| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | Quality of translations (or lack thereof) Thread poster: Sylvain Meyrous (X)
|
|---|
| The problem with CAT tools | Jul 22, 2008 |
CAT tools are not really made with idiomatic translation in mind - they are much better for boring, literal texts like technical documentation. So, as soon as one uses a CAT tool on a text that may even be technical but that contains sentences that go beyond the usual "Press Ctrl+P to print the displayed document", you are fudged, because segmentation doesn't take into account a natural text flow, at all. The problem is that most technical documentation does contain at least parts that are rathe... See more CAT tools are not really made with idiomatic translation in mind - they are much better for boring, literal texts like technical documentation. So, as soon as one uses a CAT tool on a text that may even be technical but that contains sentences that go beyond the usual "Press Ctrl+P to print the displayed document", you are fudged, because segmentation doesn't take into account a natural text flow, at all. The problem is that most technical documentation does contain at least parts that are rather idiomatic, and thus, there is just no way to circumvent the problem.
Especially in English to French translation, this really bothers me. Sometimes, I come across a short paragraph of three short sentences that, when translated idiomatically, would become one longish sentence in French. The opposite also happens: a long-winded sentence that really doesn't sound French if you also translate it as a long-winded sentence, and you're much better off, for the sake of a well-done job, to cut it up into smaller bits. The problem here is that I can edit the source text beforehand so that I can handle it properly with a CAT tool (adapting a text for CAT tools, or worse yet, writing for CAT - how outlandish does that sound?), but that would by the same token imply that I will criticize the client's text and ask for too much creative freedom for their liking.
What I am trying to say is that the more CAT tools become a standard, the more unidiomatic translations we come across. And the strain on reviewers is increasing in perfect proportion with this (among many other side-effects I will not go into here).
Let me also add that there is another problem: texts that are not meant to be read being produced. Here, I mean texts that contain strings rather than sentences. Do people speak in strings or do they speak in sentences? Strings are just not compatible with the way the human brain works - so how do you want to translate them correctly using a human brain? And yet, perhaps to save money more than anything else, the production of string-oriented text is increasing. No human, CAT tool or machine translation engine will ever, ever be able to make perfect sense of those. Ever. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | The problem isn't really the CAT tool | Jul 22, 2008 |
Viktoria Gimbe wrote:
What I am trying to say is that the more CAT tools become a standard, the more unidiomatic translations we come across.
Hi Viktoria,
I hear what you're saying about segmentation - and about CAT tools being more suited to some texts than others - but the problem at the end of the day isn't the CAT tool, as such, it's the user. A professional translator will use a CAT tool for what it is - a mere aid that can significantly improve workflow and quality under certain conditions.
The actual problem though is the translator who doesn't go back afterwards to do the necessary 'polishing' and to make sure the translation flows properly. Rather like a chef who doesn't check to see if his food is actually cooked before serving it. We don't blame the ingredients or the equipment he used (although he might), the chef is responsible for what he serves up.
It's like a translator relying blindly on a dictionary, taking the first word from a list of several options, without properly considering the context - that doesn't necessarily mean the dictionary is to blame, again it's the translator.
I'll paraphrase what I stated in my earlier post - which has since been hidden for an unrelated reason - the major problem on the supply side of this industry is a lack of professionalism. There are too many wannabee tranalators sitting and working in isolation, blissfully ignorant of their own shortcomings. Too many people who are just not qualified for the job at hand.
[Edited at 2008-07-22 23:08]
| | | | Peter Manda (X)
Local time: 02:47
German to Ingiriisi
+ ...
| the idea conveyed | Jul 22, 2008 |
Sylvain Meyrous wrote:
I know for a fact it is not machine translation. This is what is so scary.
Yes, quite right so.
My point was merely that I have come across some work in my proof reading where - just as you point out - the "translator" made no effort at the text. From my experience with MT and CAT, I could only deduce that the person whose work I was proofreading hadn't bothered to edit, correct, contextualize, or bring into correct language - the text. And from my experience with CAT, I could tell, that they just ran the CAT without making any other effort than moving on to the next segment.
CAT, especially, if you have a good glossary (I should have added: and memory) will provide a near (quasi-)literal translation. So my point is merely that in my own experience there are "translators" out there who don't "translate" but merely take a glossary (and memory) convert the document in a CAT and then submit it as a translation. To me (as someone who pays attention to semantics) it is unfathomable why any agency would even accept such work. Like I wrote; in such cases; penny wise, dollar foolish.
As to the question of there being good translators and bad translators; I think really good translators can deliver good product within tight deadlines even without CATs (probably even better without a CAT), but that it's a buyer beware scenario. Agencies will get in the end what they demand and what they pay for ...
[Edited at 2008-07-23 11:10]
| | | | AniseK 
Malaysia
Local time: 14:47
Japanese to Ingiriisi
+ ...
| Definitely better work without CAT | Jul 23, 2008 |
Peter Manda wrote:
As to the question of there being good translators and bad translators; I think really good translators can deliver good product within tight deadlines even without CATs (probably even better without a CAT), but that it's a buyer beware scenario. Agencies will get in the end what they demand and what they pay for ...
