CAT tool discounts deducted from proofreading rates Thread poster: Anna Haxen
|
|---|
Anna Haxen 
Denmark
Local time: 08:33
Member (2005)
English to Danish
+ ...
Hello,
Have any of you ever had discounts for fuzzy and 100 % matches deducted from proofreading rates on a PO?
How did you react?
How would you react?
Any thoughts are very welcome.
Anna
| | | | | I wouldn't accept | Oct 23, 2009 |
I've never been asked to apply a discount like this but no way would I accept a deduction for repetitions in revisions: if I change one segment, I'm going to have to change any repetitions of it as well. And even if I don't change any repeated segments, I'm still having to physically go through the whole document.
| | | | Attila Piróth
France
Local time: 08:33
Member
English to Hungarian
+ ...
| Strong preference for hourly rate | Oct 23, 2009 |
In general, I have a very strong preference for charging editing tasks on an hourly basis. If you accept to charge an editing task on a per-word base, your earnings per hour depends sensitively on the quality of the translation. If the quality is known in detail -- e.g., the translation is done by a trusted colleague with whom you have worked for years -- then this option is acceptable. In that case, accepting a lower rate for repetitions and fuzzy matches may make sense -- as long as you can *r... See more In general, I have a very strong preference for charging editing tasks on an hourly basis. If you accept to charge an editing task on a per-word base, your earnings per hour depends sensitively on the quality of the translation. If the quality is known in detail -- e.g., the translation is done by a trusted colleague with whom you have worked for years -- then this option is acceptable. In that case, accepting a lower rate for repetitions and fuzzy matches may make sense -- as long as you can *really*edit these parts more quickly. For example: if you do the edit the bilingual file using a CAT tool, and the quality is good, your can probably proceed more quickly.
However, this is not always the case. If editing is not done in a CAT tool and quite a lot of corrections are needed then the requirement of self-consistency is also a burden: you need to check the exact wording of the previous similar sentence. In that case it does not make sense to charge less for repetitions and fuzzy matches.
If the quality of the translation is unknown (e.g., you can see only the source text when you are required to give a quote) then charging editing on a per-word base should be avoided.
So, there are special cases where charging on a per-word basis and giving fuzzy discounts may make sense -- but only if you have a strong guarantee of quality and an editing format that is particularly well adapted to this task. This situation is not typical but exists.
Attila ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Some agencies consider the reviewing cost as a percentage of the translation cost | Oct 23, 2009 |
This practice may well be good for streamlining purposes, but it doesn't reflect the work involved.
When you rewrite a sentence, and then its fuzzy match, it is just like reworking another sentence from scratch. I doubt a lot of people leverage CAT in reviewing, ie commit the change to the TM, then reapply their changes as the review goes along. Just like they would do on a translation paid at translation rates.
I find this process much too bulky to make sense.
In both c... See more This practice may well be good for streamlining purposes, but it doesn't reflect the work involved.
When you rewrite a sentence, and then its fuzzy match, it is just like reworking another sentence from scratch. I doubt a lot of people leverage CAT in reviewing, ie commit the change to the TM, then reapply their changes as the review goes along. Just like they would do on a translation paid at translation rates.
I find this process much too bulky to make sense.
In both cases anyway, there is no time saving even though it is a fuzzy match.
The same applies for repeats, some CAT tools don't propagate changes when segments are all validated.
Not reviewing 100% matches can make sense if the customer is confident about their TM (risky though) and if there is a visual way not to review them (coloured or hidden). In other situations, there is no way to distinguish easily between 100% matches and other segments, so it doesn't make sense to accept reduced rates.
I was had once in a similar situation (I wasn't aware that reviewing rates were "CAT-discounted" beforehand), not twice.
You should try and get the full amount and explain why their method is flawed.
Have a good weekend,
Philippe ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 08:33
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| I've heard of it | Oct 23, 2009 |
Anna Haxen wrote:
Have any of you ever had discounts for fuzzy and 100 % matches deducted from proofreading rates on a PO?
I've heard of it. It is based on a misunderstanding of what proofreading/editing is. I don't mind giving discounts for repetitions, if those repetitions are clearly indicated and there is a way to automatically update repetitions that were previously corrected, but it makes little sense to give discounts for proofreading elsewhere. You still need to check the entire segment, word for word, even if it is a 86% match with something else.
| | | | Anna Haxen
Denmark
Local time: 08:33
Member (2005)
English to Danish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Exactly as I thought | Oct 23, 2009 |
Thank you very much for taking the time to think about this. This PO came from an otherwise excellent and valued customer, so I just thought I'd check.
I had the same problem some months ago with a different PM (same company) who was adamant that this was a perfectly reasonable practice. After several weeks of emailing back and forth and finally going straight to the top of the agency, I received an amended PO.
Actually, this time I received a new PO almost immediately... See more Thank you very much for taking the time to think about this. This PO came from an otherwise excellent and valued customer, so I just thought I'd check.
I had the same problem some months ago with a different PM (same company) who was adamant that this was a perfectly reasonable practice. After several weeks of emailing back and forth and finally going straight to the top of the agency, I received an amended PO.
Actually, this time I received a new PO almost immediately after pointing out that I still didn't find this practice fair for all the reasons that you've also given.
I hope other proofreaders who encounter this problem will find this thread and feel convinced that they should not accept terms like these.
Charging hourly rates is probably a better idea and, maybe, if you do accept word rates, you should make it clear from the start that the same word rate applies to every single word in the document. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Rachel Fell
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:33
French to English
+ ...
Sounds all wrong to me, though haven't been asked for it -yet!
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » CAT tool discounts deducted from proofreading rates | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
