| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | When non-payment is justified? Thread poster: Alexander Kaz
|
|---|
Jo Macdonald 
Spain
Local time: 11:48
Italian to English
+ ...
| Mastery of the English language? | Sep 8, 2016 |
Alexander Kaz wrote:
We have hired another translator to review the text, and this is what they said:
- suggesting the translator did not proofread his or herself
- there are many misunderstanding of English idiomatic expressions
......... leaving the translator's mastery of the English language in question
Alexander I think your problem lies with the person you hired to proofread the translation if they write things like "translator did not proofread his or herself" and "there are many misunderstanding of English idiomatic expressions" and then question the translator's mastery of the English language.
If I was the translator I’d throw that back in the reviewer’s face with whipped cream on it.
Perhaps you're hiring people who aren't qualified for the jobs you're giving them.
Maybe you're not hiring pros, paying peanuts and getting monkeys. Imo this certainly would seem to be the case with the proofreader so perhaps it's true for the translator too. If you did prefer cheap to quality imo you should pay them both the agreed price for the cheap job they did and if you want a quality job perhaps hire a pro translator and a pro proofreader next time.
Your profile shows you have 3 years of experience as a translator, how many years of experience do the people you hired have?
| | | | | Totally agree with Kelly | Sep 8, 2016 |
Kelly Neudorfer wrote: Alexander Kaz wrote:
- punctuation rules are followed properly in most case (some discrepancies with the source) Discrepencies with the source in terms of punctuation? As in, sentences were combined or separated? Punctuation rules are different in every language, and so saying that there are punctuation discrepencies with the source text puzzles me and already makes me suspicious of the reviewer. Combining sentences or separating them can improve the readability of the translation. I'm not saying that was the case here, but I feel like the reviewer stated this criticism very strangely.
This one made me wonder from the start. Were you expecting the same punctuation in both languages? The same comas at the same places?
| | | | Diana Coada (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:48
Portuguese to English
+ ...
| Hear, hear! This is quite shocking, indeed. | Sep 8, 2016 |
Christophe Delaunay wrote: Kelly Neudorfer wrote: Alexander Kaz wrote:
- punctuation rules are followed properly in most case (some discrepancies with the source) Discrepencies with the source in terms of punctuation? As in, sentences were combined or separated? Punctuation rules are different in every language, and so saying that there are punctuation discrepencies with the source text puzzles me and already makes me suspicious of the reviewer. Combining sentences or separating them can improve the readability of the translation. I'm not saying that was the case here, but I feel like the reviewer stated this criticism very strangely. This one made me wonder from the start. Were you expecting the same punctuation in both languages? The same comas at the same places?
| | | |
Kelly Neudorfer wrote: Don't forget that reviews are subjective, too. Alexander Kaz wrote:
- punctuation rules are followed properly in most case (some discrepancies with the source) Discrepencies with the source in terms of punctuation? As in, sentences were combined or separated? Punctuation rules are different in every language, and so saying that there are punctuation discrepencies with the source text puzzles me and already makes me suspicious of the reviewer. Combining sentences or separating them can improve the readability of the translation. I'm not saying that was the case here, but I feel like the reviewer stated this criticism very strangely. Alexander Kaz wrote:
- there are a few errors/typos here and there (acceptable but not perfect)
- there are several clumsy sentences suggesting the translator did not proofread his or herself Sounds like a proofreading problem, and in that case the translator should be given the opportunity to proofread the text again himself. "Clumsy sentences" is also subjective. It might be true or it might be just the reviewer's stylistic preferences. Without seeing the sentences, it's impossible to know. Alexander Kaz wrote:
- there are many wide approximations / non-translations, suggesting the translator is either unfamiliar with language and context or was allowed way more freedom than simple translation I'm not sure what to make of this one. Did the approximations mean the translation was much easier to read than a literal translation would have been? Was the translator given any sort of instructions about how closely to follow the source text? Is it a technical text where approximations could cause serious misunderstandings, or was it a literary text where approximations can be a necessity at times? It also appears to have been a translation out of English. I know in German there are a lot of English phrases and words that are just used without translation. I don't know whether that's the case in the target language here, but maybe the translator thought the English terms were so ubiquitous in the target language that it would be strange to translate them? Maybe not, but it's a thought. Alexander Kaz wrote:
- there are many misunderstanding of English idiomatic expressions in the source, leaving the translator's mastery of the English language in question *misunderstandings If English idioms were missed, then of course that is a problem. < ... > Alexander Kaz wrote:
Given the fact that more than 20% of the segments must be corrected or re-translated (and I was more 'tolerant' than I usually am about matching translation and source), my advice would be to have the project fully and properly retranslated rather than this heavily edited.
***
We ended up hiring another person to do the job, and now are debating if we should pay the original translator a fraction of agreed amount, or none at all. So... 80% of the text was ok, you didn't give the translator the opportunity to correct the errors, and now you don't want to pay them at all? I suggest you pay them a large percentage of what was promised and then don't work with them again. You may have received an awful translation - that's something we can't judge since you can't share examples. But there have been plenty of stories on these boards from translators who have had very bad experiences with reviewers who found mistakes that weren't mistakes and the translator ended up not getting paid for a translation that was fine.
