Pages in topic:   [1 2 3 4] >
Post-editing machine translations is a misnomer but there are now training sessions for it
Thread poster: Bernhard Sulzer

Bernhard Sulzer  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 14:47
English to German
+ ...
Feb 18, 2015

To moderators: please don't move this thread to "training" - this does not concern training courses per se, it concerns the question what "machine translation post-editing" means in theory and practice and why there seems to be a discrepancy between what I think it actually is (not "editing") and what it is seen as in these training sessions (editing).

One of the Proz.com training course invitations I received is entitled

Maximize Your Productivity with Effective Machine Translation Post-Editing

See:
http://www.proz.com/translator-training/course/11573-maximize_your_productivity_with_effective_machine_translation_post_editing
This course explains how translators, LSPs and project managers can maximize their productivity with practical effective machine translation (MT) post-editing (PE). Special emphasis is placed on the differences between the skills required to revise the work of junior translators on the one hand, and those that are vital to correct MT output on the other, as this is the key to the successful adoption of MT in professional environments. The focus is on the linguistic and translation-related phenomena that are particularly challenging for MT systems of different types (rule-based, statistical or hybrid).
The differences between light and full PE are explained, in relation to different quality needs. MT is now a viable technology for an increasing number of language pairs and in a variety of technical and specialized domains: you will learn how to incorporate PE into your translation workflow to maximize productivity. The connections between using CAT tools (in particular translation memory) and post-editing MT output are discussed.

_____________

It seems a foregone conclusion that machine translation post-editing is a real theoretical concept with practical applications ( = makes sense in/for translation theory and practice). Granted, the training could include the discussion of the use of CAT tools, but since we have discussed the topic of machine translation post-editing quite intensively in these forums here, I am surprised about the degree of acceptance of this "concept" by Proz.com and the suggestion that (effective) post-editing of machine translation can maximize your productivity.

At this point in the technical development of machine translation - a misnomer by the way because machines do not "translate" the specific text in context but compare words/phrases/sentences with similar phrases/sentences as translated before from anywhere really (unless a specific source is defined), based on algorithms - I venture to say that the task of "post-editing" such "translations" is not an editing task at all. If words, phrases, sentences collected by a machine are used at all, they might be useful as an additional resource (as in looking for appropriate terms or phrasing), but they cannot be called rough drafts of a specific document/text at all because the translator has to go back to the original specific text and see if the machine output does indeed do the OT justice; but he/she can't count on it at all - the machine never looked at that OT in context or thought about what the correct choice of words/phrases/sentences would be in this specific instance. Even though editing another person's translation can be called an editing task or a revision of a translation, it can only be called that because it was translated by a person who actually looked at the specific OT, the whole document, the whole context and thought about it and then proceeded to write what he/she considered a valid translation, based on his/her translation and language abilities. A machine does not look at the text in context, it will scan for similarly looking text and find approximate matches. That is not translation of a specific document/text (within a very specific context).
What is IMO even more alarming is that not only will complex texts appear in mangled form (many grammatical and stylistic errors will be present and figurative meanings and concepts might appear as literal "translations"), but the exposure to such incorrect language is an utterly ridiculous basis for an "editing" job.

Words like "maximize productivity" already imply that "post-editing" machine translation is somehow faster than translating from scratch and the term "post-editing" has already been abused by outsourcers who use it to pay less for "post-editing machine translations" than for "translations."

I don't see how a training headline like "Maximize Your Productivity with Effective Machine Translation Post-Editing" is helping this community of translators understand what this really implies for this community and all translators in general.

And not enough with that, but there is a second training course scheduled, entitled:
"Turn Machine Translation from Foe to Ally."

I would appreciate it if the topic and the concept of "machine translation" would be dealt with in a more responsible way (I don't see how it is with regard to the training titles offered by Proz.com) and if previous forum discussions were consulted and "machine translation" weren't embraced as if it's the most natural thing for any of us.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

[Edited at 2015-02-18 19:10 GMT]
edited for missing word

[Edited at 2015-02-18 22:28 GMT]


 

Georgie Scott  Identity Verified
France
Local time: 20:47
Member (2009)
French to English
+ ...
It's real for me Feb 18, 2015

I heard some great speeches on the topic last year - one of the most interesting being given at the SDL event in Paris.