[Edited at 2008-07-23 00:45]
I totally agree that sometimes, translation is better without CAT. CAT makes some translators lazy. However, working without CAT forced us to really think how to translate the source text so that it still convey the message without sounding too weird.
| | |
|
|
|
Hokyun You
Canada
Local time: 02:47
Ingiriisi to Kuuriyaan
+ ...
| CAT + something else | Jul 23, 2008 |
I've done many number of proof-reading and I've seen many cases that people mainly relied on CAT to translate documents. I could tell for sure that they used CAT because after a long hassle correcting every sincle sentence I was beginning to suspect that it is a machine translation so I turned to CAT to try for myself. The result was facinating. The outcome from my CAT was exactly the same as the text sitting on those documents.
What happens in those cases, proofreaders are the one... See more I've done many number of proof-reading and I've seen many cases that people mainly relied on CAT to translate documents. I could tell for sure that they used CAT because after a long hassle correcting every sincle sentence I was beginning to suspect that it is a machine translation so I turned to CAT to try for myself. The result was facinating. The outcome from my CAT was exactly the same as the text sitting on those documents.
What happens in those cases, proofreaders are the ones who has to go through all the hard work fixing every single sentence. What outsourcers really want is to have the work done whoever will do it. After knowing that the proofreader is the one who really knows what's right, they turn to the proofreader and ask to finish the work. That sucks. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Sylvain Meyrous (X)
Canada
Local time: 02:47
Ingiriisi to Faransiis
TOPIC STARTER
After knowing that the proofreader is the one who really knows what's right, they turn to the proofreader and ask to finish the work. That sucks.
I agree. It sucks, especially that you are usually paid the same whether the translator did his job or not. May be the solution is to get paid by the hour...
| | | | Allesklar
Australia
Local time: 16:17
Ingiriisi to German
+ ...
| Don't blame the tools | Jul 23, 2008 |
Hokyun You wrote:
What happens in those cases, proofreaders are the ones who has to go through all the hard work fixing every single sentence. What outsourcers really want is to have the work done whoever will do it. After knowing that the proofreader is the one who really knows what's right, they turn to the proofreader and ask to finish the work. That sucks.
Giving a machine translation to a proofreader and hoping to get away with a laughably low per-word-rate is not a new trick.
Just charge per hour for proofreading/editing and it's not a problem anymore.
Also don't confuse MT and CAT, they are quite different things.
Like all tools they have their uses, but also can be abused - it just comes down to the individual user.
| | | |
What happens in those cases, proofreaders are the ones who has to go through all the hard work fixing every single sentence. What outsourcers really want is to have the work done whoever will do it. After knowing that the proofreader is the one who really knows what's right, they turn to the proofreader and ask to finish the work. That sucks.
In my recent jobs which I was not paid by an e-learning translation agency on a chunk of Code of Conduct, Compliance, Business Ethics etc. based in USA and Ireland, I was claimed for my bad translation/editing of English>Thai language pair: I have been working with this agency for 5 yeears without any previous claims.
1. At first, the agency told me to translate naturally.
2. Next, the agency intruduced a CAT with their poor knowledge of CAT e.g. never pay for 100% match and repetition that need revision in all paragraph for exact and natural writing styles.
3. Next, the agency introduced termbase software for segments that are basically searched via CAT, not termbase.
4. Next, the agency hire new translators and told me to review.
5. Next, the agency told me to edit the bad quality document being reviewed by the client. I declined since the source was done by the one who was not qualified for web-based e-learning documents.
6. After 2 months, without notifying me of what happening, the agency told that it would not pay for the 2 latest jobs.
7. Next, the agency never cooperated with enither me nor my lawyers on discussion about both trouble of my translation quality and why it was rational not to pay me.
Regards,
Soonthon L.
| | |
|
|
|
Sylvain Meyrous (X)
Canada
Local time: 02:47
Ingiriisi to Faransiis
TOPIC STARTER | Agencies' pay structure | Jul 23, 2008 |
2. Next, the agency intruduced a CAT with their poor knowledge of CAT e.g. never pay for 100% match and repetition that need revision in all paragraph for exact and natural writing styles.
This is a huge problem. At an agency, a translator told me literally "Why would I read the segments that I am not paid for?"
In this case, as in the one you describe, the agency's pay structure is to blame, not the CAT tools.
| | | | Piotr Bienkowski
Poland
Local time: 08:47
Member (2005)
Ingiriisi to Polish
+ ...
| CAT is NOT MT | Jul 23, 2008 |
Peter Manda wrote:
I agree with Brandis; I think it's machine translation. I've seen the same with German - English - which is why I'm very wary of proofreading jobs now.
I think there are a growing bunch out there who see "CAT" only as their way of making a quick buck. It's a great sucker-punch: The agency/company insisting on a CAT program (no, no I don't want to use the word TRADOS) jump for joy because they get to save a few pennies; and the person "using" the CAT, spends five minutes having the CAT rake in the bucks.
