| Pages in topic: [1 2] > | WF Classic fails to see obvious similarities Thread poster: Krzysztof Kożurno
|
|---|
Hello,
I could spot it a few times during my current job and now I've caught it red-handed (haven't I?):
Using an allen 10 mm (3/8 in), remove the clutch pedal pivot (1) by rotating the pin 1/4 turn counterclockwise.
Using an allen 10 mm (3/8 in), install the clutch pedal pivot (1) by rotating the pin 1/4 turn clockwise until the pivot pin locks in place..
Similarities can be seen with the naked eye and my fuzzy threshold is set as low as 50.
Anything... See more Hello,
I could spot it a few times during my current job and now I've caught it red-handed (haven't I?):
Using an allen 10 mm (3/8 in), remove the clutch pedal pivot (1) by rotating the pin 1/4 turn counterclockwise.
Using an allen 10 mm (3/8 in), install the clutch pedal pivot (1) by rotating the pin 1/4 turn clockwise until the pivot pin locks in place..
Similarities can be seen with the naked eye and my fuzzy threshold is set as low as 50.
Anything WF doesn't like in these?
Regards,
Krzysztof ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Match rating in different tools | Aug 13, 2012 |
big_fish wrote:
1) Using an allen 10 mm (3/8 in), remove the clutch pedal pivot (1) by rotating the pin 1/4 turn counterclockwise.
2) Using an allen 10 mm (3/8 in), install the clutch pedal pivot (1) by rotating the pin 1/4 turn clockwise until the pivot pin locks in place..
Similarities can be seen with the naked eye and my fuzzy threshold is set as low as 50.
Assuming you translate them in the above order (first 1), then 2)), here is what you would get in various tools:
memoQ 6.0.14: 75%
Studio 2011 SP2: 74%
Wordfast Anywhere: 69%
Déjà Vu X2 8.0.572: 69%
Wordfast Pro 3.1.0: 0%
Wordfast Classic 6.04g: 0%
WFP and WFC clearly have a blind spot with this one.
big_fish wrote:
Anything WF doesn't like in these?
I have no idea (one should ask the guys who wrote the algorithm). I'm sure there are segments with which Classic and Pro "see" matches while other tools fail to see them. Each tool has their own algorithm, even inside the same "family", as we could see here with WFA vs. WFC/WFP.
| | | | B D Finch 
France
Local time: 10:27
French to English
+ ...
| Recognised in my version | Aug 14, 2012 |
I just tested that on Wf Classic and it returned a 43% match.
| | | | | I am using the 6.03t version | Aug 14, 2012 |
Office 2003 and win 7.
Apparently not a good combination.
I noticed WF Classic gets lost with some special characters, like / and fails to recognize mismatching number with these
K
| | |
|
|
|
B D Finch wrote:
I just tested that on Wf Classic and it returned a 43% match.
I'm really puzzled, as Classic doesn't know fuzzy matches lower than 50% as far as I know. How were you able to set the fuzzy threshold to a value lower than 50%?! Can you post a screenshot of the 43% match you got?
| | | | | Word 2003 + Win 7 = no problem for WFC | Aug 14, 2012 |
big_fish wrote:
Office 2003 and win 7.
Apparently not a good combination.
I beg to differ, as I'm using precisely that combination and I find it to be very good.
big_fish wrote:
I noticed WF Classic gets lost with some special characters, like / and fails to recognize mismatching number with these
If Wordfast has specific problems like the ones you mention, they most likely will occur with other versions of Office and of Windows.
| | | | | Problem fixed in version 6.04g | Aug 15, 2012 |
big_fish wrote:
I could spot it a few times during my current job and now I've caught it red-handed (haven't I?):
Using an allen 10 mm (3/8 in), remove the clutch pedal pivot (1) by rotating the pin 1/4 turn counterclockwise.
Using an allen 10 mm (3/8 in), install the clutch pedal pivot (1) by rotating the pin 1/4 turn clockwise until the pivot pin locks in place..
Similarities can be seen with the naked eye and my fuzzy threshold is set as low as 50.
Anything WF doesn't like in these?
Wordfast Classic 6.04g now reports a 72% match:
| | | |
provided I do not use MT, as this
Ciepło
is what I am getting instead of
Ciepło
Any version higher than 6.03t scrambles Polish characters on my computer.
Still 6.03t has other issues (it spoils end of paragraph signs). I would collapse the two into one without any of these two flaws. I wish I could do it.
Krzysztof
| | |
|
|
|
| Scrambled characters in Polish | Aug 15, 2012 |
big_fish wrote:
provided I do not use MT, as this
Ciepło
is what I am getting instead of
Ciepło
Any version higher than 6.03t scrambles Polish characters on my computer.
I don't seem to have problems getting ł (and other special letters used in Polish) in MT with WFC on my system (Win 7 Pro, English).
What do you have as the language for non-Unicode programmes in Control Panel > Region and Language > Administrative? I have English:
I learned recently (from Yasmin) that having another language can cause the kind of problems you report in MT with Wordfast Classic. So if you have Polish, try to use English instead.
| | | | | one problem solved, many more created | Aug 15, 2012 |
Dominique Pivard wrote:
I learned recently (from Yasmin) that having another language can cause the kind of problems you report in MT with Wordfast Classic. So if you have Polish, try to use English instead.
