tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post7177720265026821533..comments2024-03-17T23:13:48.762-07:00Comments on eMpTy Pages: The Expanding Translation Market Driven by Expert Based MTKirti Vasheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-81620803837567907372014-07-09T09:39:49.733-07:002014-07-09T09:39:49.733-07:00If MT is so useful for productivity, can't the...If MT is so useful for productivity, can't the translator purchase an MT tool and use it to reap the benefits of productivity at his/her normal rates?<br /><br />Why should an agency force a translator to post-edit its MT output, that too at much lower rates?<br /><br />Why should the translator pass any potential MT cost savings to the agency?<br /><br />What value does the agency that sends out text for PEMT editing add, besides running the source text through an MT Tool and passing it to the translator?Anil Gidwaninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-84175406455152673332014-07-09T09:38:12.717-07:002014-07-09T09:38:12.717-07:00I had actually mentioned the German version of Mic...I had actually mentioned the German version of Microsoft help as a more or less positive example for good (= effective and useful) machine translation . However, Phil Hand replied that the Chinese version is painfully horrible, so who knows ...<br /><br />However, Microsoft Help is in many ways the polar opposite (relatively expert authors, relatively formal style, huge bodies of highly relevant professionally written parallel texts and professionally translated texts, subject-specific, purely utilitarian function, comprehensive professional glossaries) of an offering of something like "post-edited MT for user reviews" - even if a lot of the Microsoft content is user generated.<br /><br />However, if you have solid empirical market research in your hands that post-edited MT translations at TripAdvisor & Co. produce sales then there's not much sense in my speculating about whether or not consumers' behavior corresponds to what I consider logical.Michael Wetzelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-48105298094982657022014-07-09T09:33:52.059-07:002014-07-09T09:33:52.059-07:00Kirti Vashee wrote:
Also many of the best MT syst...Kirti Vashee wrote:<br /><br />Also many of the best MT systems are private and do not publish samples, and vendors are not allowed to share these systems.<br /><br /><br /><br />This is part of the problem... Without proof, nobody is going to believe you... are you surprised that most translators are against it? The proof of the pudding is in the eating...Giovanni Guarnierinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-90399839924447624852014-07-09T09:31:35.278-07:002014-07-09T09:31:35.278-07:00The problem is that this is not "translation&...<br />The problem is that this is not "translation"... it's "post-editing". So, translators will have to adapt to do a job which isn't their main job - the job they have studied for - to survive or earn more money (if that will be the case - which I doubt)...<br /><br />There might be more demand, but for a different type of job...<br /><br />Also, you are missing the point a bit... I agree that PeMT in some cases will increase translators' productivity, but that should be our choice - to use it or not to use it... when unscrupulous LSPs "force" bad MT on us, reducing the rates to increase their profits, we are supposed to take it and be happy? Not in a million years...<br /><br />At the end of the day, MT and PeMT are promoted by LSPs as a tool to increase productivity and save money... they will increase their revenues by passing some of the discounts onto their clients by simply paying the post-editors less...<br /><br />Unfortunately, after the CAT tools fiasco, translators are more and more wary of tools that should help do our job better, with better quality, but they are just used by LSPs to force the rates down and increase their margins... nothing wrong with the technology per se (and I include MT in his too), but not when it's used to make fat wallets even fatter...Giovanni Guarnierinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-63931479158197990722014-07-08T16:51:37.165-07:002014-07-08T16:51:37.165-07:00Many other factors stimulate translation demand, b...Many other factors stimulate translation demand, but yeah, this is big too, imo.<br /><br />If people who demand translation services are more sensitive to better price-quality combinations available on the market as a result of MT aides, relative to how sensitive is the larger total capacity of the aggregate translation industry as a result of MT, then it is entirely possible that there will be a higher total volume of workable hours with wage increases across the entire wage distribution (although this could hide some specific winners and losers). <br /><br />Stated more easily, if the demand response to better price-quality combinations afforded thanks to MT is greater than the supply response of translators (who can then translate more words per hour at any given quality level with these technologies), then most translators stand to gain from technology, so long as they can maintain their relative position within the industry (but even if not, they could still gain).<br /><br />This is before considering that old players probably keep their clients as long as they deliver. <br /><br />So probably there aren't many losers at all. And there are likely to be many winners. <br /><br />Perhaps one day we will all wonder how it was that free and nearly perfect computer translation was just not the natural way.<br /><br />But in the decades or millennia between now and then, this industry will grow for a very long time.<br /><br />I think a primary advantage of MT that I hadn't thought of is if an organization regularly produces updated statements/releases, etc. in many languages, that MT would help to make turnaround faster in translation, and thus improve marketing/communications coordination and turnaround.