And although I understand your concerns - to an extent - I have to say, in the politest way possible, that I think you're spectacularly missing the point.

If you can't see the use of post-editing and machine translations I don't think you work on the types of texts that the pioneers of the field have in mind. Obviously it would be pointless to use it for things like copywriting or tourism or marketing.

You sound like someone's freaked you out about the topic and I really don't think you need to worry. But if you do, why not get in touch with one of the serious companies that specializes in it and ask them to explain when they would recommend post-editing and when they wouldn't.

Because it is a part of "translation" and a quick glance at history should tell you that no-one is going to give up on their mission to innovate the industry using STEM any time soon.


I just wanted to add that I realize some shoddy agencies might try and use it to lower rates, but - and this goes for people worrying about rates being lowered too - that shouldn't worry a good translator. People that want and need good translations will pay for them. If not the first time, they certainly will the second time.


[Edited at 2015-02-18 19:04 GMT]


 

Bernhard Sulzer  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 14:47
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Reply Feb 18, 2015

interpretwhisky wrote:

It's real for me

If it's real for you, how is it real? What machine/software do you use to get a rough draft that you then edit?
Do you have an example of the quality of the MT you use?

interpretwhisky wrote:
I heard some great speeches on the topic last year - one of the most interesting being given at the SDL event in Paris.

And although I understand your concerns - to an extent - I have to say, in the politest way possible, that I think you're spectacularly missing the point.


What great speech was that? Do you have a link? And how am I "spectacularly" missing the point? What point? That MT is indeed "translation" or that "post-editing" is really editing?


interpretwhisky wrote:
If you can't see the use of post-editing and machine translations I don't think you work on the types of texts that the pioneers of the field have in mind. Obviously it would be pointless to use it for things like copywriting or tourism or marketing.


What types of texts are you referring to? Do you have an example?

interpretwhisky wrote:
You sound like someone's freaked you out about the topic and I really don't think you need to worry. But if you do, why not get in touch with one of the serious companies that specializes in it and ask them to explain when they would recommend post-editing and when they wouldn't.


I am not freaked out. I am just criticizing an illusory "concept." I am sure I am not calling it translation or post-editing .... don't need anyone to explain the opposite to me.

interpretwhisky wrote:
Because it is a part of "translation" and a quick glance at history should tell you that no-one is going to give up on their mission to innovate the industry using STEM any time soon.


I am all for innovation, but against misrepresentation (not directed towards you personally)

interpretwhisky wrote:
I just wanted to add that I realize some shoddy agencies might try and use it to lower rates, but - and this goes for people worrying about rates being lowered too - that shouldn't worry a good translator. People that want and need good translations will pay for them. If not the first time, they certainly will the second time.


Says you.

[Edited at 2015-02-18 19:32 GMT]


 

Jorge Payan  Identity Verified
Colombia
Local time: 13:47
Member (2002)
German to Spanish
+ ...
Amen Feb 18, 2015

interpretwhisky wrote:

I heard some great speeches on the topic last year - one of the most interesting being given at the SDL event in Paris.

And although I understand your concerns - to an extent - I have to say, in the politest way possible, that I think you're spectacularly missing the point.

If you can't see the use of post-editing and machine translations I don't think you work on the types of texts that the pioneers of the field have in mind. Obviously it would be pointless to use it for things like copywriting or tourism or marketing.

You sound like someone's freaked you out about the topic and I really don't think you need to worry. But if you do, why not get in touch with one of the serious companies that specializes in it and ask them to explain when they would recommend post-editing and when they wouldn't.

Because it is a part of "translation" and a quick glance at history should tell you that no-one is going to give up on their mission to innovate the industry using STEM any time soon.


