| Páginas sobre el tema: [1 2 3] > | Google Translate vs. post-editing - is it the future already? Autor de la hebra: Jaroslaw Michalak
|
|---|
Jaroslaw Michalak 
Polonia
Local time: 22:06
Miembro 2004
inglés al polaco
LOCALIZADOR DEL SITIO
Several threads posted lately got me thinking...
First of all, I was quite surprised at the outcry related to the "missing" Google Translate plugin in SDL Studio (caused by GT going commercial). It seems that for many people the tool has become essential in their work. Particularly, I was astonished at the reactions which went: "What now? Am I supposed to type in all my translations by hand?"
And then we have the usual discussions about MT: how it is garba... See more Several threads posted lately got me thinking...
First of all, I was quite surprised at the outcry related to the "missing" Google Translate plugin in SDL Studio (caused by GT going commercial). It seems that for many people the tool has become essential in their work. Particularly, I was astonished at the reactions which went: "What now? Am I supposed to type in all my translations by hand?"
And then we have the usual discussions about MT: how it is garbage, that it is not useable, that no respectable translator would even think of doing post-editing jobs...
But aren't they doing that already? Isn't reediting what we get from GT input exactly that - MT post-editing? The fact that we may choose to disregard most of the suggestions is not that relevant - this might happen in "real" post-editing as well. It's just the matter of percentages, the principle is the same.
What matters is that GT (or any other MT plugin applied on the translator's side) saves time, i.e. lowers the translator's costs. In competitive market most cost-savings sooner or later are passed to the end client. Thus, a GT-using translator will be able (and some will be willing) to charge the same as the MT post-editor. Could it be that some day the line between translation and post-editing (for some types of work and in some subject areas, naturally) will be so blurred that it is nonexistent? ▲ Collapse
| | | | Tom in London
Reino Unido
Local time: 21:06
Miembro 2008
italiano al inglés
In the past I have tried to "post-edit" documents that had been machine-translated by Google. I found that I was unable to do this and that I had to go back to the original source document and do the translation all over again.
After a couple of these bad experiences, which gave me no professional satisfaction whatever and took longer than just doing a full translation from scratch, I no longer accept jobs that are described as "revising" or "editing".
| | | | Dave Bindon
Grecia
Local time: 23:06
griego al inglés
In Memoriam | For me, in my lifetime, I don't think so | Nov 26, 2011 |
I don't accept post-editing jobs. I don't use CAT tools.
I don't think there's ever much chance of MT being good at Greek>English (or English>Greek, but for different reasons).
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 04:06
chino al inglés
| Surprised me, too | Nov 26, 2011 |
I'm very much in the anti-MT crowd, and I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that the GT4T users are not doing high quality work. I could be wrong, and I'd welcome correction.
My reasons are:
1) The "reduce the typing" excuse is just garbage. Think about it - a fairly common standard for translation speed is about 2000 words per day, right? I've seen that in a few places, and it works out for me. Over an 8 hour work day, that's 250 words per hour, or about 4 word... See more I'm very much in the anti-MT crowd, and I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that the GT4T users are not doing high quality work. I could be wrong, and I'd welcome correction.
My reasons are:
1) The "reduce the typing" excuse is just garbage. Think about it - a fairly common standard for translation speed is about 2000 words per day, right? I've seen that in a few places, and it works out for me. Over an 8 hour work day, that's 250 words per hour, or about 4 words per minute. We're not talking high speed typist work here. Even if my speed estimate is too low by a factor of 2 (possible) or even 4 (unlikely), we're not talking a lot of typing.
2) Editing of poor text is actually way more time-consuming than typing. Finding the errors, deciding whether to jig the text or redo, copying and pasting bits of text, changing a tense here and there - this takes easily much more time than just typing out a sentence yourself.
3) Which makes me think that GT4T users are doing something dodgy. Either they're using GT as a dictionary because they don't really know their source languages, or they're not doing sufficient editing to produce really good results.
