tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post8245523922566753858..comments2024-03-29T00:21:17.976-07:00Comments on eMpTy Pages: Improving the MT Technology to Translator DialogueKirti Vasheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-70131410915342573502016-02-20T01:24:59.630-08:002016-02-20T01:24:59.630-08:00Nice to be visiting your blog once more, it has be...Nice to be visiting your blog once more, it has been months for me. Well this article that ive been waited for therefore long. i want this article to finish my assignment within the faculty, and it has same topic together with your article. Thanks, nice share.<br /><a href="http://tech-talk.org/" rel="nofollow">Tech Talk</a><br />ramizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17797483111126042074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-79357502435731363262015-04-24T04:57:36.645-07:002015-04-24T04:57:36.645-07:00You got a really useful blog I have been here read...You got a really useful blog I have been here reading for about an hour. I am a newbie and your success is very much an inspiration for me.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.translate-english-french.com" rel="nofollow">English to French Canadian Translation</a> & <a href="http://www.translate-english-french.com" rel="nofollow">Canadian French Translation</a>Kevin Hakneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05768575666576684649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-16614290718353519182014-06-02T23:27:09.717-07:002014-06-02T23:27:09.717-07:00Shai
Thank you or your comments. I think it is us...Shai<br /><br />Thank you or your comments. I think it is useful to anybody who will take the trouble to read through them as you articulate many things that it would be useful for technology developers to listen to with more care.<br /><br />I think that when translators can learn to differentiate between the different kinds of "MT solutions" in the market, we will see much more successful collaboration and ignorant proponents will be challenged from a more informed perspective.<br /><br />My basic advice to translators -- understand the kind of MT you are dealing with first before you accept the rates and conditions. And in these early days, if there is no trust between the involved parties, you should expect that the PEMT experience will be very negative. Just as there many kinds of translators there are at least 50 shades of grey with MT and I for one really want to understand how to communicate critical information about each specific MT engine to translators so that they can make informed decisions on whether they want to engage or not. Kirti Vasheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-91893713983528060972014-06-02T21:34:28.454-07:002014-06-02T21:34:28.454-07:00My latest series of comments was not meant to argu...My latest series of comments was not meant to argue against things that you said. I wrote them in the larger context of the topic of this post in an attempt to clarify just how deep the distrust goes and the major reasons it stems from. I believe that some of those who spread false claims don't have malicious intent, they just see and treat translation as a big data problem, failing to understand what the translation service is all about, the limitations and strength of the technology in this context, and are completely indifferent to the potential risks of irresponsibly using technology.<br /><br />Technology abusers and misguidance hurt the reputation of the technology just as bad translators hurt the reputation of the profession. One of the problems is that the discussion often lumps everything together into general categories, whereas in practice there are are many professional/technical differences, different circumstances, and different needs.Shainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-62537934454466027452014-06-02T21:02:51.382-07:002014-06-02T21:02:51.382-07:00Exactly -- any technology that is complex requires...Exactly -- any technology that is complex requires skill, expertise and experience to get real value and utility. <br /><br />Again I go into this in some very specific detail in this post: http://kv-emptypages.blogspot.com/2014/05/monolithic-mt-or-50-shades-of-grey.htmlKirti Vasheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-52356203439330775042014-06-02T21:01:13.403-07:002014-06-02T21:01:13.403-07:00I suggest that there is no lobby as such -- but th...I suggest that there is no lobby as such -- but there are many making ignorant and reckless claims that hurts those of us who are trying to be more measured and and careful with our claims. This thread between you and others on this post inspired me to write this post: http://kv-emptypages.blogspot.com/2014/05/monolithic-mt-or-50-shades-of-grey.html <br /><br />I think the best and most accepted use of Expert MT will come from collaboration with translators and we all need to be clear to not dismiss the technology per se because there are a few or many who make ignorant and reckless claims. Professional use MT is not as easy as 1-2-3 -- just like good human translation it takes work and processes and communication to happen-- and also shared objectives.<br />Kirti Vasheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-29832206811774471322014-06-02T20:55:17.217-07:002014-06-02T20:55:17.217-07:00Shai
There are unfortunately a huge number of bad...Shai<br /><br />There are unfortunately a huge number of bad "MT" implementations in the commercial arena as so many are looking for a short cut - instant results, lowered costs with little effort. That is a clear recipe for problems. Even basic issues like "Does it make sense in this context?" are skimmed over as you point out.Kirti Vasheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-49647046009286603442014-06-02T16:39:05.291-07:002014-06-02T16:39:05.291-07:00This is my last post for now.