True, MT works fine with English in this setting.
Yet, I couldn't access some of my folders and run some applications.
I am happy they do work when I reversed the previous setting as it was REALLY SCARY!.
Krzysztof
| | | | Tony M
France
Local time: 10:27
Member
French to English
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Same problem, with much earlier WFC version (5.xxx) | Aug 19, 2012 |
Well, I'm glad I came across this thread and learnt I'm not the only one encountering this problem!
My elderly but otherwise stable build has this annoying habit of sometimes completely missing matches that are very, very close (like 90% by my human guesstimation!), whilst sometimes offering me 100% matches that aren't anything like! This is particularly irksome, as it means I daren't use 'translate until no match'. It also sometimes offers me lower percentage matches for things tha... See more Well, I'm glad I came across this thread and learnt I'm not the only one encountering this problem!
My elderly but otherwise stable build has this annoying habit of sometimes completely missing matches that are very, very close (like 90% by my human guesstimation!), whilst sometimes offering me 100% matches that aren't anything like! This is particularly irksome, as it means I daren't use 'translate until no match'. It also sometimes offers me lower percentage matches for things that bear no resemblance at all — it seems to be enough to have a matching 3-letter syllable somewhere in the segment for it to return a 75% match!
I have similar problems with the glossary: it quite often fails to mark a 100% match as a placeable, even when I am SURE I had entered it in the glossary; and lo and behold! when I try and enter it into the glossary, it tells me 'XXX already in glossary — do you want to add it anyway?' I have often wondered if it was associated with surrounding punctuation etc., but I have seen it in enough instances now where the word was perfectly 'clean' with spaces either side of it; sometimes, if the same word occurs more than once in the segement, it will mark it some times and not others — again no repeatability as to whether it marks only the first / last instance, etc. It just seems as if when it has rather a lot of work to do, the poor old gloss just gets careless and misses things!
Another gloss problem I get is when I have multiple translations for the same term in the gloss, but it doesn't seem to find them all the time; usually, if there is more than one translation, a window pops up with a list of the terms in the relevant part of the glossary, so I can choose; but soemtimes, this doesn't happen, even if I know for sure (and have checked!) that there are indeed multiple translations available in the glossary. Is there a way to step through the available translations using a k/b shortcut (like with Alt + → / ← for TUs), instead of always having to wait for the list to come up and then select from it?
[Edited at 2012-08-19 09:57 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | no difference which version you use | Aug 19, 2012 |
I am using the very latest 6.04g version and the list of features that fail to work or work other than expected is too long to find enough time to prepare it.
I switched to the latest version as I was afraid too many of my matches will go unrecognised.
The glossary has always found it difficult to recognise overlapping terms. The latest version can handle it now by providing a drop-down list. Still the list of new problems seems to outweigh the advantages (should you consider it an ... See more I am using the very latest 6.04g version and the list of features that fail to work or work other than expected is too long to find enough time to prepare it.
I switched to the latest version as I was afraid too many of my matches will go unrecognised.
The glossary has always found it difficult to recognise overlapping terms. The latest version can handle it now by providing a drop-down list. Still the list of new problems seems to outweigh the advantages (should you consider it an advantage when high-match segments are recognised).
Using Wordfast seems to be a struggle to make all Wordfast features work.
Krzysztof ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Trying to see if I can post more than 5 times | Aug 19, 2012 |
big_fish wrote:
I am using the very latest 6.04g version and the list of features that fail to work or work other than expected is too long to find enough time to prepare it.
I switched to the latest version as I was afraid too many of my matches will go unrecognised.
The glossary has always found it difficult to recognise overlapping terms. The latest version can handle it now by providing a drop-down list. Still the list of new problems seems to outweigh the advantages (should you consider it an advantage when high-match segments are recognised).
Using Wordfast seems to be a struggle to make all Wordfast features work.
Well, we clearly have different requirements, because all the major features of Wordfast work fine for me in the latest 6.04.
| | | | | unsurprisingly so | Aug 19, 2012 |
Dominique Pivard wrote:
Well, we clearly have different requirements, because all the major features of Wordfast work fine for me in the latest 6.04.
As far as I am concerned, requirements change from one job to another.
The same requirements can apply only to the same kind of jobs.
Anyhow, I don't think I can make all features work by adopting a different set of requirement. I can only do my best using those that do work and work around those that don't.
To give an example of a feature that used to work in 6.03t: using the tab to insert either items from the source (by writing the first letter and pressing the tab key) fails to work. And I need it a lot for the dreary, repetitive kind of thing I'm coping with now.
Regards,
Krzysztof
| | | | | First letter + tab | Aug 19, 2012 |
big_fish wrote:
To give an example of a feature that used to work in 6.03t: using the tab to insert either items from the source (by writing the first letter and pressing the tab key) fails to work. And I need it a lot for the dreary, repetitive kind of thing I'm coping with now.
I wouldn't call the first letter + tab a "major" feature of Wordfast. In fact, it's not even mentioned at all in the Wordfast 6 Reference manual. I would rather consider it as an experiment and precursor to the autocomplete feature, which effectively supersedes it. Have you tried AC? It's really handy, and maybe it would take care of your dreary repetitions just as well as the old first letter + tab feature.
| | | | | Pages in topic: [1 2] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » WF Classic fails to see obvious similarities | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | 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 related to Wordfast