It's difficult. It could be a problem with the reviewer or a problem with the translator. When I outsource I always start with small jobs so I can gauge the translator or reviewer's ability. I would always pay the full amount agreed, unless upon discussion with the service provider they offered a discount.
That's why I'm extremely careful about who I work with and why I think there is a major flaw in the set-up of any agency that claims it is a positive thing that it works with thousands of linguists and in and out of every language under the sun. I don't think you can guarantee the quality of your productions if you don't have a very close-knit, carefully monitored relationship with your linguists.
Utopias aside, if you're planning on paying to have the entire text re-translated by someone else and are still willing to pay 75% of the agreed amount to the translator, then sadly you are probably more reasonable than half the agencies out there.
As mentioned above, though, it would be wise and fair to give the translator the opportunity to defend themselves and to have the text looked at by two independent peers (they wouldn't need to do a full review, just scan the text to see what they think).
| | |
|
|
|
I've just re-read your post, actually.
No, I don't think it's fair to pay them nothing at all. They worked on the text. Even if it turns out the reviewer's comments are justified you need to take some of the responsibility for hiring an under-qualified translator. It's not like hiring a plumber. You work in the field and by outsourcing you are acting as the project manager - meaning that it's down to you to manage the project properly.
| | | | Ilan Rubin (X)
Russian Federation
Local time: 12:48
Russian to English
| Sometimes it's justified | Sep 8, 2016 |
It's hard to comment on this exact situation without being in it but I can certainly imagine some situations (and in the past I've been on the buy side as the head of an in-house translation dept. outsourcing some of the work) where I would not want to pay. And some of the errors you describe sound severe. Also, if the translator appears to be incompetent I would not want to ask them to correct the text. Experience shows that if they haven't done it properly the first time and after discussing w... See more It's hard to comment on this exact situation without being in it but I can certainly imagine some situations (and in the past I've been on the buy side as the head of an in-house translation dept. outsourcing some of the work) where I would not want to pay. And some of the errors you describe sound severe. Also, if the translator appears to be incompetent I would not want to ask them to correct the text. Experience shows that if they haven't done it properly the first time and after discussing with them it is clear that it's their fault alone, they are often incapable of materially improving it and it's better to end any cooperation and find somebody better to avoid missing deadlines.
As for comments about the hiring process, maybe it wasn't done as well as it should have been and you're not blameless, but that doesn't excuse the translator from doing a poor job. You shouldn't feel obliged to pay somebody just because they spent time on the text if the product was materially substandard.
As for:
' The translator agrees with the claims but demands 75% of the fee to be paid because "75% of the text is correct". '
I don't agree with the translator's logic, because they have probably caused you to miss a deadline and have caused you extra time to spend on the job. I would not think payment would have to be linear for sure, no.
[Edited at 2016-09-08 10:52 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Lingua 5B
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Local time: 11:48
Member (2009)
English to Croatian
+ ...
| Interpretations.... | Sep 8, 2016 |
Alexander Kaz wrote:
I cannot disclose the text in question, for obvious reasons. We have hired another translator to review the text, and this is what they said:
***
Regarding the translation:
- punctuation rules are followed properly in most case (some discrepancies with the source)
- there are a few errors/typos here and there (acceptable but not perfect)
- there are several clumsy sentences suggesting the translator did not proofread his or herself
- there are many wide approximations / non-translations, suggesting the translator is either unfamiliar with language and context or was allowed way more freedom than simple translation
- there are many misunderstanding of English idiomatic expressions in the source, leaving the translator's mastery of the English language in question
< ... >
Given the fact that more than 20% of the segments must be corrected or re-translated (and I was more 'tolerant' than I usually am about matching translation and source), my advice would be to have the project fully and properly retranslated rather than this heavily edited.
***
We ended up hiring another person to do the job, and now are debating if we should pay the original translator a fraction of agreed amount, or none at all.
[Edited at 2016-09-07 13:22 GMT]
[Edited at 2016-09-07 13:24 GMT]
These are just your interpretations of alleged mistakes, we have no any access to the actual alleged mistakes.
Not possible to show us one example, just one phrase or word that you find problematic? Pick just one that you find most severe semantically. Or illustrate the kind of error using other examples.
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 10:48
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| Taking the reviewer's notes out of order... | Sep 8, 2016 |
Alexander Kaz wrote:
- there are many misunderstanding of English idiomatic expressions in the source, leaving the translator's mastery of the English language in question
This implies that the text is not technical. It may be a general one or it may be more in the area of marketing. If the latter is the case, and the translator claimed to be an expert in that sector, then everyday idiomatic expressions shouldn't be causing a problem. If this was a generalist or technical translator, then maybe he/she wasn't the right choice.
- punctuation rules are followed properly in most case (some discrepancies with the source)
In a marketing text, even more so than in a technical translation, punctuation only has to be understood in the source language; then the text is translated; then appropriate punctuation is added (although our brains cope with all three steps in quick succession, of course). Punctuation isn't necessarily going to match, and anyone who tries to force it to is not going to end up with a good target text.