First, judging the ...This is my last post for now.<br /><br />First, judging the the quality of translation by the terminology consistency is a weird choice of metric. Second, comparing the quality of large projects produced by MT and a bunch of probably poor human translators is very misleading. I have an idea about how these large projects are managed by the agencies who undertake them, and the results just reflect it.<br /><br />Having a 1 million words project translated "overnight" is not a translation problem, it is a managerial problem. There are limitation to anything, even to what machines and technology can do, so one should plan a project accordingly. If you come up with unreasonable demands and budget for a translation project, it is not a translation issue that can be resolved by applying the right technology, it is a managerial problem of those who treat translation as an afterthought. This is why in one of my above comments I called the "language barrier" a semi-artificial problem.<br /><br />There are already orders of magnitude more low quality translations being produced every day than good ones. This is not an indication that the world demands low translation quality, nor a translation problem. It is a human problem.<br /><br />The short-term financial benefits for the technology lobby are what they are and somewhat speculative. The long-term costs of poor translation, however, are very real. The damages of the increased use poor language over the past 15-20 years are only now starting to become evident and their long-term costs are yet to be determined.Shainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-47141735603225754192014-06-02T16:19:08.600-07:002014-06-02T16:19:08.600-07:00"...but you are likely to find that it is mor..."...but you are likely to find that it is more difficult than you imagined and that steering these systems requires a lot of work and expertise that is not really translation related."<br /><br />The same is true about translation, and this is part of the problem. In my opinion, part of the effort of the technology lobby is aimed at shifting the type of expertise and experience required (and paid for) from those of "traditional" translators an into the IT world. If MT will get more traction in the commercial world, I believe that all the claims about cost-effective solution, etc. will be thrown out-the-windows and be replaced with claims that this service requires a lot of resources, technical expertise, etc.<br /><br />You can see similar trends happening already with the general moment to the cloud, and how past promises and claims are gradually being back tracked from.Shainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-76404640139151701732014-06-02T16:11:14.686-07:002014-06-02T16:11:14.686-07:00I don't mean any disrespect, but please allow ...I don't mean any disrespect, but please allow me to be blunt. Parts of the technology/agencies lobby have declared war on the translation profession; not you, not the technology itself, and not all - but large, or at least vocal, parts did. They don't do so because they have a true solution to better the world, they do so for short to medium-term financial gain. They have devised a semi-artificial problem and not offer a "solution" for it, a solution that only relatively few need in a commercial environment.<br /><br />There is no trust whatsoever between professionals and technology developers/advocates, and don't see how it can change. The damage is already done. When you first strike, while showing contempt to the profession and service, and engage in unethical practices just because you are will funded and connected, there is no place left for discussion because there is no trust and sometimes not even basic respect.<br /><br />eMpTy Pages is, for example, the only MT-related blog/platform that I participate in without being censored, without being personally attacked by being called an ignorant self-serving Luddite or dinosaur with no clue about anything; without me, my expertise, and profession being constantly insulted by people who are themselves the ignorant; or without getting replies in the line of "MT is here to stay, deal with it or die". So, I don't even think that the technology lobby is really interested in any form of discussion. Personally, there are some people and outfits that I will never engage in any discussion with because I have no respect for them as people, I actually despise them.Shainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-15119373557192530172014-06-02T15:54:02.301-07:002014-06-02T15:54:02.301-07:00I was absent from the conversion for a while, sorr...I was absent from the conversion for a while, sorry about it.<br />I will comment briefly (also down the page).<br /><br />It is obvious that MT has a demand among private users browsing the web. I always claimed that the best use and application of MT is for content discovery purposes. However, when I commented about the significance of the number quoted by Google I meat two things:<br />1) The amount of content being translated by MT does not necessarily come on the expense of the amount of content translated by professionals, and vice versa.<br /><br />2) The number alone is meaningless - even if you assume that it is true. What about some details about how it is broken down? What type of content was translated? How much duplicate content it contains, how much has been "forcefully" translated by Chrome and other implementation of MT? What about the satisfaction level of the users?<br /><br />Just throwing around numbers is a poor and transparent attempt to influence perception by using social proof.