty in TAUS, what proportion of its paying customers would be willing to support that specific activity with an increase - of let's say (purely hypothetically and merely by way of example) 25% - in their annual subscription, for the next 5, 10 ... 15 years? |
|
The Business Model Answer
Very simple, create a new membership status, or added value subscription. It's been done before with connect.
The Representation Answer
Based on your and my aforementioned assumptions (which is really all they are), a participation of ProZ under the caveat that the participation serves the creation and maintenance of such a value added product would only be perceived as "being in bed with the enemy" by the most ... hm .... pig-headed members.
Considering ProZ's history of maintaining a neutral platform provider approach, I'd say that not member mandate, but market dynamics will ensure that the (reasonable) interests of the community would be protected. Hypothetically and ideally, ProZ will keep listening to the paying customer base in order to provide a lucrative value-added service to those who select to use it. In order to maintain and enhance the marketability of such an add-on service, it is only natural that ProZ will not abandon the needs of its paying customer base but will try to make them heard and implemented. Capitalism at work.
(INTERLUDE, for some reason I just had to think about the Absolut Vodka marketing campaign "In an Absolut World", where rioters and riot squad go at it in a pillow fight)
In a more political sense, this approach would also provide a venue for "neutrality", is ProZ member to enhance agendas? No, it's there to enhance a sellable product and keep an edge in the market.
Okay, I got much more in my head about this but it's getting way too long now.
To sum it up, even if we reduce the issue to the original question, should ProZ, and I mean the solely "business" ProZ join. I still think yes, it is absolutely vital. If only to "stay on the beat" on a major industry development.
I don't know the answers to if membership will eventually benefit the community, hurt the community or even be completely resultless. But if we boil it down to simple corporate governance at the worlds largest platform for freelancers, then yes of course ProZ should become a member, simply to stay ahead of the curve.
The end
Stay tuned for Part II, thoughts on community representation
[Edited at 2008-07-27 22:12]
| | | | Henry D
United States
Local time: 18:45
 Member
SITE FOUNDER TOPIC STARTER |
Thanks, everyone, for the input and exchange of views. This has been a great discussion. I'll include reference to it in the newsletter, so that others who are interested may join in.
Meanwhile, here is my conclusion. It seems clear that TM sharing on a large scale will at least be tried. This forum discussion removes any doubt that that fact matters to many in this community. Therefore, in line with our mission, we'll join TAUS with an eye to securing also for ProZ.com members (our customers) the opportunity to be among the TAUS circle of sharers, on reasonable terms, if they so desire. (This ought to be possible; would it be in anyone's interest for translators to be excluded from among those sharing linguistic data in this industry?)
Anyway, we'll see what comes of it. I'll keep you posted.
By the way, also in line with our mission, rest assured that the folks at the TAUS meetings will be reminded where they can find translators and translation companies when they need them!
| | | | Carla Galvao
France
Local time: 00:45
Member (2008)
English to French
+ ...
| | Why not create our own TM exchange place? | Jul 28, 2008 |
Hello everyone,
I read the discussion, and I found it very interesting, with a lot of valuable points of view.
There are some points, however, that I don't understand. Everyone here seems to consider the TAUS initiative as the only and definitive TM exchange solution.
Personally, I see that initiative as being an opportunity for competition. I hope that they will succeed a bit, in order to push some other companies to enter in this new market and create other TM exchange platforms.
As soon as several TM exchange places will be on air, translators will be pushed back on stage, because they own the translated material (even if, yes, a TM is yet another deliverable). If one of these TM exchange platforms pays, as it should, the translators for the segments they authored, it will become the leader. And, thanks to competition again, as soon as this platform becomes leader, the existing ones will have to implement that kind of payment.
Thanks to the Web 2.0 technologies, that kind of solution is not so difficult to develop, and one can imagine that Proz invests on it (at least, I can imagine...). And, let me a bit optimistic; why not create a team to develop such a product, using for example an Open Source license model? As you probably know, several TM products are Open Source yet (see www.anyword.fr/blog/?cat=6 for information about translation tools).
My translation company would be happy to collaborate to develop a platform where agencies and freelancers post their TMs, analyze their new jobs against the platform content and get a tailor-made TM for their new job. The sale of a tailor-made TM would pay both the platform editor and each separate segment translator.
Don’t you think it would be great to get (part of) translation profits back to translators?
All the best,
Guillaume de Brébisson
Anyword
guillaume.debrebisson@anyword.fr
| | | | Paul Greer
United States
Local time: 15:45
English to Arabic
+ ...
|
'nuff said
BR
P
| | | | Brandis
Germany
Local time: 00:45
Member (2003)
English to German
+ ...
|
Hello Henry, Proz.com as you had always presented it in the form of an entity structured to support freelancers ( FAQs and scope and definition and prime goals or the similar) as far as I understand the scope and operation is already an established place for professional freelancers just as it represents a place for the translation industry, globally.
I do not see much reasoning in (whether web 2.0 tech or not) or the translation industry trying to develop a pooling system - infact many agencies were going along these lines all the while (would that mean price standardization ( a project coming to proz.com whichever member takes over the responsiblity gets 5000 eggs a word) or the similar in finishing style and quality as well)), this might sound somewhat funny that you put a question here whether we should go for it.