- there are many wide approximations / non-translations, suggesting the translator is either unfamiliar with language and context or was allowed way more freedom than simple translation
As others have said, the bilingual dictionary's proposal may not necessarily be the best choice. In fact, I'd say that's true in very many cases in marketing translations. The sentence has to read naturally, and a rather free translation may work best, as long as it imparts the same overall message. We can't know whether that was the case here.
It does sound as though the translator may have skipped the proofreading step. Whether that was that particular translator's habit or caused by rushing to deliver and/or having problems that you know nothing about, we can't tell. It seems that he/she, not having been given the right to improve the work, is fine with offering a 25% discount. I would advise you to accept that offer. And maybe check out your reviewer to. He/she could be doing you a disservice.
| | |
|
|
|
| I agree with your remarks, but... | Sep 8, 2016 |
Kelly Neudorfer wrote:
Discrepencies with the source in terms of punctuation? As in, sentences were combined or separated? Punctuation rules are different in every language, and so saying that there are punctuation discrepencies with the source text puzzles me and already makes me suspicious of the reviewer. Combining sentences or separating them can improve the readability of the translation. I'm not saying that was the case here, but I feel like the reviewer stated this criticism very strangely.
etc.
I agree with that and most of what you wrote, however, as the OP originally wrote that the "translator agrees with the claims", I believe we should assume those errors are real...
| | | | Alexander Kaz
Russian Federation
Local time: 12:48
English to Russian
TOPIC STARTER | The review and clarification about punctuation | Sep 8, 2016 |
This is the review of first 250 segments: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G5sXo6TkdJCYBIatWg-Iv5jfrjSHV0M5OkZJNDncAwg/edit#gid=0
I would like to clarify the punctuation thing, as it seems to confuse everyone. There are segments like "Chapter 5" followed by "Chapter Name". In some instances the translator used colons (Chapter 5:), and in some they didn't. Both approaches are fine, but they should be consistent. This is what the reviewer meant by "discrepancies with the... See more This is the review of first 250 segments: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G5sXo6TkdJCYBIatWg-Iv5jfrjSHV0M5OkZJNDncAwg/edit#gid=0
I would like to clarify the punctuation thing, as it seems to confuse everyone. There are segments like "Chapter 5" followed by "Chapter Name". In some instances the translator used colons (Chapter 5:), and in some they didn't. Both approaches are fine, but they should be consistent. This is what the reviewer meant by "discrepancies with the source". ▲ Collapse
| | | | Lingua 5B
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Local time: 11:48
Member (2009)
English to Croatian
+ ...
| Why this thread then? | Sep 8, 2016 |
Mirko Mainardi wrote: Kelly Neudorfer wrote:
Discrepencies with the source in terms of punctuation? As in, sentences were combined or separated? Punctuation rules are different in every language, and so saying that there are punctuation discrepencies with the source text puzzles me and already makes me suspicious of the reviewer. Combining sentences or separating them can improve the readability of the translation. I'm not saying that was the case here, but I feel like the reviewer stated this criticism very strangely.
etc.
I agree with that and most of what you wrote, however, as the OP originally wrote that the "translator agrees with the claims", I believe we should assume those errors are real...
If the translator accepted all the errors, then why asking us here how to approach not paying them? They should be able to easily handle this situation with a translator who accepted all the errors (the translator is likely to accept reductions or non-payment then).
| | | |
If the translator agrees to errors then I am sure they would be happy to fix them?
Although, I do find some of the reviewers comments a bit strange as well.
| | |
|
|
|
Ilan Rubin (X)
Russian Federation
Local time: 12:48
Russian to English
| I don't follow here | Sep 8, 2016 |
Gabriele Demuth wrote:
If the translator agrees to errors then I am sure they would be happy to fix them?
How does this work?
I mean, if the translator screwed up badly the first time then the possible reasons are likely to be found among:
- incompetence
- laziness
- dishonesty
- inebriation
In which case the last person I would ask to fix it would be that same translator.
| | | |
Surely, as a first step the translator should be given the opportunity to fix his mistakes before reducing rates and suggesting non-payment.
Why the mistakes happened and whether the reviewers account is accurate is unclear.
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 10:48
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
ILAN RUBIN wrote:
if the translator screwed up badly the first time then the possible reasons are likely to be found among:
- incompetence
- laziness
- dishonesty
- inebriation
In which case the last person I would ask to fix it would be that same translator.
The translator still has a right to try to correct the fault, just as a plumber, electrician or kitchen fitter has the right (and the duty, of course) to put right any failings in their work. Only if they prove truly inept can you go on to find other solutions. Normally, if they refuse to offer a discount then you have to pay up first and then sue them. You can't just refuse to pay as that puts you more in the wrong, in the eyes of a judge, than the supplier. What you can do is express massive disapproval and the intention to sue, and hope that the supplier takes the hint and fails to produce an invoice. That's what happened in my case a while back when an IT "expert" deleted some of my crucial data, irrecoverably.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » When non-payment is justified? | 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! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