<br /><br />Also, maybe, just maybe, the recent change of heart of some - and few at this point - investors who are now backing out of their investment in commercial MT "solutions" (although they are moving to support some "human automation" platforms, which is just as silly if not more) signals that are also starting to understand that the commercial value of MT is far less universally applicable than what they were led to believe.Shainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-50927354208369526502014-05-26T05:00:24.467-07:002014-05-26T05:00:24.467-07:00If you have a long list of countries and language ...If you have a long list of countries and language names to translate, will you really want to translate it manually, looking up names in the dictionary? I for one would hate to lose my time like this when I can have it translated by MT and then put through post-editing in a fraction of time it would take to do manually.Roman Mironov - Russian translation providerhttp://www.velior.ru/blog/ennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-37449154482448430912014-05-22T23:06:12.588-07:002014-05-22T23:06:12.588-07:00My reference to MT producing “better” output than ...My reference to MT producing “better” output than humans was related to some very specific use cases that I think are worth clarifying and detailing here, as I am not saying that MT in general produces better translation than humans.<br /><br />We have been involved in several projects where there has been high volume 500K to 1M words+, very technical and terminology rich domains ( automotive, technical engineering and data center information technology and infrastructure). We have received very specific and very carefully measured quality feedback from end-clients who remarked that the MT based work was more consistent and terminologically accurate than historical TEP production of the same type of project. This was across several language pairs including English to Spanish, Chinese, French and Slovenian amongst others. We have noticed that several different clients have remarked without solicitation that a recent large translation project seemed to have “noticeably higher quality” and asked what had changed in the production process. Terminological consistency can be challenging to maintain over large projects where many translators are involved and subject matter expertise may vary by individual but this is an area that MT excels in – ensuring that terminology is consistent and normalized across a large translation project. Many enterprises dealing with technically complex products will value this kind of consistency over grammatical and linguistic style superiority that humans are more likely to produce.<br />Kirti Vasheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-51613940053029656592014-05-22T12:51:15.462-07:002014-05-22T12:51:15.462-07:00Knowledge technology got stuck at processing of ke...Knowledge technology got stuck at processing of keywords. And as long as scientists fail to define meaning in a natural way, there will be no significant progress in MT.<br /><br />Just to help scientists:<br /><br />Intelligence is the ability:<br />• to group what belongs together;<br />• to separate what doesn't belong together;<br />• to leave out what is no longer relevant;<br />• to learn from mistakes;<br />• to plan future actions;<br />• to foresee the consequences that the planned actions will have.<br /><br />Semantics / meaning is a subset of intelligence, defined by the first three abilities: grouping, separating and omitting knowledge. And grammar provides us clues how to group knowledge that belongs together, how to separate knowledge when it doesn't belong together, and to know when knowledge is no longer relevant.<br /><br />But because current techniques have been developed without foundation, we have to redo most research done in the past 60 years. I've already made a start. It is open source: http://mafait.org . <br /><br />By Menno Mafait<br />Menno Mafaitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-2414052427671791852014-05-21T16:27:15.032-07:002014-05-21T16:27:15.032-07:00Mr. Vashee,
I will take some time to reply, as I ...Mr. Vashee,<br /><br />I will take some time to reply, as I will reply with... an article I started drafting in reply to your comments. It's a good opportunity to share with you why MpT is obviously, not so obviously and subtly negative for transltors.(Should you not know).<br /><br />And of course "we just see the world differently," or I would have invited you to head a chapter in IAPTI and/or you would have offered me a job with AsiaOnline. We represent different sides of a fact. That does not make as enemy, only two human beings with conflicting interests.<br /><br />By the way, I still "owe" you a reply re MpT offering better results than real translation. I did not forget, but I will reply here before that.<br /><br />AuroraAurora Humaránhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12904768139226633598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-81094275373122392572014-05-21T10:46:57.618-07:002014-05-21T10:46:57.618-07:00Victor,