What will happen to proz.com in the future and the freelancer... I had never meant to say that proz.com is an Non profit orientied organization and survives to serve a community solely based on membership contributions, as you said yourself sometime back that you are primarily a web application development company, so I guess you would have found your solutions already, why ask the members of this noble permission whether to go for or not. Do you see an advantage in this and why not share those ideas with us in the fullest and complete sense. VOLL UND GANZ. BR Brandis
[Edited at 2008-07-30 22:35]
| | | | Dan Topor
Romania
Local time: 01:45
English to Romanian
+ ...
| | Yeah... right, give low rated translators a BIG weapon against us | Jul 31, 2008 |
Henry D wrote:
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
big companies pooling their resources...
to drive rates even further down and make big fat profits for themselves...
they get our TMs... |
|
What if, with ProZ.com participating in this group, it were possible to make the pooled resource available to ProZ.com members? In that case -- with translators getting back access to the linguistic assets they create -- would some balance be restored?
I don't know whether this would be possible in TAUS. I asked, but if I understood correctly, a policy has not yet been formed. The impression I got is that this concept had not yet been considered. |
|
As you can see, I am not a paying member of ProZ, simply because I do not really depend on ProZ and because I do not see any benefit in investing what it could be a small fortune for many people in Romania.
Back to the issue on hand...
If any person who claims to be a translator, but does not really know what he/she is doing, is working as a translator only on week-ends and charges a max of 0.02 (EUR or USD) / word, thus stealing clients which do not know or want to know what a good or at least fair quality translation is, could have access to some big TM that can ease up even more their lame existence, then we - as quality oriented translators - will slowly begin to lose even more ground to the low quality translators 'community'.
Regards...
| | | | Jean-Marie Le Ray
Italy
Local time: 00:45
Member
English to French
+ ...
|
Henry D wrote:
Thanks, everyone, for the input and exchange of views. This has been a great discussion. I'll include reference to it in the newsletter, so that others who are interested may join in.
Meanwhile, here is my conclusion. It seems clear that TM sharing on a large scale will at least be tried. This forum discussion removes any doubt that that fact matters to many in this community. Therefore, in line with our mission, we'll join TAUS with an eye to securing also for ProZ.com members (our customers) the opportunity to be among the TAUS circle of sharers, on reasonable terms, if they so desire. (This ought to be possible; would it be in anyone's interest for translators to be excluded from among those sharing linguistic data in this industry?)
Anyway, we'll see what comes of it. I'll keep you posted.
By the way, also in line with our mission, rest assured that the folks at the TAUS meetings will be reminded where they can find translators and translation companies when they need them! |
|
I think it's a savvy decision
Jean-Marie
| | | | TREX2
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:45
Member (2002)
Italian to English
+ ...
| | Nothing to worry about | Jul 31, 2008 |
Until scientists understand exactly how the human brain creates language - which may be never - nobody is ever going to put translators out of business, so let's get in touch with these organisations, work out all the implications and get on board. also if there is or will indeed be a shortage of translations it wouldn't help to raise our fees
| | | | Salvador Scofano and Gry Midttun
Norway
Local time: 00:45
Member (2006)
English to Portuguese
+ ...
| | [Terms] X [TMs] X [credibility] X [Cost reduction?] | Jul 31, 2008 |
Cost reduction?
I suppose this all started with the idea of saving costs. I have seen nice products with poor manuals, because some companies think that documentation (including translations) is just something that increases their costs. Many companies cannot see that good documentation can be decisive for the product usability. In practice, a bad documentation (and translation) can undermine the product reputation and its future success.
Dictionaries - Glossaries - TMs
Even a dictionary (and a glossary) has to be used carefully. Contexts can be different and the blind use of dictionaries and glossaries can have bad results (when not catastrophic). So, imagine the blind use of TMs.
100% Matches - TM datababases
Has someone already received TMs with 100% matches and had fun with the brilliant solutions received as "100% matches"? Then imagine this in a database made up with several TMs from several translators. Maybe some were good in the specific contexts, but disastrous in different situations.
Credibility
The bottom line is that the results of this TM database will be doubtful. For the serious agencies this will not be a good solution. For the translators this can have bad repercussions, by generating an enormous amount of bad quality translations and reducing the translator’s credibility. The reduction of the translators’ credibility does not sound like a good prospect for all of us.
| | | | Angus Cameron
Belgium
Local time: 00:45
Member (Jun 2009)
German to English
+ ...
|
Maybe I've missed the point of this discussion, but it seems we have the "one-size-fits-all" brigade on one side thinking that sharing TMs will somehow speed up and/or improve the translation process, and people like myself on the other, with 20+ years of translation experience and an absolute dread of clients supplying a TM. Has anyone ever come across the perfect TM? Has anyone ever encountered a consistent TM? Those who think that a word in one language should always be translated by the same word in the other language clearly know nothing about language. Combining TMs would be an absolute disaster, but Microsoft, birthplace of the possessive "it's", isn't going to let that bother them. Best let them go ahead with this foolish idea and smirk when another Babblefish hits the Internet.
| | | | Telperie
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:45
Member (2005)
English to Spanish
+ ...
| | TAUS, reliable or not? | Jul 31, 2008 |
Dear All,
I have read all the posts (answers and/or questions) for this interesting issue and I feel this question has been somewhat overlooked: would TAU project be realiable and/or useful?