Penny wise, dollar foolish.
Please compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-assisted_translation
with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_translation
Regards,
Piotr
| | | | | Systemic problem | Jul 23, 2008 |
Lawyer-Linguist wrote:
I'll paraphrase what I stated in my earlier post - which has since been hidden for an unrelated reason - the major problem on the supply side of this industry is a lack of professionalism. There are too many wannabee translators sitting and working in isolation, blissfully ignorant of their own shortcomings. Too many people who are just not qualified for the job at hand.
[Edited at 2008-07-22 23:08]
I agree with Lawyer-Linguist on this one.
The problem isn't the tools, though insufficient knowledge of how to use them can certainly compound it.
In my opinion, the problem is inherent to the current agency-freelancer model that dominates the profession.
The vast majority of translators today work in isolation and rarely or never receive feedback on their output. If they do get anything back from the client, it's usually little more than an edited file with the changes tracked, but no explanation of why the changes were made. What's more, the changes are often arbitrary and based on little more justification than, 'Well, it's all subjective and that sounds better to me.'
In addition, because the agency-freelancer relationship is by its very nature fragile and could end at any moment, and because the same translator will often not work for the same end client again, not to mention the fact that they are also juggling requests from a dozen other agencies at the same time, the freelancer has little incentive to go back over any feedback they receive and take it on board.
So, a huge proportion of freelance translators deliver their jobs, hear nothing back from the agency, believe that they are delivering quality work because there haven't been any complaints (or at least any justified ones), and continue making the same mistakes over and over again.
Really, what is happening is that freelance translators are missing out on the opportunity for day-to-day professional development found in all of the other professions that still have a traditional in-house structure.
Every single one of us would benefit from qualified feedback on our work, but how many of us receive it?
Essentially, the current system does not promote quality and continual improvement; rather it tends to promote satisficing and mediocrity, which does not bode well for the future (or at least for those who are not happy with mediocrity in every sense - working conditions, earnings, professional status, etc.).
In this context, the only way for freelance translators to develop their skills and have their work judged by a qualified third party is through structured training. Unfortunately, this poll on Proz.com (http://www.proz.com/?sp=polls&sp_mode=past&action=results&poll_id=5227), and the brief ensuing discussion, reveals that the majority of freelancers aren't undertaking regular training, citing reasons that range from perceived lack of availability through to a belief that they don't need to.
Under the current agency-freelancer model, competent translators aren't systematically pushed to improve and poor translators aren't systematically told to buck up their ideas or get out.
Of course, many national translators' associations do set CPD requirements, run mentoring schemes, establish strict entrance criteria/exams, etc., but only a minority of freelance translators belong to them.
Hence, you have a situation in which every single freelancer and agency claims to be professional and provide quality work (after all, who wouldn't say that?), but few actually do. What's worse, a vast number of freelance translators and agencies are blissfully unaware of their own shortcomings and really do believe their own spiel because nobody ever tells them otherwise.
So, given this dominant model, it is no surprise that proof-readers worldwide constantly encounter serious quality issues, and that these are repeated ad infinitum.
Of course, as agencies start employing proof-readers on the same freelance basis and with the same systemic shortcomings as freelance translators, then the problem will appear to have been resolved...
Andrew
| | | | Piotr Bienkowski
Poland
Local time: 08:47
Member (2005)
Ingiriisi to Polish
+ ...
| Re: CAT is not MT | Jul 23, 2008 |
I must have misunderstood Peter's original post, but even so, let's not confuse the two.
And just like Peter, I don't like the "T." CAT.
Piotr
| | |
|
|
|
Dany Caputo
Italy
Local time: 08:47
Ingiriisi to Talyaani
+ ...
| Worldwide problem! | Jul 23, 2008 |
I worked with a company based in Australia and it was about the same. I had to proofread some material for translators with cheap rates that had been working with them for a longer time and the translations were... well, terrible. I had to almost retranslate them all but the translation agency said it was ok, that I didn't have to "proofread", I had to "edit". When I said it didn't sound right to me, they said their translators were right and maybe I was the one who had a problem... !! It was ru... See more I worked with a company based in Australia and it was about the same. I had to proofread some material for translators with cheap rates that had been working with them for a longer time and the translations were... well, terrible. I had to almost retranslate them all but the translation agency said it was ok, that I didn't have to "proofread", I had to "edit". When I said it didn't sound right to me, they said their translators were right and maybe I was the one who had a problem... !! It was rude, to defend their cheap rates they didn't want to accept the fact that their translations were all wrong. And in the end they also paid me late! I decided not to work with them anymore of course, but something similar also happened with an American agency. Proz had to contact them because they didn't reply to me anymore and didn't want to pay, for no apparent reason. Thank God I got paid, but it wasn't a nice experience.
My conclusion is that yes, it's unfortunately a worldwide problem ▲ Collapse
| | | | | 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 » Quality of translations (or lack thereof) | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
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