<br />njweatherdonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-9879776435819741972014-07-08T15:14:18.008-07:002014-07-08T15:14:18.008-07:00@ Michelle Kusuda: My view (which may not be sha...@ Michelle Kusuda: My view (which may not be shared by other MT advocates) is that MT is a data transformation and linguistic data engineering process whose intent is to approximate "translation" as most translators would define it. It will by definition always fall short, and thus MT + Post-editing is an attempt to bring it closer to real "translation". It (PEMT) is ONLY useful if it helps work get done faster and is ACTUALLY useful to getting a translation project done more efficiently. MT is however, more than a dictionary. When there is real collaboration between the developers of the data transformation (MT) engines and the editor/translators who perform the post-editing services it can produce positive outcomes not only for the buyer of the translation services but also for the editors and translators involved. Much of the distress in the use of MT comes from incompetence in the development process, especially with incompetent do-it-yourself Moses efforts, and from agencies who try and abuse editors/translators ("with offers of low pay for horrible work" ) who do not understand the process and the technology. As more people begin to understand the technology, hopefully this will happen less and MT will take a place on a translator workbench as simply another tool that can sometimes be useful. We are still in the early days of professional use of MT as we are only now seeing it move from the role of free online utility for random internet users, to a professional translation production tool for high volume repetitive content. Most of the do it yourself development is not especially competent so it can be very painful for the editors and translators involved.<br /><br />@ Michael Wetzel User generated content is exactly the kind of content that MT can do reasonably well, as spelling errors, abbreviations and text acronyms like (LOL) can all be “learned” or listed in MT “dictionaries”. Remember the goal here is not a perfect human quality translation. MT will enable some level of “translation” or gist to be available for material that simply could not be translated any other way – because of sheer volume and timeliness reasons. Many hotel and product user experiences which heavily influence new customers behavior are translated by sites that encourage or provide platforms for these kinds of purchases e.g. TripAdvisor, Holiday Check etc.. Hundreds of reviews are going up every minute. There is very definite evidence that shows that these “translations” are good enough to influence what hotel reservations are made, and in the case of use case scenarios like technical knowledge base data (Microsoft) solves technical problems that would otherwise go to a tech support engineer (who is a much more expensive and slower problem resolution alternative). Thus as terrible as these “translations” may look to a professional translator, they actually work for many hundreds of thousands of consumers, and do in fact enhance international market customer experiences.<br /><br />@ Giovanni Guarnieri : Unfortunately, we are in a phase of evolution of this technology, where many agencies do use MT to simply push the rates down with little or no utility for the editors who have to clean up incompetent MT engine development. If translators learn to tell a bad MT engine (from the kind of output it produces) from a good engine they can then choose to work only on projects that offer 1) fair and reasonable compensation and 2) work that is not mind-numbing and tedious. More translators have to refuse bad PEMT jobs based on a real understanding of the specifics. But for now much of what you say is true so translator beware. Also many of the best MT systems are private and do not publish samples, and vendors are not allowed to share these systems which may ONLY work for a very specific domain and target style. The best ones can be so good that after some post-editing the final output is no different from what a standard TEP process would produce. I provide much more detail on these issues on this blog <br />Kirti Vasheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-24866234836161052342014-07-08T09:32:39.505-07:002014-07-08T09:32:39.505-07:00[quote]Michelle Kusuda wrote:
...Before it was giv...[quote]Michelle Kusuda wrote:<br />...Before it was given the improper name of Machine Translation.... [/quote]<br /><br />First let me say that I only skimmed the original post, because life is indeed too short, but I think Michelle is making an important point here. The whole taxonomy surrounding the issue is inaccurate. "Machine Translation"<br />is not really translation at all. The most common form, statistical MT, simply involves calculation of word/phrase alignment frequency in a bilingual corpus. So in some respects it is like an electronic dictionary, in that it's just a tool that can aid a human translator. Although I would argue that stat MT is more flexible, powerful, and useful. It's somewhat like an automatic, recursive concordance search.<br /><br />"Post-editing" also seems like an inaccurate term. A human is still needed to read the source text and make a judgment about what the best translation is. That function comes rather close to the definition of "translation". Perhaps you could argue that it's a question of degrees and that if the MT output only requires light editing, or the client only cares enough to pay for light editing, then the "post-editing" stage is less like translation and more like review or editing. The problem is that it still requires the translator to read the source text (keeping in mind that it was not actually translated by a human) and make a judgment based on translation expertise, which is the real value that the translator provides.