The answer to this question is nor a simple yes or not, since we are speaking of a very large project of pooling linguistic data from different TMs.
Some people have mentioned in their posts their fear that such a big project would lack quality and I have to agree with them. TAU will probably create some "standard quality level" for their final product, as it would be stupid not to. But, who will decide this standard? TAU big boys? Translation associations?
Language in general is very ambiguous, even specialized languages such legal, technical or scientific languages. Who decides which translation is the correct one? It is very difficult to take such a decision. And in any case, it will be only useful for a given number of cases, as it will not take into account the different contexts in which you can find a similar "expression/sentence".
In order to create a reliable big data pool for automatic translation, every one should agree what is the minimum translation unit, a sentence, fixed expressions or even a whole text can have very different interpretations, and therefore translations, depending upon their context, the tone of the document, the audience the text is directed to, etc.
Linguists, translators, translation agencies, translation associations and all professionals related with the translation industry would need to reach an agreement in terms of this minimum translation unit and quality assurance first before beginning such a large project.
I also think, some might disagree with my opinion, that such a big project could be confusing for its users unless they are able to create a very good index and/or search engine.
Because it will use so many different TMs, some of them for different language pairs, different specializations. I would need to create a clear categorization (another complex issue) for its index and a good search engine which should be fine tuned so its querys are as relevant as possible. Meaning, me as an user create a query and the search engine should return a relevant answer to my query otherwise, its answers would be useless or even confusing.
For this project to work, it would need the participation of all sorts of experts, not only translators, linguists to ensure that it has a good quality. But also good coordinators and good moderators, so there is a good comunication among the diffferent groups that form part of the project. It would need IT and computer science experts so the final tool is easy to use, and the results it has are relevant to its final user. It would probably need editors, copywriters and legal to sift all copywrited, sensible data from the TMs and leave a good, understandable data at the end. There is probably a bunch of other professionals and specialist which would be needed for such a project.
I personally don't see this happening any time soon, since the translation industry, as some have already stated, is too fragmented. There are not agreements event in the most essential issues, such as quality. Therefore, this project would have a very limited use, only for repetitive texts or versions of a previous document.
I don't think it would it change the translation industry as it is, because many people would find just not usefull for their business. Even some Translation Agencies, who pride themselves on their quality, would not use such a tool because they wouldn't trust it.
In any case, I believe it to be a good idea that could, in the future, help translators to provide a better quality and/or unified final product for their clients. But it will never replace the human translator who will have to decide whether one of its results is useful for his/her given project.
| | | | kamelot
Slovenia
Local time: 00:45
Member (2007)
English to Slovenian
+ ...
| | Under the flag of Henry... | Jul 31, 2008 |
In any case, whether or not the corporations' intentions are evil, it would be wise to know as much as possible about their "pooling" plans.
As they will carry them out in any case, ProZ.com should definitely stay close "at the bowl", so we keep ourselves well informed about the developments in our industry, and maybe even make them share some corporate breadcrumbs with us
The idea is really interesting, but the implementation could be really complicated.. I already have lots of questions about it.
How would it work in practice, if ProZ.com joins up?
Would be members, who decide to share their TMs, given an access to the whole/a part of the "pool"? Would some members really "flee" because of that?
How about supervision of the shared, sharers and access? Could the pool be made open-source, or should it be closed to the proportion one shares in it?
How would it be settled legally (in general)? Are any patent claims possible for such pools?
I wouldn't mind at all if Henry goes there "on our behalf" and see how the pool is being dug and whether we should jump into it. Who else would?
Cheers all.
Tomi
| | | | Iza Szczypka
Poland
Local time: 00:45
Member (2005)
English to Polish
+ ...
| | This won't work | Jul 31, 2008 |
From my experience in working as a sub-subcontractor for the *big boys'* regional translation centres, they have a few things in common:
1. Their standpoint is that their own termbase is a holy writ that cannot be criticised by any blasphemous outsider;
2. The terminology they use is the only right one in the whole wide world and if any competitor uses a different one - well, his problem...
3. Anything that is not strictly technical but included in their TM is of invariably low quality or produces a low-quality effect in the final text. For instance, there is only a single acceptable equivalent of *therefore* in any given language - they want a machine-like translation, so they get it. Additionally, #1 and #2 apply to those items as well.
I can't see how this widespread approach might lead to any compromise, alignment etc.
Therefore I can't see any reason for getting excited about the concept - we'll soon see its agony in the midst of its unyielding parents. Even if they could earn a few pennies more by keeping it alive and kicking. They could possibly overcome the technical / organisational problems with their vast resources. The way of thinking is much harder to remodel.
[Edited at 2008-07-31 11:24]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator | Clients / large translation companies now talking about pooling linguistic data. Should we be there? |