What worries me, as I expressed in a recent thread, is that for us translators, it's very natural and easy to say things like:
the line between translation and post-editing (for some types of work and in some subject areas, naturally)
For us, it's fairly easy to distinguish between one type of work and another, and between one subject area and another. But clients can't do this. If GT+postediting becomes the norm for some types of translation, and reduces rates for that type, clients will push for it in other areas. And it will be harder to push back once the door is opened.
Case in point: I have a client for whom I do Chinese>English translation. I do it well, and my client recommended me to another department of their company. They presented me with Chinese>English, because in my pair, no-one knows that you're only supposed to translate into your native language. I accepted the commission, because it was company in-house stuff, and I had a reliable proofreader (who I'm hoping to develop into a reliable English>Chinese translator partner). So far so good, no problems, client happy. Then just the other day I was presented with a fairly chunky English language contract to translate. There was no way I could take on a legal-type translation into Chinese, so a fairly in-depth conversation with the client ensued, and in the end we got it sorted out. This is not a small client, it is a very very large and sophisticated multinational. But they don't know our industry. And is we don't make it clear now that MT/GT is no good, it will become the norm. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Jing Nie
China
Local time: 04:06
Miembro 2011
inglés al chino
+ ...
| Unavoidable trend | Nov 26, 2011 |
Hi Jarosław,
I agree with your opinion.
In fact, I use GT everyday with the CAT tool. Although GT module is commercial now, Google translator toolkit(GTT) is still free, I pre-translate my segmented documents using GTT, then I make a TM using the translation result. So when I translate in a CAT tool, this TM can be useful as a suggestion. Sometimes it is really very useful. My language pair is English-Chinese.As most of you have known, the difference between English and Chine... See more Hi Jarosław,
I agree with your opinion.
In fact, I use GT everyday with the CAT tool. Although GT module is commercial now, Google translator toolkit(GTT) is still free, I pre-translate my segmented documents using GTT, then I make a TM using the translation result. So when I translate in a CAT tool, this TM can be useful as a suggestion. Sometimes it is really very useful. My language pair is English-Chinese.As most of you have known, the difference between English and Chinese is rather large. According to my experiences, English - other European languages can get more better machine translation results. I often read French and Germany web pages that were translated into English by GT. French can be translated by google almost perfectly.
As for the price, in the past 20 years, the price of translation is keep dropping. At least it is true for English- Chinese language pair. The dropping will never end with the development of machine translation technology.
The only thing I can do is keep my technology updated everyday. This is the only way I can survive in this complete competing market.
BTW, GT for Greek>English can deal with most of technological documents. I tried once for a package insert of one medicine. I can understand 95% percent of its content after I translate it into English using GOOGLE. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | you need to use it wisely... | Nov 26, 2011 |
on some projects it's very good - but don't try it for marketing/creative/literary translations... if used wisely, it will save you time. And I don't see why the savings should be passed onto the client. Just don't say you are using it. No client is going to ask you to use GT and to charge less for that reason. MT is still too unreliable to be imposed on anybody, unlike CATs. I see MT as an aid in some circumstances and I embrace the technology when it's useful, not at all costs. It's jus... See more on some projects it's very good - but don't try it for marketing/creative/literary translations... if used wisely, it will save you time. And I don't see why the savings should be passed onto the client. Just don't say you are using it. No client is going to ask you to use GT and to charge less for that reason. MT is still too unreliable to be imposed on anybody, unlike CATs. I see MT as an aid in some circumstances and I embrace the technology when it's useful, not at all costs. It's just matter of a balanced approach. A black and white approach is just silly. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Jaroslaw Michalak
Polonia
Local time: 22:06
Miembro 2004
inglés al polaco
PERSONA QUE INICIÓ LA HEBRA LOCALIZADOR DEL SITIO | Some points... | Nov 26, 2011 |
Phil, it's nice to have a response that for a change is relevant to the posted topic
While I would not go so far as to say that "GT-aided" translations are necessarily worse, I do agree that the amount of time required to get the raw input to top quality might be close to doing it from scratch. At least it was in my case. Also, I considered GT quite dangerous - it gave me "good enough" suggestions which prevented me (d... See more Phil, it's nice to have a response that for a change is relevant to the posted topic
While I would not go so far as to say that "GT-aided" translations are necessarily worse, I do agree that the amount of time required to get the raw input to top quality might be close to doing it from scratch. At least it was in my case. Also, I considered GT quite dangerous - it gave me "good enough" suggestions which prevented me (due to my very natural laziness) from striving for the best options...