<br /><br />I am definitely not anti-MT, but I think this unfortunate taxonomy (which we are probably stuck with) will make it even more difficult for some clients to understand our value and the nature of what we do as translators. I use MT regularly in some of my work, not any of the free public services, but engines that I've trained myself using my own TMs and other previous translations. In some cases it slightly increases my productivity, and I pass along much of this efficiency as cost savings to clients. Hopefully there will be enough good clients out there who understand that if MT is really going to increase productivity, they will automatically see the benefit in lower costs, because after all, freelance translators have to compete with one another.<br /> There is no need to try and sell the so-called "post-editing" process as something new and different from translation.<br />Patrick Porternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-68549414192847872602014-07-08T09:27:27.026-07:002014-07-08T09:27:27.026-07:00I'll tell you why the majority of translators ...I'll tell you why the majority of translators oppose MT and PeMT... they are just seen as a tool to reduce translators' rates and increase LPSs' profits, just like CAT tools. Just give me a decent output and a fair rate and I won't have any complaints...<br /><br />You also have to remember that you are asking professionals to help develop a system that will replace them to a certain extent. As I said, if we are paid fairly, that wouldn't be a problem, because there wouldn't be a drop in income. Some colleagues might refuse altogether because - let's face it - it's an inferior and demeaning task in comparison to translation... if all the "players" behaved ethically, it would be here to stay. But the big corporations are only interested in making money. Do you really think they care if blog or social sites' contents are translated or not? They sell lies to their clients, promising inflated and unrealistic gains in productivity, with all-encompassing systems that don't exist.<br /><br />Until we get to see a good, viable system, we will oppose it. I haven't seen one yet... I wonder why.<br /><br />Giovanni (Biscuit on your blog..above)Giovanni Guarnierinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-86009450611900393642014-07-08T09:15:32.386-07:002014-07-08T09:15:32.386-07:00I read in a magazine that machines are now as good...I read in a magazine that machines are now as good as humans to recognize faces in a crowd, whatever the angle and facial expression. But the process to achieve this between a human brain and silicon is radically different.<br /><br />"Those algorithms work statistically on an exhaustive representation of information, without any actual reasoning behind it." (Science et Vie, free translation)<br /><br />Big data being the current big thing and all, I thought it suited MT perfectly: texts that don't need reasoning can be processed with MT with good results, just like face recognition.<br />But put a hand on a cheek or mouth and the computer fails. Humans do succeed.<br /><br />To keep the parallel, translators will keep the publishing areas where texts are not simply strings of letters and require reasoning to be translated.<br /><br />Václav Pinkava wrote:<br />...In the past, it would "pay" to cut down the source word count, by getting the author involved before translating.<br />Translating made sense with no MT, at a higher rate per word, if each word carried more weight.<br />Crafsmanship all round...<br />Less was more.<br /><br />Why be concise and quickly to the point if we can have it all machine-translated? A scary thought.<br /><br />PhilippePhilippe Etiennenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-13647797567857349442014-07-08T09:11:11.338-07:002014-07-08T09:11:11.338-07:00I agree with everyone else that has replied regard...I agree with everyone else that has replied regarding your content-to-volume ratio.<br /><br />And I understand that it would be great if MT could be applied to social media, user reviews, etc. But: OMG MT LOL RU4 real? With the possible exception of classical poetry, I can't imagine anything less suited as material for MT than social media and user reviews: rambling texts filled with slang, allusions, omissions, linguistic mistakes, typos, misused terminology, etc.<br /><br />I am not fundamentally opposed to MT and think that there are a lot of things that it can do better (also in terms of quality) than humans. I also agree that MT is capable of producing new markets in addition to taking over existing markets, and I think you've made an important point there.<br /><br />Personally, though, I have to question the expertise of any self-proclaimed MT expert who sees the key in post-editing instead of pre-editing/controlled language and - just because he has recognized the existence of a genuinely enormous market - starts rambling on about applying MT in a market that it has nothing to offerMichael Wetzelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-1903204906486796912014-07-08T09:06:17.832-07:002014-07-08T09:06:17.832-07:00Michelle, you are quite mistaken about MT as your ...Michelle, you are quite mistaken about MT as your definition provides an additional type at a more basic level than what I have explained in this video which I created last week:<br /><br />The different types of Computer Generated Translation<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po0mEXwl9Dk<br /><br />Bilingual electronic dictionaries are another type of tool and every MT company I have worked for and know of has fought to make the separation distinct, including a very hot round table debate at AMTA1998 which led to the creation of the 16 versions of the Compendium of Translation Software.