For any translation job that a translator...Victor,<br /><br />For any translation job that a translator does for a client, they have to send back target text at least. This makes it very straightforward for a client (agency or enterprise) to build TM whether the translator actually provides TM or not. The more efficient clients organize TM so that future work in the same general area has some possibility to leverage historical translation work. So I am not sure how you could prevent this, especially since most clients claim to own the TM.<br /><br />With PEMT work, the biggest complaint is often the kind of errors that need to be corrected. Editors do not enjoy mind-numbing work that is repetitive and mindless. The professional use of MT as far as I know is always attempting to get MT to a level that reduces this aspect of PEMT as much as possible.<br /><br />MT makes most sense when there are ever growing volumes of information or when there are new kinds of content that would not be translated without MT, that require very rapid turnaround. One of the things I point out in this post is that when you have a zero-sum game view of the world, MT is viewed as a threat. But if you see that this enables new kinds of content (which is growing in volume) to be translated then it is also an opportunity to get new kinds of work.<br /><br />There are many translators who want nothing to do with MT but there are also others who see it as new kind of tool that can aid productivity and provide competitive advantage and want to develop more competence. I still believe that the best MT systems are yet to come and will come from informed translator feedback and engagement. But as our conversation shows we have much to cover in terms of learning to communicate better. In this case bringing about change and communicating is even harder because so many have said that computers will replace humans in the past. Some at Google still do. <br />Kirti Vasheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-34078149599145152162014-05-21T07:41:16.657-07:002014-05-21T07:41:16.657-07:00Victor
I am not suggesting that manuals have no i...Victor<br /> I am not suggesting that manuals have no importance - I am only saying that their relative importance has changed (i.e. reduced) and I have gone into some detail on this in previous posts. Global enterprises generally tend to pay great attention to any thing that involves security and legal risk even though nobody may read them. Legal agreements also tend to have a much longer shelf life thus getting it perfect is much more important. Even Microsoft who uses raw MT extensively for knowledge base content uses HT for security and legalese. But these companies are also finding that information that they have less control over,e.g. in social media is having a huge impact on their traditional business communication models. This is something that the translation industry or even the marketing departments of global enterprises do not control but have to adapt to. Many Info Technology companies are finding that users are producing better support material than they are and that often other users prefer these materials to corporate product material. I do realize and agree that documentation remains important for those who refer to it when they need it. Also most countries require that some documentation always be provided but we do see a shift away from static paper content to much more dynamic content on the web that changes based on use patterns and customer feedback.Kirti Vasheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-59901559038981727062014-05-21T02:42:15.348-07:002014-05-21T02:42:15.348-07:00Kirty, I am also intrigued by the final point in y...Kirty, I am also intrigued by the final point in your comment - the ditching of proper translation methods because "nobody is reading manuals".<br />I agree that very few people read manuals systematically from beginning to end (I certainly don't). But when I refer to a manual, I want to find accurate instructions for dealing with a specific problem, and if manuals are written and translated according to your "don't care because nobody will read them anyway" principle, then this is a lost hope (except that by an accident of biography, I happen to be a native speaker of the one language that is more often given a reasonable translation).<br />Incidentally, the one type of content which is even less read than manuals is the legal mumbo-jumbo in the "terms and conditions". But here, I have not yet seen a serious argument for the approach "machine translate it and hope for the best". Perhaps you would like to integrate this into your "nobody reads it anyway" theory.Victor Dewsberyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18342577630994069368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-8396947907551948352014-05-21T02:31:05.073-07:002014-05-21T02:31:05.073-07:00Oh dear, Kirty, you seem to be shooting yourself i...Oh dear, Kirty, you seem to be shooting yourself in the foot in your latest reply to Aurora. She makes a very valid point - that it does not make business sense for a translator to donate TMs or MT output to somebody else's database, because this merely reduces the translator's future earning potential while handing over the economic benefits to someone else free of charge.<br /><br />Your argument based on the reduction of dumb errors is the typical hot air from the MT industry that I and others have complained about for a long time. <br /><br />It is no better than the TAUS moral-blackmail-daylight-robbery argument, which roughly suggests that translators should donate their TM/MT material to a Big Brother Database for free, because this is for the common good of humanity as a whole, and if this accelerates an erosion in the translators' future earnings, then that is all the better because it means that the rest of humanity can get a better deal on translation services. It is a theory of business suicide by the few (= translators) to benefit the human race. And just incidentally, someone somewhere will then own the Big Brother Database and charge others (including the altruistic translator) for the pleasure (???) of using it.<br /><br />In the article you claimed to be arguing for the interest of the translators and bilingual editors, and your response to my comment even seemed encouraging. But now it seems that the tower of bricks which you are building with your hands is all too easily pushed over by other parts of your anatomy.Victor Dewsberyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18342577630994069368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-16826404770349569722014-05-21T01:08:37.130-07:002014-05-21T01:08:37.130-07:00Aurora