Phil Hand wrote: What worries me, as I expressed in a recent thread, is that for us translators, it's very natural and easy to say things like: the line between translation and post-editing (for some types of work and in some subject areas, naturally) For us, it's fairly easy to distinguish between one type of work and another, and between one subject area and another. But clients can't do this. If GT+postediting becomes the norm for some types of translation, and reduces rates for that type, clients will push for it in other areas. And it will be harder to push back once the door is opened.
The problem is translators are doing that to themselves, unknowingly. If we become too reliant on GT (or any other engine), we give the clients the ammunition - "You use Google Translate all the time, how is it different from our MT input?".
Giovanni:
I did not mean that the savings will be passed explicitly. I meant it in a general sense - if the translator can do 600 words with GT as compared to 500 without it, he might be satisfied with the same hourly rate and ask for the lower rate per word. Unimaginable, I know, but I've been told that in this business agressive pricing does occur from time to time. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Thayenga
Alemania
Local time: 22:06
Miembro 2009
inglés al alemán
+ ...
| When its use makes sense | Nov 26, 2011 |
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
on some projects it's very good - but don't try it for marketing/creative/literary translations... if used wisely, it will save you time. And I don't see why the savings should be passed onto the client. Just don't say you are using it. No client is going to ask you to use GT and to charge less for that reason. MT is still too unreliable to be imposed on anybody, unlike CATs. I see MT as an aid in some circumstances and I embrace the technology when it's useful, not at all costs. It's just matter of a balanced approach. A black and white approach is just silly.
My thoughts exactly.
| | |
|
|
|
Nicole Schnell
Estados Unidos
Local time: 13:06
inglés al alemán
+ ...
In Memoriam | A new market niche? Yes. The future of translation? No. | Nov 26, 2011 |
I tend to compare this development to tax preparation software that you can use at home vs. certified tax accountants. Turbotax and the like will never put professional CPA offices out of business.
| | | | Raúl Casanova
Uruguay
Local time: 17:06
inglés al español
In Memoriam | Several threads posted lately got me thinking... | Nov 26, 2011 |
Hi, Jabberwock,
I’m following the same line, and I have found that a recent post started by Paula Borges http://www.proz.com/forum/money_matters/212873-new_trick:_tm_cheating.html fired an explosion of several contending ideas about MT.
I am sorry I am not too fast writing in my secondary language, and several contributions have arrive... See more Hi, Jabberwock,
I’m following the same line, and I have found that a recent post started by Paula Borges http://www.proz.com/forum/money_matters/212873-new_trick:_tm_cheating.html fired an explosion of several contending ideas about MT.
I am sorry I am not too fast writing in my secondary language, and several contributions have arrived while I was composing my post. I will be back later to coment about other contributions which look very interesting.
I personally don’t use (and never used) Google Translate, just because I feel I don’t need to. As a matured translator, specialized in some fields, I can recall proper terminology just out of my head, or just by resorting to monolingual dictionaries or the web when I have no clue about the source term. But this is a personal decision and everybody is free to take his choice.
As for the question “What now? Am I supposed to type in all my translations by hand?” I would tell those guys that when I started doing translation work, the only tools available were printed or handwritten text on the source side, and handwriting or typing text (if you were lucky enough to have a typewriter) to produce the target translated side. So I’m not afraid of having to type. Anyway, if somebody needs GT or a dictation machine or any other tool to avoid typing, the tools are easily available and it is everyone’s personal decision to use them or not.
But I have been asked very recently by an important client to perform MTPE, and had to analyze carefully the pros and cons of the proposal. This brought me again to your posting:
(Quote from your initial post) “And then we have the usual discussions about MT: how it is garbage, that it is not useable, that no respectable translator would even think of doing post-editing jobs...