<br /><br />And there is still another type of MT (Knowledge-based semantics) which is a bit more complicated.<br /><br />Hopefully this video will demystify the fuzzy definitions of MT which keep floating around in the professional translator community, and among other industries as well.<br /><br />JeffJeff Allennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-69845573380983098202014-07-08T09:05:02.676-07:002014-07-08T09:05:02.676-07:00I enjoyed reading your position paper. However, it...I enjoyed reading your position paper. However, it fails to analyze what exactly MT (Machine Translation) is. MT in terms any 10 year old would understand is nothing more than an electronic dictionary. It should be marketed as such and not used to scam companies and translators alike.<br /><br />By using the term Machine Translation it leads corporate buyers to assume that they can bring down the cost of translation. MT is nothing more than an electronic dictionary that can be customized to include the client's terminology. Before it was given the improper name of Machine Translation it was called a "glossary". MT is nothing more than an automated search and replace feature. The human translator still has to unscramble the results and adapt it according to context.Michelle Kusudanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-15129712568352641482014-07-07T17:56:56.333-07:002014-07-07T17:56:56.333-07:00Fascinating. My take is that there are lessons to ...Fascinating. My take is that there are lessons to be absorbed and learned by today's translators if we want to grow with the tomorrow's market.<br /><br />There are opportunities to be had but there will also be casualties among those who ignore what's happening.<br /><br />Thanks for the insights.John Fosseynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-14745719338218148092014-07-07T16:43:09.215-07:002014-07-07T16:43:09.215-07:00well written, too long, worth translating?
Stylis...well written, too long, worth translating?<br /><br />Stylish and well argued, and paradoxically apt to challenge its own point. <br />MT assisted translation of texts such as this might be considered feasible, these days. Unabridged.<br />The result might be "the gist" but wordy, without the style.<br />A poor result. But seemingly affordable, at MT depressed rates. <br />In the past, it would "pay" to cut down the source word count, by getting the author involved before translating.<br />Translating made sense with no MT, at a higher rate per word, if each word carried more weight.<br />Crafsmanship all round... <br />Less was more.<br />Vaclav Pinkavanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-28439454245846315692014-07-07T02:37:59.170-07:002014-07-07T02:37:59.170-07:00@Gert... the majority are opposed because they see...@Gert... the majority are opposed because they see it as a tool to replace them... this is obviously ignorance, but it's the general perception (same as CAT tools)... but there also translators that oppose it because they are not paid a fair rate... and this is the trend in the industry. I'm not against it, personally. <br /><br />You say you allow it and it doesn't affect the price of the job. Well, great! MT should be a tool to increase productivity without reducing the rates. Unfortunately, these days MT is "sold" as a tool to reduce rates and save money... to the clients...<br /><br />MT should be another tool - like CATs - which improve translators' output and allows them to do a better job... when you start reducing rates on the basis of it, quality is affected. We all know that. An unhappy translator works badly... Biscuithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02237300065703121378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-72169898115682513232014-07-04T02:15:32.704-07:002014-07-04T02:15:32.704-07:00I don't know if the majority opposes... I'...I don't know if the majority opposes... I'm reading the numbers from the production system I built: it registers in detail what translators are doing, and all I can say: many translators definitely boost their production speed when they pull in MT. 30% speed gain is what almost everybody gets (compared to high fuzzies). And depending on how you measure, 300% is a real boost (that is compared to translating from scratch). <br /><br />4 remarks however:<br />- I allow translators to pull MT. They decide and it does not influence the price of the job. <br />- there is a huge difference between output of MT systems, and of course, not all source documents are fit to be translated with an MT system.<br />- Speed gain does not say it all... Quality can be affected as well, but then again, if you use a defect centric quality process, MT is even helpful. <br />- Some translators are not fit for post-editing. <br /><br />Last but not least: I don't believe MT will ever replace the human translator. MT is just a useful instrument in the translators'toolbox. And even when the MT output is perfect, you will always need human translators to validate this. Gert Van Asschehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995508158749134808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-84870349449172612062014-07-03T05:22:50.717-07:002014-07-03T05:22:50.717-07:00I'll tell you why the majority of translators ...I'll tell you why the majority of translators oppose MT and PeMT... they are just seen as a tool to reduce translators' rates and increase LPSs' profits, just like CAT tools. Just give me a decent output and a fair rate and I won't have any complaints... you also have to remember that you are asking professionals to help develop a system that will replace them to a certain extent. As I said, if we are paid fairly, that wouldn't be a problem, because there wouldn't be a drop in income. Some colleagues might