Time wasted in translation destroyed after for another translator.
Ten days ago I worked very hard in getting a translation done (job 114059). Today I have seen that translation semi destroyed by others to a point that looked ridiculous. I have been working on it again, and I hope my job is not destroyed again for someone that really does not know my Spanish language, as well as I do (and/or as well as he/she should) . As there are many "translation web services" available I think we should be aware that maybe some pirates can disturb our works. what are we going to do in order to avoid damages and distress to/in our jobs?
© 2011 Translia. US Patent Pending (No. 12/783.568). Using this site means you accept its terms.
Additional comments on job 114059
Adding to the comment made by joselobato2 on the job 114059.
I now go to check the revisions of segment 114068.
I was the first to translate "Translation Services" to "Servicos de Traducción". After many translators changed my original translation they finally got back to the same phrase.
I get 8.5% credit for my contribution while other translators, that changed my translation and finally came back to mine, get 37.5% each.
I now go to segment 114060 where I translated "Online Translation" to "Traducción en Línea". The following translator changed the capital "L" to small "l" (not in concordance with the source segment).
I get 45.95% for my contribution and he/she gets 54.05%.
How's this? I don't understand the system.
A good question! Let me
A good question! Let me explain it pls, take "Online Translation" as an example:
1. Contribution is based on word - there are only two words so the contribution percentage changes a lot if others change one of the two words.
2. You may know that we just upgraded our system to give translators with higher rank more power (http://www.translia.com/node/122969). The translators who do editing or proofreading get more. You know well that sometimes you only change a few words of others' translation but make it much better and it can be only done by a real professional, excellent translator. So giving them double or triple is fair, isn't?
3. Pls note the job you mentioned was closed weeks ago before the upgrade. So your points are not affected, but the contribution changed with the upgrade - it's different with the situation by the time the job was closed.
4. And you should find already that now the translators whose rank is lower than you can't editing your translation once you set it to Ready to commit.
In one word, give the best translation (less editing by others) and set the status properly!
The solution to non-productive editing
Sorry for not responding early - this is not a new issue and as ftruccoh mentioned, many members have complained it, gave the suggestions but the problem still persists...
The dilemma we face is:
* If the "Ready to commit" segments are open to edit, meaningless edits, or the worse, bad edits would be applied. Sometimes both quality and productivity cannot be ensured.
* If they are locked and cannot be edited any more, the process to correct any errors in "final" translation would get rather complex and thus damage the quality and productivity two.
Well, there is a problem, the will be a solution. Based on the discussions we have carried so far, I propose a solution that can be outlined as below.
1. The translation can be set to "Ready to commit" only when two or more translators have worked on the segment. That ensures the translation is reviewed by a different translator to the least.
2. When a segment is Ready to commit, only the following people can further edit the translation, changing the status back to "Needs review".
a) Translator who sets the status to Ready to commit ("Reviewer" herein).
b) The Reviewer's endorsers.
c) Translators who have higher rank than the Reviewer.
3. Once one of the above translators edits the final translation, s/he becomes the Reviewer and further edits can be made based on the above rules.
There are a couple of details to handle such as what if the client edit the final translation but the ideas behind the above solution are:
* Open: We shall keep the "final" translation open to edit for obtain the benefits of crowd translation (or "open translation" as I personally prefer :)
* ... but not too open: We shall allow only more reliable/trustworthy translators to edit the segments as the translations are already reviewed and improved somehow.
Dear colleagues, please comment and suggest. Thank you!
The solution to non-productive editing
Dear Vic Dickson:
I believe that it is very clear for all of us that the main objective is to provide the best -possible- translation work within the requested deadline. The experience teaches us that the best always-perfectible translation is the result of the process that entails human translation + human proofreading, or in other words, proofreading is always necessary to get the best -possible- result.
This takes us to a simple question of budget. Most of the clients understand this and assign typically 70% of the budget for translation work and 30% for proofreading work. In this way both, translator and proof-reader are paid and the work reaches the best -possible- level according to the translator and proofreader proficiency (Translia screening system).
I think it is not possible to solve these two separate steps just weaving the magic wand of leaving the segment open forever. There is no reason to believe that by this procedure the segment will reach at some point a perfect translation status, only because received hundred of views and modifications.
You may have a good, not so good and bad translators as I said elsewhere, but this is a problem of "natural selection" which is efficiently accomplished by a very well-known tool, a fair ranking system.
My proposal for a fair translation process should consider the following:
1) The first translator that sets a segment as "Ready to commit" is responsible for his "translating act" and the segment is definitively locked and opportunely paid.
2) The segment, as well as the whole work, is submitted to a proof-reading work which should be accomplished by a second translator. This is a new work with new rate (70/30)
3) Both the translator and the proof-reader work should be evaluated by the client and hence ranked by Translia.
The solution to a problem must be simple and fair, otherwise you create more problems.
Hope that these views and thoughts may contribute to solve the problem
Sincerely
ftruccoh
Good solution.
Good solution. I have one more proposition - Ranking must be based on client's feedback - upon the quality of work and ability to meet the realistic deadlines of client. Will not adding ranks through kudos result in those who work less and enjoy pulling other's legs getting higher rank than those who work hard actually?
Continuous process vs discrete process
Thank you for the comments and proposal!
Dividing the process into T+P (and TEP for some Asian languages) and applying controls on each process would be a new direction that we could go. I personally don't intend to go in that direction unless the "open" approach is proven dead totally ^_^ The reason is some years ago I already built/operated a system like that - my experience is it dosn't work smoothly even in an in-house environment.