I just wanted to add that I realize some shoddy agencies might try and use it to lower rates, but - and this goes for people worrying about rates being lowered too - that shouldn't worry a good translator. People that want and need good translations will pay for them. If not the first time, they certainly will the second time.


[Edited at 2015-02-18 19:04 GMT]


People will attend these training courses just because, like it or not, machine translation is not going to disappear and will be used for the markets it can be useful for; of course not for literary translations, besides those types interpretwhisky already mentioned. There is too much money invested already in the subject, and whoever wants to survive in the general market will have to adapt to that forthcoming reality.


 

Bernhard Sulzer  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 14:47
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Show me Feb 18, 2015

Jorge Payan wrote:

People will attend these training courses just because, like it or not, machine translation is not going to disappear and will be used for the markets it can be useful for; of course not for literary translations, besides those types interpretwhisky already mentioned. There is too much money invested already in the subject, and whoever wants to survive in the general market will have to adapt to that forthcoming reality.


Yeah, they'll attend.
LIke it or not? Well, let's see. BUt it better be really good to "replace" humans for the task of translating.
Welll. I'll guess we'll all have to follow. No choice, huh?

It's one thing to defend these "concepts" but another to show they are what you say they are.


[Edited at 2015-02-18 19:40 GMT]


 

Georgie Scott  Identity Verified
France
Local time: 20:47
Member (2009)
French to English
+ ...
I'll try and help Feb 18, 2015

Bernhard Sulzer wrote:

interpretwhisky wrote:

It's real for me

If it's real for you, how is it real? What machine/software do you use to get a rough draft that you then edit?
Do you have an example of the quality of the MT you use?


interpretwhisky wrote:
I heard some great speeches on the topic last year - one of the most interesting being given at the SDL event in Paris.

And although I understand your concerns - to an extent - I have to say, in the politest way possible, that I think you're spectacularly missing the point.


What great speech was that? Do you have a link? And how am I "spectacularly" missing the point? What point? That MT is indeed "translation" or that "post-editing" is really editing?


interpretwhisky wrote:
If you can't see the use of post-editing and machine translations I don't think you work on the types of texts that the pioneers of the field have in mind. Obviously it would be pointless to use it for things like copywriting or tourism or marketing.


What types of texts are you referring to? Do you have an example?

interpretwhisky wrote:
You sound like someone's freaked you out about the topic and I really don't think you need to worry. But if you do, why not get in touch with one of the serious companies that specializes in it and ask them to explain when they would recommend post-editing and when they wouldn't.


I am not freaked out. I am just criticizing an illusory "concept." I am sure I am not calling it translation or post-editing .... don't need anyone to explain the opposite to me.

interpretwhisky wrote:
Because it is a part of "translation" and a quick glance at history should tell you that no-one is going to give up on their mission to innovate the industry using STEM any time soon.


I am all for innovation, but against misrepresentation (not directed towards you personally)

interpretwhisky wrote:
I just wanted to add that I realize some shoddy agencies might try and use it to lower rates, but - and this goes for people worrying about rates being lowered too - that shouldn't worry a good translator. People that want and need good translations will pay for them. If not the first time, they certainly will the second time.





Says you.

[Edited at 2015-02-18 19:32 GMT]


Hi Bernhard,

I know it'll seem a cop-out but I really am too busy right at the moment to provide you with all the answers to your questions. And I'm not the best person to explain them in any case, as I choose not to take on these sorts of projects right now. Equally I choose not to translate menus when I can help it too. But that's just because I know I can currently earn better money, faster in other ways.

But I will in the future. Because, as Anne-Marie Imafidon (look her up, she's one hell of a smart woman) said in her speech at the City Womens Network conference in London last week, "Who wants to be the Kodak of the 21st century?"

I replied to your post because I wanted to let you know that there are professional translators out there that do consider this a real and important part of translation and can see where this might be used now and in the future.

And that's why Proz is offering training on the subject.

