Pages in topic:   [1 2] >
What tools do you use for QA on your translations?
Thread poster: Thomas Rebotier

Thomas Rebotier  Identity Verified
Local time: 11:59
English to French
Jan 5, 2010


I was wondering what type of QA tool is used by other translators. The large majority of my documents are in MS Word and the spell check is not perfect. I have looked into QA tools on the market but most of them work at the level of the TM; I'd like something more simple, at the level of the target document. I considered doing my own macro package but I'm not well versed in VB and would rather not reinvent the wheel. What tools do you use for QA on your translations?

[Subject edited by staff or moderator 2010-01-05 01:00 GMT]


Julie Dion (X)  Identity Verified
Local time: 14:59
English to French
Antidote Jan 5, 2010

Druide informatique.


Claudia Alvis  Identity Verified
Local time: 13:59
+ ...
Studio Jan 5, 2010

My favorite QA tool is now Studio. I like it so much because it's a real-time QA tool, so I don't have to wait until the translation is completed. I still always do a post-translation QA but it takes me considerably less time. I wrote about it in this post; the second paragraph is about quality assurance.

I hope that helps and happy new year.



Brandis (X)
Local time: 20:59
English to German
+ ...
I am mainly a translator. Jan 5, 2010

these days many outsourcer are demanding QA arguing they have in-house QA specialists. Infact they are offering more for editing and proof-reading etc., than translation. considering this translation supplied represents raw material, without which there will be no proof-reading and editing etc., I just translate in my domain expertise and leave the rest to the outsourcer. The world is changing here a little bit, whether it is due to over population of translators or the outsourcers. QA is a very special subject and highly expensive. Brandis


Arabictranslate  Identity Verified
Local time: 20:59
German to Arabic
+ ...
STAR Format Checker Jan 5, 2010

STAR, the provider of Transit Translation Memory, provides a paid tool called "Format Checker" there is a version for MS Words and another one for FrameMaker.
It checks only for format possible mistakes like double spaces, wrong tabs and so on.
But it has nothing to do with spell checking, which you can do using the spell checker plug-ins of OpenOffice for instance.

I hope, this would help you.




David Wright  Identity Verified
Local time: 20:59
German to English
+ ...
Read it Jan 5, 2010

I'm probably old fashioned, but basically I read through my final text very carefully indeed, and if the work is for publication (as opposed to being used simply to inform my client) I get it double checked by a qualified proofreader in the UK. I only rarely get queries from the client side, so my system seems to work. (admittedly most of my work is to provide the client extremely quickly with a text that he can understand , and we both accept that there may be minor errors in the use of language - but not in the actual content).


John Di Rico  Identity Verified
Local time: 20:59
Member (2006)
French to English
Customize Wordfast QA settings Jan 5, 2010

I use Wordfast QA features including blacklists, glossary warnings, penalties, pandora's box commands, quality check reports... There are a lot of simple things that fix hard to spot errors. Plus a "patented" workflow that works!



English to Russian
+ ...
WF configuration Jan 5, 2010

Frankly speaking I'm pretty sure that accurate and well-prepared work is better than post-screening, so like John I also find that WF settings should do)

Nevertheless it rarely can completely replace an adjourn proofreading (esp. for a long and complicated projects) or an independent proofreader/ editor IMO.



Rustam Shafikov  Identity Verified
Russian Federation
Local time: 23:59
Member (2009)
English to Russian
+ ...
Verifika seems to be the best solution Aug 19, 2014

I have used many QA tools including QA Distiller, Linguistic Toolbox and Apsic XBench but Verifika really seems to be the ONE. It has a very convenient interface, it supports many file types and it lets you edit the files on the fly. And the price is very competitive too - just take QA Distiller for example.
Here's a detailed review of Verifika in comparison with QA Distiller:


Local time: 20:59
Polish to German
+ ...
Definitely Verifika Oct 1, 2014

I used Xbench for few years and it was sufficient until the time when I received a huge project for editing in a very short period of time. I managed to do it on time using Verifika. It allows to edit terminology and work on coherence without opening the files. The changes are implemented directly from Verifika’s interface. This is an advantage if you need to make changes in several files in the project. What's more – during replacing the terms you do not have to do everything by hand – it’s enough to set properly the Find and Replace function – it goes in a flash and you have full control over them. In that project Verifika saved me at least one day of work. I was already determined to buy a license but yesterday I got a surprise: for the International Translation Day Palex gave away some free licenses for Verifika and one of them came to me. Nice of them:)

For those interested:

[Zmieniono 2014-10-02 09:05 GMT]


Miguel Carmona  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 11:59
English to Spanish
Background, subject matter knowledge Oct 1, 2014

Anybody can like and praise any QA tool he/she wants, but ultimately what really matters is what the person has in his/her brain.

The best CAT and QA tools will not make a lousy translator a good one.

Background and subject matter knowledge are fundamental. Without those two, it is not possible to do proper research. How would the translator evaluate the quality of the information found?

If the translator does not know anything about what he/she is translating, what good does it make to have the best QA tool available? Tools will never substitute knowledge.

For instance, just take a look at many of the questions asked on KudoZ, who ask them and the tools they use. What difference did it make for them to have those tools?


Local time: 20:59
Polish to German
+ ...
QA Oct 1, 2014

That's true. QA tools cannot replace the crucial knowledge. But they help introduce order in the translation (unification, catching omissions or missing terms, which are simple human errors). In this sense, it's hard to imagine a really good job without some quality assurance steps.


Daniela Bosco  Identity Verified
Local time: 20:59
Member (2007)
English to Italian
+ ...
Verifika above all Oct 2, 2014

I use several QA tools in my workflow. The first checks are done inside Studio, then I use Xbench and the last step is left to Verifika which pick all those important things that the others did not. It is perfect to spot inconsistencies and terminology deviations. Also small issues such as leading spaces, wrong quotes or spaces betwwn tags are spotted and taken care of inside the program. Excellent tool!



Maxi Schwarz
Local time: 13:59
German to English
+ ...
like David and Miguel Oct 2, 2014

I cannot see any application replacing the work that a translator does by checking through his or her work, unless the material is very ... formulaic? (trying to think of the word). You check that everything has been translated with the same meaning and nuance. An application can do some of that possibly, but not where nuance and tone comes in. You check for style, flow, syntax - again an application cannot do that. However it can check for things like spelling. Although often the system in Word will decide something is "wrong" or should be different when it is absolutely correct, because applications can't think.


Tiffany Hardy  Identity Verified
Local time: 20:59
Spanish to English
I use Xbench Oct 2, 2014

Personally, I use Xbench and find it to be an invaluable tool for my work. I'm not sure about just loading a simple word file into it. I'm usually checking against a terminology list so I load the term lists and perform a check against the bilingual file which also does a QA check (double spaces, inconsistent translations, spelling errors, repeated words, number inconsistencies etc.).

If that doesn't work for you, using word macros are quite simple to get the hang of after you've practiced a few times. If you are sticking with just word documents for the most part, my advice would be to work your way through some macros tutorials online until you get the hang of it and draw up a basic proofreading macros to run on each document. This is great because you can keep adding to it as you come up with new things you would like to check for in your quality check.

Best of luck!

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 »

What tools do you use for QA on your translations?

Advanced search

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 SDL Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools. Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free

More info »
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 »

  • All of
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search