| Pages in topic: < [1 2] |
| User | Thread poster: Milana Penavski Sensitive matter (proofreading) |
|---|
kmtext
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:59
English
+ ...
| | Be impartial, but do the job you've been hired to do. | Jan 30 |
I'm assuming that your client has some reason for doubting the quality of the translations which is why you've been asked to evaluate them.
Highlight the errors you've picked up and also report what you've said about GT producing the same errors.
You're not being asked to do anything that a proofreader shouldn't normally do anyway. If a translator is producing a poor-quality product, it's in the interests of both the client and the translator if that is pointed out.
| | | |
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:59
 Member (2008)
Italian to English
| | Wandering off-topic | Jan 30 |
John Di Rico wrote:
In my opinion, the people not using CAT tools today are the ones that risk ruining our image as professionals. |
|
I've never used a CAT tool and have no plans to do so. My professional image is very good.
[Edited at 2012-01-30 11:20 GMT]
| | | |
Teresa Borges
Belgium
Local time: 03:59
Member (2007)
German to Portuguese
+ ...
| | Couldn't say it better myself, Tom! | Jan 30 |
Tom in London wrote:
John Di Rico wrote:
In my opinion, the people not using CAT tools today are the ones that risk ruining our image as professionals. |
|
I've never used a CAT tool and have no plans to do so. My professional image is very good.
[Edited at 2012-01-30 11:20 GMT] |
|
| | | |
Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:59
Member (2011)
Hebrew to English
|
Teresa Borges wrote:
Tom in London wrote:
John Di Rico wrote:
In my opinion, the people not using CAT tools today are the ones that risk ruining our image as professionals. |
|
I've never used a CAT tool and have no plans to do so. My professional image is very good.
[Edited at 2012-01-30 11:20 GMT] |
|
|
|
Also agree, there's nothing a CAT tool can do that I can't do myself.
I have used CAT tools and they left me cold. If anything, it seemed like more faff, more work, more hassle.
Surely what makes us 'professional' is our knowledge of language, our experience, our years of hard slog, our specialisations etc. not the tools we choose to implement our expertise.
No CAT tool can make you professional. Unfortunately this is a delusion perpetuated by those who worship at the altar of Trados.
| | | |
Rene Caita
Colombia
Local time: 20:59
English to Spanish
+ ...
|
Probably the client has obtained poor quality translations in return for low rates and/or short deadlines. Maybe he should receive a hint on it.
| | | |
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 03:59
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| | Focus in your report on the human mistakes | Jan 30 |
Milana Penavski wrote:
A recurrent client has asked me to proofread the work of a few translators. I was also asked to make a report on the detected issues one by one. Besides common mistakes, I noticed that they have used Google Translator or other automatic resources, compromising even more the quality. |
|
Is it possible that the translator had used MT to assist him, but did not actually try to pass off the translation as his own? Many CAT tools have the ability to include MT results even if the human does most of the translation. Could it be that the translator had accidentally accepted an MT match without editing it?
If you see unedited MT matches in only one or two sentences, then you can assume that those were careless (even negligent) mistakes, but not attempts to intentionally mislead the client. If that is so, then tell the client that you suspect those sentences to be unedited MT matches, and ignore them when reviewing the the translation's overall quality. After all, the way those sentences are structured isn't the way the translator would normally write, so you can't judge the translator's translation ability by looking at those unedited matches.
If there are sentences that may or may not be MT matches, but which do not appear to be accidental unedited segments, then you should comment more negatively about them. If you are certain that the text is essentially an MT'ed text with minimal editing by the human, do not spend too much time appraising the translation, since most of the errors would be the machine's errors anyway.
Overall, it is important that you judge the translation, not the translator. Regardless of what you might think of the translator, your duty is to the text itself. Make no value judgments about the translator in your report to the client (even if tempted).
Finally, if you do identify an MT match, make very sure that it is indeed an MT match, because some translators simply translate very directly, or use a sentence construction which is atypical of humans, so their translations may seem machine-like even if they have done the translation themselves.
|  |  |
| | | |
Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 18:59
 Member
English to German
+ ...
|
John Di Rico wrote:
In my opinion, the people not using CAT tools today are the ones that risk ruining our image as professionals. It's like an accountant who uses Excel spreadsheets instead of dedicated accounting software or a graphic designer who uses MS Publisher instead of Adobe InDesign. Of course, it would be non-professional to run something through a machine and not post-edit it, revise, proofread, etc. in the same way it would be non-professional to pass off a MS Publisher template as an original design.
|
|
I have direct clients who fired their agencies because they got tired of texts that were QA-ed to death. I was asked to please not use any CAT tools.
InDesign? I don't like it. It's nothing but a hybrid between gorgeous Freehand and brilliant QuarkXPress, with an extra dollop of Photoshop. It's like a horse that is supposed to do dressage and jump and win the Triple-Crown all the same. There is no such thing. InDesign is the MS Publisher for the advanced wannabe.
Our CPA? I don't care if he uses super-duper-software or Excel or carves our tax returns into Mount Rushmore, as long as he takes notes on paper while I speak.
Our image as professionals? I guess there is an app for that?
| | |
| | | |
Russell Jones
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:59
 Member (2004)
Italian to English
Moderator of this forum | | Digressions accepted | Jan 30 |
but let's stay on topic from now on please folks.
| | | |
Christine Andersen
Denmark
Local time: 03:59
Member (2003)
Danish to English
+ ...
| | The problem is that it compromises the quality | Jan 30 |
Milana Penavski wrote:
Hi all,
A recurrent client has asked me to proofread the work of a few translators. ... Besides common mistakes, I noticed that they have used Google Translator or other automatic resources, compromising even more the quality. ...
|
|
(My bold formatting)
This is the crucial point, and what you are asked to comment on.
A professional is a person who knows when to use a pencil and paper, when Google Translate actually does produce the answers (if it does), and what other tools to use to deliver an accurate translation that is fit for the client's use. (However that is defined or agreed upon...)
Point out the errors, and if possible point out passages where the translator has done well too, to give a full picture.
If the report goes back to the translator, this is a fair way to soften the blow and show that you ARE impartial. If not, it will still help the client to see the difference between just acceptable and real quality.
In fact it is quite as important to know when a translation is excellent ("and if it ain't broke, don't fix it" ) -- as to know where it could be improved.
Constructive criticism is an art worth practising!
[Edited at 2012-01-30 17:11 GMT]
| | |
| | | |
| Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Apologies for requesting Edit earlier - not relevant in this instance. |
Eleftherios Kritikakis
United States
Local time: 20:59
Member (2003)
Greek to English
+ ...
|
Doesn't sound very serious. A translator uses google, big deal. Snap screenshots with your findings, tell the client directly. You don't want legal confidential documents running through Google's engines. That's what I do when I see things like that and mind you, I'm a very easy going editor (most document leave my hands with no changes). However, google translations with errors, that's bad - and I inform immediately, because those managers depend on my honest opinion as a professional. To use google is no sin, but to use it and produce errors and don't bother to correct them, that's reckless.
There are some other cases where I see good work with bunch of typos (a good writer in a hurry). In this case I just say "good work - tell him to run a spell check, other than that it's good".
I prefer a good writer with a couple of innocent typos than someone who doesn't know what he's writing or doesn't bother to fix obvious errors by MTs or TMs.
You don't need tact or diplomacy to do what you were hired to do.
| | |
| | | |
| Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule |
| Pages in topic: < [1 2] |
The translation workplace 
Translation news