I am not sure how you can avoid giving TM...Aurora <br /><br />I am not sure how you can avoid giving TM back. When you send back a translation - are you not in fact sending back the target side of source material given to you, which is easily integrated and built into a TM by the client or LSP?<br /><br />The whole point of post-editing MT and recycling it is to reduce the number of dumb errors so that editors focus on real linguistic issues rather than correcting dumb computer errors. Computers can only get it correct if it is very similar to previous segments and generally there are always some linguistic errors that are very hard to overcome no matter how much feedback you provide. One view of this is that this re-cycling of PEMT is logical to reduce future mindless work, and another is that it is using your effort to take away your future work.<br /><br />You could play with Moses as it is easily available today and control it all if you so choose but you are likely to find that it is more difficult than you imagined and that steering these systems requires a lot of work and expertise that is not really translation related. <br /><br />As I said there will be some or many translators who will choose to stay away from MT, but there will also be some who will see that MT is just another tool to avoid doing repetitive, mechanical work. The best translators rarely need to work with MT because they handle translation problems that MT does not do well and they also work at very high efficiency levels. But a lot of business communication material is well suited for MT because it is rapidly changing, short shelf life stuff that loses value very quickly. It is not worth real in-depth translator attention because of this rapid loss of value to the final consumers of the material. But perhaps we just see the world differently.<br /><br />We are already seeing more and more data that suggests that corporate websites are becoming increasingly irrelevant and not trusted for providing accurate information. This will affect what material gets translated and also will affect how it will get translated if it is well understood by the corporation that nobody is reading manuals for example.<br /><br />Thank you for your comments.Kirti Vasheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-61088189510474876932014-05-20T17:42:58.957-07:002014-05-20T17:42:58.957-07:00Mr. Vashee,
Kindly delete my previous comment as...Mr. Vashee, <br /><br />Kindly delete my previous comment as it included a wrong link. My comment below is the valid one.<br /><br />Thank you very much,<br /><br />Aurora Humarán<br /><br />Same as translators should not offer discounts based on the use of CAT tools, they should never post-edit for third parties. <br /><br />If I decide to invest in a Trados license, I am the one to profit from it, and will feed noboby's TM (but mine).<br /><br />If I decide to invest time or money on MpT, I am the one to profit from it, and will feed nobody's MpT (but mine).<br /><br />But this is better explained (confessed?) by CAPITA: "Machine translation technology is improving all the time and the translations are becoming more accurate and sophisticated. The amount of editing required of a human translator will gradually decrease and this approach to translating will become more and more cost-effective," or by yourself, Mr. Vashee, here: http://www.asiaonline.net/EN/Resources/Articles/IntroductionToYourMTDepartment.aspxAurora Humaránhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12904768139226633598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-38272935593251772652014-05-20T16:14:37.531-07:002014-05-20T16:14:37.531-07:00Victor -- This is good feedback for all the techno...Victor -- This is good feedback for all the technology developers and sponsors to hear. It is quite striking to see how the wrong terminology for the work performed, the skills required, and conflation of roles can create so much confusion. I think if we all did this better it could greatly alleviate much of the misunderstandings.<br /><br /> I think it is in the interest of anybody (bilingual editor) involved in doing PEMT work to clearly set guidelines on several of the parameters you mention and just as you would reject translation jobs that are unreasonable in terms of the remuneration/effort ratio I think translators can define some key parameters for MT related work as well. Translators should refuse to work for low rates on low quality MT output -- as that is exactly how sponsors will be forced to develop better systems. What is acceptable is very unique to each PEMT editor and some will have lower tolerances and there are many gifted translators who will choose to not engage. But I am hoping that translators/editors learn how to tell MT system and output quality before they draw conclusions as there in fact win-win scenarios possible.Kirti Vasheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-20400083342767633042014-05-20T05:44:52.150-07:002014-05-20T05:44:52.150-07:00Kirty, thanks for your admission that "post-e...Kirty, thanks for your admission that "post-editing is not suitable for everybody". To my mind, this is a first step towards clearing up the massive confusion in the terminology used. But I would go further:<br />1. Translation and bi-lingual editing (a.k.a. PEMT or traditional "proofreading") are DIFFERENT jobs with DIFFERENT skill sets. Some agencies and most language technologists fail to understand this difference, and this is one of the causes of the frequent misunderstandings and aggravations in this dialogue.