When I first heard about MT I reacted in the same way as you, but it seems to come up at every conference I go to now and since learning more about it, I've really warmed to the idea.

I honestly believe you would too if you understood it better. I'm sorry I don't have links, but just pop along to a translation-related conference, it always comes up.


Lastly:

"Says you":

More or less.

[Edited at 2015-02-18 20:15 GMT]


 

Georgie Scott  Identity Verified
France
Local time: 20:47
Member (2009)
French to English
+ ...
Adapt or die Feb 18, 2015

Bernhard Sulzer wrote:

Jorge Payan wrote:

People will attend these training courses just because, like it or not, machine translation is not going to disappear and will be used for the markets it can be useful for; of course not for literary translations, besides those types interpretwhisky already mentioned. There is too much money invested already in the subject, and whoever wants to survive in the general market will have to adapt to that forthcoming reality.


Yeah, they'll attend.
LIke it or not? Well, let's see. BUt it better be really good to "replace" humans for the task of translating.
Welll. I'll guess we'll all have to follow. No choice, huh?

It's one thing to defend these "concepts" but another to show they are what you say they are.


[Edited at 2015-02-18 19:40 GMT]


That's the way of the world.

(Probably an ill-picked quote though)

[Edited at 2015-02-18 20:20 GMT]


 

Bernhard Sulzer  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 14:47
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Topic not resonating with translators? Feb 19, 2015

I am surprised about the lack of interest in this topic. Thank you to both commenters!

 

Cetacea  Identity Verified
Switzerland
Local time: 20:47
English to German
+ ...
Misnomer indeed Feb 19, 2015

Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
What is IMO even more alarming is that not only will complex texts appear in mangled form (many grammatical and stylistic errors will be present and figurative meanings and concepts might appear as literal "translations"), but the exposure to such incorrect language is an utterly ridiculous basis for an "editing" job.


I've always thought that "post-editing" was really a typo, as the texts I've seen so far are really past editing...

Words like "maximize productivity" already imply that "post-editing" machine translation is somehow faster than translating from scratch and the term "post-editing" has already been abused by outsourcers who use it to pay less for "post-editing machine translations" than for "translations."


Absolutely. Some texts (such as operating instructions that need to be updated on a regular basis as new models come out) might actually be suited to machine "translation", but then again, I'm not sure if there are really enough of those around to justify creating a whole new industry.

I don't see how a training headline like "Maximize Your Productivity with Effective Machine Translation Post-Editing" is helping this community of translators understand what this really implies for this community and all translators in general.


Me neither. Mind you, the "adapt or die" argument has been used for CAT tools as well, and many of those who used it are now complaining about plummeting rates and mounting pressure, while those who didn't adapt are still very much alive. Of course, CAT tools can be useful, but they're another example for jumping on the bandwagon without really knowing where it's headed.

I would appreciate it if the topic and the concept of "machine translation" would be dealt with in a more responsible way (I don't see how it is with regard to the training titles offered by Proz.com) and if previous forum discussions were consulted and "machine translation" weren't embraced as if it's the most natural thing for any of us.


I would, too, but I doubt it's gonna happen any time soon. ProZ is a marketplace, and the powers that be are as likely to antagonize post-editing companies as they are likely to set minimum rates for agencies or demand minimum qualifications from translators...


 

Bernhard Sulzer  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 14:47
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Question to staff Feb 19, 2015

Cetacea wrote:

Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I would appreciate it if the topic and the concept of "machine translation" would be dealt with in a more responsible way (I don't see how it is with regard to the training titles offered by Proz.com) and if previous forum discussions were consulted and "machine translation" weren't embraced as if it's the most natural thing for any of us.


I would, too, but I doubt it's gonna happen any time soon. ProZ is a marketplace, and the powers that be are as likely to antagonize post-editing companies as they are likely to set minimum rates for agencies or demand minimum qualifications from translators...


ProZ.com - what happened?