Also, clients may not be able to tell which translators do translating and which do proofreading when rating them. (Oops, I have to confess my proposal has the similar problem: it's difficult for the most clients to identify which translator do which part of job and thus give ratings respectively - the best bet is they give all translators same ratings at the most time... :-)
HOWEVER, what you proposed remind me a system we once implemented for the full-time translators:
1) Translator A does translation.
2) Translator B does editing and rates the performance of A.
3) Translator C does proofreading and rates the performance of B.
4) Client rates the job and thus translator C gets a rating too.
We might have problems in defining who can do what (T/E/P) in our open environment but don't you think the above rating approach would be interesting if we divide translation into discret process as you proposed? Let's chat...
P.S. Just call me Vic - I'm quite comfortable with informal style in daily communication. Not a problem if you prefer formal format. I understand and respect the culture difference. Cheers!
The one true creation
Dear Vic (assuming I too am entitled to address you so)
T+P is not the way and certainly not 70/30.
Let's be humble and admit that we haven't found the ideal solution so far.
To me the first real creation is your decision to only letting set a segment as "ready to commit" once it has been at least worked upon by two translators.
That makes sense.
Then again, we've got my proposal to build up restraint by enabling body text translation on site.
It will help.
I won't fool you : I still haven't come up with truly fresh ideas. Anything I may suggest would be but some formless rehash of T+P.
Besides, as I told you, there is no such thing as genuinely neutral arbitrators.
Chatting is great, but we yet have to devise something unarguably powerful.
Looking forward to crafting new ideas together with all those like you who believe in open translation.
Yours sincerely
Panglosse
Time wasted in translation destroyed after.............
To avoid this kind of damages I have suggested some days ago that once a segment has been set as "Ready to commit" it should be automatically locked for further modifications and thus reaching a definitive status. In this way, translators are really committed with their work; you may have a good, not so good and bad translators as everything in this life, but natural selection should also play here its role. An ever-changeable segment status option is not a loyal method as well as does not foster a serious professional work. Ever changeable segment status is not really reasonable.
Regards
ftruccoh
Time wasted in translation destroyed after......
I agree with you, after being ready to commit segments sould be blocked. In any case for further review of those blocks, One second segment for ultimate review could be implemented, and the final version, between the two segments, only to be approved by a "senior" translator with special powers given by Translia.
One of the translation team shares her ideas with you...
See http://www.translia.com/node/114088 for details.
Report bad behavior / endorse good translators
If you find someone unqualified spoiled the translation, or someone gave meaningless edits, report it.
Also, while our rank system is released yet, now you may start endorsing translators you can trust now. Once we exclude people who are not qualified as translator based on client rating, endorsement and rank, the bad situations will be reduced, if cannot be prevented totally.
Please have a look at this page http://www.translia.com/node/115524.
Report bad behavior / endorse good translators
Dear Vic,
I would like to ask if and where I can see the names of the translators that edited the segments just after or before me.
In the Contribution tab of the jobs, I can only see the names of the translators that contributed to do them in general, but not every single change.
With regard to the suggestion to lock the segments after selecting the Ready to commit option, I don't think this could be a possible solution. If the translator that does the job makes some mistakes, for others will be impossible to correct them. It would be better to think about unbiased proofreaders of the jobs.
Thanks a lot in advance for your reply.
Best wishes,
Clara
Translation Edits
I agree with your comment regarding locking after Ready to Commit. I have regularly had my translation "edited", not improved, by another translator who is in the position to do Ready to Commit. After having done most of the legwork, this translator only comes in at the editing stage making lateral changes, which although are not always incorrect (sometimes they are), do not improve the original translation but they get the credit. I think this person should suggest the changes in the Comments box and the original translator can decide if it is an improvemet on their original work.
In this respect one of my co-translators has done exactly that on occasion and I agreed with her suggested change and incorporated it in my edit, but I didn't know how to do this so that she received the credit which is only fair. The comments boxes do leave the option, and usually enough time, for translators to dialogue on the finer points of a translation and encourages better teamwork for the benefit of the client. It also diminishes the feeling that your translation has been snatched away by somebody just playing games till the deadline.
The time zone difference also plays a part. You can do a whole translation into the early hours of the morning reviewing and editing with co-translators in your time zone and then the next day you find that a translator from another time zone has access before the deadline, makes ineffectual changes and gets the credit.
Best wishes,
Samrine
Translation history can be found on "Revisions" page
Clara, the full translation history are tracked and can be found at "Revisions" page:
1. Open the job that you work with.
2. Click "Revisions" tab.
You can find who edited the job and when there. With Diff function, you can further view what changes each translators brought from the previous revision.
If you believe the new revisions are not so good, you can reverse the translation back to an old revision by clicking Revert.
Feel free to let me know if the above answered your question.
Time wasted in translation destroyed after.............
Dear Clara
The main point is that enabling "infinite segment changes" simply leads to nowhere. It is unfair and ineffective concerning quality. Your suggestion of proofreading is the right solution, but even-though, once a segment has been set as "Ready to commit" it needs to be locked. If we leave the segment open we would be going in circles, forever.
Regards
ftruccoh
Vic and ftruccoh, thanks a lot for your replies!
I couldn't see the Revision tab yet, but now I can.
Thank you very much for your answer and help, Vic!
Thanks a lot to ftruccoh too!
You're right, we will be going in circles forever, or at least till the job closes. However, I'm still not sure that the total lock of segments could be the right solution, sometimes other translator edits are really interesting and teaching...
Moreover, if you see the history of edits, as Vic wrote, you can find the translators who made the mistakes and singal them in the comments or report them as bad behaviour. At the moment, I still think that a proofreader or even an objective moderator, i.e. a person not directly involved in the translation, could be a solution.
Thank you again!
Clara