<br />2. In some cases, the skill sets of "translation" and "editing/proofreading" overlap. Therefore, many translators are happy to accept proofreading and editing jobs as an extension of their work. But it is unhelpful to assume that this is always the case. At the very least, it wastes time - for example when I have to write back to an agency telling them that I don't offer proofreading, and they then have to look for someone else.<br />Here, it would be helpful if you adjusted your own terminology. The people who handle PEMT jobs are not translators (at least not while they do this work), they are bi-lingual editors or proofreaders. In some jobs you would like them to have translation skills and qualifications to augment their editing work, but please stop speaking of PEMT as a normal task for translators.<br />3. It is counter-productive to take someone with a highly developed skill set in one area (translation and an excellent writing style) and ask that person to ignore what they do best, and to repair an imperfectly written text instead.<br />4. The literature on "PEMT" speaks of the different levels of quality needed in the edited text. For the basic level ("good enough" or similar) you don't need a qualified translator, you just need someone with a reasonable level of writing competence in the target language and a reasonable grasp of the source language. This could be someone who is not confident enough to handle "real" translation work.<br />5. This grading system for levels of editing should be reflected in the job description and the remuneration. For a proper editing job to executive standards, including a thorough retranslation of problematic passages and stylistic revision of clumsy phrasing, you should probably expect to pay more than for a straight translation job. For a general once-over for plausibility to achieve a standard that is "just about good enough", the remuneration will presumably be lower.<br />6. As you point out, translators usually use TM systems and sometimes even MT engines in their normal work. But the workflow involved, and the economic framework, are completely different from MT/PEMT. When I translate, I have my own reference resources, including my own TM and occasional reference to dictionaries, on-line MT resources etc., and I determine which resource I use on a sentence by sentence basis. In a PEMT system, a single automated production method is used for the whole text, and the editor then has to evaluate the automated translation as a whole.Victor Dewsberyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18342577630994069368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-78873732089574476362014-05-19T09:55:46.609-07:002014-05-19T09:55:46.609-07:00Thomas
The contrast presented by these examples i...Thomas<br /><br />The contrast presented by these examples is given to make two different points.<br /><br />1) That for many people MT is useful as a substitute for real translation. Thus, while MT is imperfect we have evidence that many (millions) find it useful. Generic users on the internet are information consumers who have to deal with a language barrier. They are often the customers that global enterprises wish to communicate with. Their growing acceptance of MT suggests that MT has utility in general as a way to communicate with global customers, even though it is clear that a machine attempt at translation is rarely if ever as good as a human translation. The speed and ease of doing it have very high value for millions.<br />2) To improve the odds of making MT useful to translators or professional translation purposes much more care needs to be taken to get MT output quality levels higher, so that professionals are not forced to discard the MT as useless. Generic MT may often have no value to translators since it is so far off the mark but customized MT can be useful. Microsoft has documented that millions of users provide feedback saying that they find raw MT from customized systems of technical knowledge base data useful. Most of these "translated" articles would never pass any kind of professional translation quality check.<br /><br />I think you will find that I have been consistent over time through various posts on this blog as 1) suggests MT in general is useful 2) Customization makes it useful for professional use.Kirti Vasheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-31730246130444198402014-05-19T02:08:46.174-07:002014-05-19T02:08:46.174-07:00"This article very plainly states this http:/..."This article very plainly states this http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/google-now-translates-as-much-text-in-a-day-as-human-pros-can-in-a-year/256409/"<br /><br />- You and other advocates of MT don't forget to mention everywhere how a customized adjusted MT system, tailored to specification/project/language needs, is crucial on one hand - and then on the other you don't mind to count in whatever inadequate and not customized MT output from Google Translate/Bing?<br /><br />I think better consistency would make your statements more trustworthy than purposefully mixing apples and oranges.Tomas Moslerhttp://www.englishczechtranslator.com/blognoreply@blogger.com