[Edited at 2015-02-19 17:19 GMT]


 

Cristóbal del Río Faura  Identity Verified
Spain
Local time: 20:47
English to Spanish
+ ...
Is post-editing our business? Feb 19, 2015

On the technical side, there are three main possible scenarios: free on-line MT tools, paying on-line MT platforms, private desktop MT tools. MT output quality may vary quite a lot. Typically, this is measured in terms of the so-called editing distance, that is the editing time-effort needed to get an acceptable translation from MT output. What makes the difference is whether or not and how much the tool can be set up and trained by the user according to the user's needs. Other relevant factors are the language pairs and the nature and/or quality of the source text.

On the business side, there are basically two possible scenarios: the user of MT is the translator, the user of MT is the outsourcer. In the first case, the translator has full control over the whole process - including setting up and training the MT tool - and he/she is the beneficiary of any productivity gains. In the second case, the translator has no control over anything but the so-called post-editing step, and any productivity gains revert to the outsourcer in full. So in this second case, the question is whether post-editing for third parties has anything to do with the translator profession.


 

Bernhard Sulzer  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 14:47
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Thoughts Feb 19, 2015

Cristóbal del Río Faura wrote:

Is post-editing our business?


There are translators who make it their business (but not in the sense of looking at it and discussing it with us) and their is Proz.com which wants to train you in it.
Thanks for your input. You bring up some important points, Cristóbal.

Cristóbal del Río Faura wrote:
On the technical side, there are three main possible scenarios: free on-line MT tools, paying on-line MT platforms, private desktop MT tools. MT output quality may vary quite a lot. Typically, this is measured in terms of the so-called editing distance, that is the editing time-effort needed to get an acceptable translation from MT output. What makes the difference is whether or not and how much the tool can be set up and trained by the user according to the user's needs. Other relevant factors are the language pairs and the nature and/or quality of the source text.


I'd like to see one example of an acceptable "translation" done by a machine. In order to arrive at the conclusion that it is indeed acceptable, you have to read the original text and compare it.
However, this will only make sense if what you've got is indeed as if translated by a human.
Now, CAT tools help human translators and that's my point. Machines help, software assists. but they don't replace the translation process. The text would have to be almost 100% the same as a previous text and the MT "machine" would have to have access to that previous text to arrive at a human-like "translation."
If that's not possible, it makes much more sense to have a human translate and, if you feel it's necessary, have another human edit it. But a human "assisting" a machine by doing some editing is unaccepatble. As Cetacea said above, "the texts I've seen so far are really past editing..."

Cristóbal del Río Faura wrote:
On the business side, there are basically two possible scenarios: the user of MT is the translator, the user of MT is the outsourcer. In the first case, the translator has full control over the whole process - including setting up and training the MT tool - and he/she is the beneficiary of any productivity gains.

Yes, but it is most likely part of the translation process carried out by a human, not "the translation process" per se that then needs to be then simply edited by a human.
Cristóbal del Río Faura wrote:
In the second case, the translator has no control over anything but the so-called post-editing step, and any productivity gains revert to the outsourcer in full. So in this second case, the question is whether post-editing for third parties has anything to do with the translator profession.


Well, the translator can look at the MT output and compare it with the OT and decide if it is an acceptable translation. Nevertheless, it is very likely that every single sentence will contain mistakes, that the words chosen must be checked for accurate terminology etc. - you can't just assume and accept what you get and think that it's okay to get paid less for it than for a translation from scratch. You'll end up doing the research, rewriting a whole document in its entirety and/or having to rearrange words and phrases in probably most sentences - an arduous task and on top of that, everytime you read the MT text, it's like reading something a very bad speaker of that language says and pounds your brain with it. It might lead to some form of dumbification or at least some loss of language skill, or at least massive headaches, possibly ...

Does this "editing" have something to do with the translator profession? Yes, it does. What should be a translation is "sold" to us as an editing job, and machines are put on an equal footing with human translators who "assist" those machines by simply editing. Lots of folks think nothing of it, embrace it and work harder for less. Maximizing something ...