But aren't they doing that already? Isn't reediting what we get from GT input exactly that - MT post-editing? The fact that we may choose to disregard most of the suggestions is not that relevant - this might happen in "real" post-editing as well. It's just the matter of percentages, the principle is the same.” (End of quote)
Well, let’s be pragmatic and not put the horses behind the wagon.
I care about the end result of my work, both in terms of a satisfied client and adequate economical revenue for me.
To comply with customer’s needs, I have to provide a first rate translation, in a proper registry to fit the needs of the target audience, starting with whatever source text he/she has available for translation. This doesn’t mean “I take it all”, but “I’ll analyze your source file and I will quote for the job, if within my capabilities.”
I know I’m risking going Off-topic by taking on pricing policies, but I think both are heavily related.
Depending in format, quality of writing, subject matter complexity, timeframe, payment terms etc., I can calculate the price I’ll propose for the job, which might still have to be negotiated before reaching an agreement.
Client might think he saves some money by the combination GT+MTPE, and that’s OK for me. But I price my work basically by the time I use to perform it.
While for most of my work I can see an increase in my hourly word throughput using the combination of MT+MTPE (as compared from translation from scratch), I think the proper way to price this work is by the hour, because if the SF is crap it will demand more thinking, more typing and hence take additional time, whose cost of course should be borne by the client. Some times the combination will benefit the client with a saving, sometimes it won’t. It is up to him/her to determine the convenience or not. He has the choice, he takes the risk.
Traditional or most extended practice for pricing translation is based on source file word count (line or character count for some languages/countries), but when the client proposes a “new” format like the euphemistic “Machine Translation Post Editing or MTPE” we translators are also entitled to use a “new” pricing policy. To satisfy my needs as a translator, I have to keep a steady hour/journey income, and this drives me to your following assertion:
(Quote from your initial post) What matters is that GT (or any other MT plugin applied on the translator's side) saves time, i.e. lowers the translator's costs. In competitive market most cost-savings sooner or later are passed to the end client. Thus, a GT-using translator will be able (and some will be willing) to charge the same as the MT post-editor. Could it be that some day the line between translation and post-editing (for some types of work and in some subject areas, naturally) will be so blurred that it is nonexistent? (End of quote).
I believe the line between translation and post-editing is of no relevance, except when the client tries to use it to lower the cost to his benefit, which is IMHO the main reason for naming it differently than plain translation. I agree with you that MT can lower translator’s costs, but only if measured by word count and post-editing is not considered.
But considering MT+MTPE, and using the proper yardstick to measure and price the amount of work involved, it may (or may not) yield the savings customer is expecting. Meanwhile, as an independent Service Provider, I see no need to undersell my work under the MTPE label. No problem at all with doing it, but in exchange for an adequate payment. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Vladimír Hoffman
Eslovaquia
Local time: 22:06
Miembro 2009
inglés al eslovaco
+ ...
| Once a friend of mine, a lawyer, had asked me | Nov 26, 2011 |
if I know about some good translation software for a sale. I answered him: "Of course! You can buy one in any hypermarket. It lies on a shelf just near the good software for automatic preparation of legal contracts."
| | | | Dave Bindon
Grecia
Local time: 23:06
griego al inglés
In Memoriam | Big 'knowing' smile | Nov 26, 2011 |
Jing Nie wrote:
BTW, GT for Greek>English can deal with most of technological documents. I tried once for a package insert of one medicine. I can understand 95% percent of its content after I translate it into English using GOOGLE.
Sorry if this strays off topic, but...
Most of the time Greek word order/syntax can be the same as English, with a few minor exceptions. The document you 'read' using GT was probably originally written in another language and then translated into Greek in a fairly literal, but not incorrect, way.
Documents written by Greeks are a completely different kettle of fish. "Fertiliser is good to only biological be-used" is standard word-order in Greek, and impossible for MT to cope with in Greek>English. Maybe it's good enough to understand a status update on Facebook, but it's not good enough to use as a translation tool.
| | |
|
|
|
Vladimír Hoffman
Eslovaquia
Local time: 22:06
Miembro 2009
inglés al eslovaco
+ ...
| Personally, I consider GT postediting | Nov 26, 2011 |
to be very boring, time consuming, and annoying job. I gave in to temptation many times due to tiredness or, if you want, laziness, but I regretted it almost every time. Except for some types of legal texts (GT has been originally based on huge volumes of multilingual EU documents), resulting "saving" in typing time was more than superseded by increase in a time needed for proofreading. Maybe it is caused by the very nature of the Slovak language (we use declensions a lot), but I generally consi... See more to be very boring, time consuming, and annoying job. I gave in to temptation many times due to tiredness or, if you want, laziness, but I regretted it almost every time. Except for some types of legal texts (GT has been originally based on huge volumes of multilingual EU documents), resulting "saving" in typing time was more than superseded by increase in a time needed for proofreading. Maybe it is caused by the very nature of the Slovak language (we use declensions a lot), but I generally consider use of GT as translation tool to be waste of time. May be as an inspiration to get an idea or as a first-line glossary, but never as a translation tool.
And, moreover, even if GT works well, it is still a trap. You know, a lazy translator (me, for example) can be tempted to postedit "well"-made GT text, correcting only some declensions, prepositions and/or articles and leaving rest of text unchanged. Without searching for synonyms, re-stylizing sentences to sound better, polishing and finishing. On the long run, it could degrade my professional value and destroy any joy, pleasure and self-confidence that I can find in my job.
I am talking about use of GT for personal needs. Happily, I have never been approached by a client asking me to make post-MT (or post-GT) editing and hope that I never will.
Of course, I only express my own feelings about regular use of Google Translator (or any other mechanical assistant) and above statements may not be applied to any other person except for me. It is quite possible for another translator to use GT without any harm. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Nicole Schnell
Estados Unidos
Local time: 13:06
inglés al alemán
+ ...
In Memoriam | Maybe off topic: German>English? I don't think so. | Nov 26, 2011 |
Jing Nie wrote:
I often read French and Germany web pages that were translated into English by GT.
Nice thought, but I yet have to encounter any MT that can deal with reversed grammar. Sorry. If you have read some "good" results, then the text must already have been edited. If you still can tell that it was MT, then the text was lousily edited by some moron.
| | | | Edward Vreeburg
Países Bajos
Local time: 22:06
Miembro 2008
inglés al neerlandés
+ ...
| I don't thnk so | Nov 27, 2011 |
I'm just discussing this with a client, for a large tender, worth several millions, in IT - Since the deadline is already rapidly advancing I told them I needed to start working on the translation of the answers from last Thursday, having just transated about 10.000 words.
So, to my surprise they come with a request to handle the QUESTIONS (10.000 over the weekend) - - when I told them this would take a while (past their deadline) they told me they 'have a solution' for it..
So on... See more I'm just discussing this with a client, for a large tender, worth several millions, in IT - Since the deadline is already rapidly advancing I told them I needed to start working on the translation of the answers from last Thursday, having just transated about 10.000 words.
So, to my surprise they come with a request to handle the QUESTIONS (10.000 over the weekend) - - when I told them this would take a while (past their deadline) they told me they 'have a solution' for it..
So on Friday they present me with a Google translated file, and if I would be so kind to just corrected it and make sure it's all in order by Monday morning...
Now I asked them whether they could read an understand the stuff that was translated, and they don't reply,
I asked them what they did to translate 10.000 words in a couple of hours, and they don't reply,
I asked them whether they have used a professional translation agency, or google translate. and they don't reply...
Why should I sacrifice my professional standards, my time and my weekend (when I just happen to be celebrating my son's birthday) to a bunch of people, who have no clue about the translation process (despite the fact I have explained them time and time again) - - whom I warned that if they would be late with their answers - that I would have no time to translate it back for them - - and who have been ordered in the past NOT TO USE Google translate for any professional document anymore???
Why would I accept post GT work???, what would that make me? what signal would it be if somehow they would be able to get something acceptable overnight, using GT (and a very good post editor)??? (and they would probably expect it at a fraction of the price, too) - - where would it all lead?
If I want to work for peanuts, I would have advertised it...
I just say NO. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Páginas sobre el tema: [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 » Google Translate vs. post-editing - is it the future already? | 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! » |
| | 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