[Edited at 2015-02-19 22:16 GMT]


 

Maxi Schwarz
Local time: 13:47
German to English
+ ...
Answering Bernhard's question Feb 20, 2015

This one:
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:

I am surprised about the lack of interest in this topic. Thank you to both commenters!

I almost didn't open the topic, because I anticipated that the content would be something different. When I saw "but there are now training sessions for it", I thought you were going to argue that now post-edit etc. is now legit because wow, there is training. Even when I started reading, your argument only came across in the second half - had I stopped too early I would have missed it. I can imagine that others who are not in love with the idea might also have ignored the topic for similar reasons.

If there is indeed training for it, which I have no reason to doubt since it's in your OP, then I hope that they stress that the translator doing the post-editing should charge by the hour, rather than per word. I've been asked to do post-editing a couple of times. The material I looked at would have taken longer to post-edit, than to translate from scratch. I am an experienced, competent translator so my work goes relatively fast. If the right words are "on the tip of your tongue" (for simpler text) then it is much slower to start removing and replacing wrong words. Or to rearrange them into correct syntax.

Editing should be charged per hour. If that is done, then a lot of bad practices would disappear overnight.

Conversely, if post-editing takes as long or longer than translation, and if the customer decides to pay 30% of the usual fee per word, then the customer has saved money, and clearly it's to the loss of the translator. So again, I hope that in those courses, translators are being advised to charge by the word.

We had a couple of response by people who spoke favourably about post-editing. I join you in being interested in concrete examples, or at least something less general. I'd like to know more.


 

Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 20:47
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
It is real, and it is different Feb 20, 2015

Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Special emphasis is placed on the differences between the skills required to revise the work of junior translators on the one hand, and those that are vital to correct MT output on the other, as this is the key to the successful adoption of MT in professional environments.


Yes, the skills required (or: the techniques used) to edit a machine translation are completely different from the skills used to edit translations by inexperienced human translators.

I see this confusion quite often, among both translators and clients, i.e. that editing MT is similar to editing a poor human translation, and it is not. Yes, both are "poor", but they require different skills or tactics to "fix".

The focus is on the linguistic and translation-related phenomena that are particularly challenging for MT systems of different types (rule-based, statistical or hybrid).


Yes, these different types of MT systems will make different types of "mistakes". Knowing what they are and how to fix them will make you more productive when dealing with these types of texts.

By analogy, suppose you have to do a monolingual edit of two texts written by a non-native speakers of English (one written by an Italian person and one written by a Chinese person). If you know both Italian and Chinese, it would make it much easier to edit the two English texts than if you only knew that they were written by non-natives. And knowing that they were written by non-natives instead of e.g. school children will also help you do your editing more productively.

The differences between light and full PE are explained, in relation to different quality needs.


I wonder... is this similar to light monolingual editing and full monolingual editing? I see many translators offer both services -- a light edit (in which spelling and major grammar issues are fixed) and a comprehensive edit (in which minor grammatical and also stylistic issues are fixed).

And I know that some translators/editors are unable to distinguish between the two, so they end up doing either a comprehensive edit when it is not required, or a light edit that is too light.

You will learn how to incorporate PE into your translation workflow to maximize productivity.


Yes, this is really something that must be learnt. Productivity isn't maximised automatically by simply including a technology into a process if you don't know how to do it right.

Although I believe it is possible to maximise productivity with PEMT, I also suspect that in many cases where clients ask for PEMT the work ends up taking longer, and produces quality below the accepted standard, notably because the client incorporated PEMT into his workflow incorrectly.

I hope that when the trainer says "you will learn how to" he doesn't simply mean "you will learn that it can be done, in a few rare instances", without actually saying how.

==========================

It seems a foregone conclusion that machine translation post-editing is a real theoretical concept with practical applications ( = makes sense in/for translation theory and practice).


The same can be said about "fuzzy matching", which works quite well in some languages and texts, and not very well in others. And it's a pity that CAT users receive little training (if any) in the difference between dealing with fuzzy matches, 100% matches and non-matches. It is just assumed, I think, that CAT users will "pick up the skill" to handle matching along the way.

I am surprised about the degree of acceptance of this "concept" by Proz.com and the suggestion that (effective) post-editing of machine translation can maximize your productivity.


You can only be surprised if you have previously turned a blind eye to it. Or are you simply being hyperbolic when you use words like "surprised" and "alarmed"?

Machine translation [is] a misnomer by the way because machines do not "translate" the specific text in context but compare words/phrases/sentences with similar phrases/sentences as translated before from anywhere really (unless a specific source is defined), based on algorithms...


I'm glad that you come out with this (i.e. your specific definition of "translation") right here in the first post of this thread, and not only in subsequent posts, as you have done in the past.

Now all we need to do is wait for the admission that the real reason you regard PEMT as a nonce is simply because of the "T" and the "E" in its name, i.e. that if it were called e.g. PFMM (post-fixing machine matching), then you would have had no problem with the concept and possibly even embrace it. Am I right?

Even though editing another person's translation can be called an editing task or a revision of a translation, it can only be called that because it was translated by a person who actually looked at the specific OT, the whole document, the whole context and thought about it and then proceeded to write...


I think you assume too much about what steps fellow-translators take during translation. (-:

And I do think that the machine looks at context... in an indirect way. A financial text will have different phrasing than a medical text (in both the source and target language), which means that the machine is likely to select the appropriate style anyway, because the style depends largely on the words that were used.

The exposure to incorrect language [such as many grammatical and stylistic errors and figurative meanings and concepts appearing as literal "translations"] is an utterly ridiculous basis for an "editing" job.


What do you mean by "exposure to"?

==========================

To sum up:

The problem here is that you have a very specific meaning of the word "translation" and a very specific meaning of the word "editing" in mind that you expect everyone to apply everywhere (and that you expect, in fact, that everybody does already).

Step back and realise for a second that when PEMT'ers say "translation" they mean something else than you do, and when they say "editing" they something else than you do.

In fact, PEMT doesn't even involve a machine, in the regular sense of the word "machine".

... and the term "post-editing" has already been abused by outsourcers who use it to pay less for "post-editing machine translations" than for "translations."


Yes, and that is why modern translators need to receive additional training that deals with technology and processes that were not an issue in the pencil-and-typewriter age of translation.

I don't see how a training headline like "Maximize Your Productivity with Effective Machine Translation Post-Editing" is helping this community of translators understand what this really implies...


It is an accepted custom in the Western media culture to use hyperbolic language for slogans, titles, and other interest-piqueing chunks of text. You must not interpret hyperboles literally.

==========================

Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I am surprised about the lack of interest in this topic.


You have begun several thread on ProZ.com about this very same topic (what is the neutral, non-offensive term for "troll"?), so perhaps the lack of interest is not in the topic but in the event (the "event" being: a dissing session about machine translation).


[Edited at 2015-02-20 09:08 GMT]


 

Fiona Grace Peterson  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 20:47
Member
Italian to English
Something I know little about Feb 20, 2015

Bernhard Sulzer wrote:

I am surprised about the lack of interest in this topic. Thank you to both commenters!


I have not commented because it is a topic I have had little experience with so far. But I am following the debate with great interest.


 
Pages in topic:   [1 2 3 4] >


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Post-editing machine translations is a misnomer but there are now training sessions for it

Advanced search







memoQ translator pro
Kilgray's memoQ is the world's fastest developing integrated localization & translation environment rendering you more productive and efficient.

With our advanced file filters, unlimited language and advanced file support, memoQ translator pro has been designed for translators and reviewers who work on their own, with other translators or in team-based translation projects.

More info »
BaccS – Business Accounting Software
Modern desktop project management for freelance translators

BaccS makes it easy for translators to manage their projects, schedule tasks, create invoices, and view highly customizable reports. User-friendly, ProZ.com integration, community-driven development – a few reasons BaccS is trusted by translators!

More info »



Forums
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search