refuse altogether because - let's face it - it's an inferior and demeaning task in comparison to translation... if all the "players" behaved ethically, it would be here to stay. But the big corporations are only interested in making money. Do you really think they care if blog or social sites' contents are translated or not? They sell lies to their clients, promising inflated and unrealistic gains in productivity, with all-encompassing systems that don't exist. Until we get to see a good, viable system, we will oppose it. I haven't seen one yet... I wonder why.Biscuithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02237300065703121378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-29616385878915709612014-06-30T11:52:35.579-07:002014-06-30T11:52:35.579-07:00Victor, my view (which may not be shared by other ...Victor, my view (which may not be shared by other MT advocates) is that MT is a data transformation and linguistic engineering process whose intent is to approximate "translation" as you define it. It will by definition always fall short, and thus MT + Post-editing is an attempt to bring it closer to "translation". When there is real collaboration between the developers of the data transformation (MT) engines and the editor/translators who perform the post-editing services it can produce positive outcomes not only for the buyer of the translation services but also for the editors and translators involved. Much of the distress in the use of MT comes from incompetence in the development process and from agencies who try and abuse editors ("offers of low pay for horrible work" ) who do not understand the process and the technology. As more people begin to understand the technology, hopefully this will happen less.<br /><br />I agree that it would be useful to have a much clearer definition of the work so that everybody comes into this more informed.<br /><br />Perhaps this could be a future post that we (you and I ) could co-write or present in some kind of point-counterpoint format.<br /><br />Kirti Kirti Vasheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-30827443110102570332014-06-30T11:32:08.542-07:002014-06-30T11:32:08.542-07:00While it is often true that translators are not pa...While it is often true that translators are not part of the process, in best practice situations like the one used by ALT and described here<br />http://kv-emptypages.blogspot.com/2013/04/pemt-case-study-advanced-language.html translators are very much part of the process of deciding when it is ready to pass on to larger groups of translators, and in determining and setting fair rates for the work. These translators also organize the feedback to adjust the MT so that it produces better quality and does not require painfully repetitive corrective work from the editors.Kirti Vasheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-11898276880183182132014-06-30T09:36:34.411-07:002014-06-30T09:36:34.411-07:00I agree MT is not suitable for all kinds of transl...I agree MT is not suitable for all kinds of translation tasks - it makes most sense for repetitive and high volume tasks. And I do not assume that translators who do not wish to work with MT are misinformed or uneducated. PEMT is different from traditional translation work and many translators may wish to avoid it since they work in areas where MT is not a good fit or they simply do not wish to do any kind of post-editing work for other reasons.<br />Kirti Vasheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-85216978498642474362014-06-30T07:28:07.599-07:002014-06-30T07:28:07.599-07:00On the use and meaning of the terms "translat...On the use and meaning of the terms "translation", "PEMT", "editing", "translators" and "editors", we are essentially arguing about semantics. My position is that translation is the process from start to finish (i.e. the sum of the steps and skills involved in transposing the source text into the target language text), and a translator is a person who performs this process (or, according to an on-line Oxford defintion, a computer program which performs this task).<br />This process, of course, involves a number of different steps. For the human translator these steps will usually consist of information gathering from various resources, e.g. from dictionaries and other literature, databases of past work, colleague opinions, MT engines etc. These steps and resources also include proofreading and editing. These individual steps and resources are not the translation process itself, they are parts of the process, cogs in the wheel. We should not create confusion by speaking about the parts as if they were the whole.<br />A similar principle applies where MT is used as the central element in the process. The translation process is the whole shebang. This process has a number of constituent parts, one of which is likely to be the "PEMT" stage. The PEMT part of the process sometimes requires translating skills, but using the word "translator" as the standard term for people who carry out PEMT tends to promote confusion between the parts and the whole. At best, this is wooly thinking and careless use of terminology. At worst, it is a rhetorical form of NEWSPEAK which attempts to redefine the word "translator", suggesting that the "normal" translator is someone who carries out PEMT to fix broken MT manuscripts. At the same time, you admit that there are other types of translators who do not fit into this mould, although you still seem to regard this as the exception rather than the norm.<br />This is the sort of socially and economically inspired semantic shift that I have written about in a couple of blog articles:<br />http://language-mystery.blogspot.de/2010/11/still-building-babel.html (about the social and economic mechanisms of language change, by reference to the biblical account of the Tower of Babel).<br />http://language-mystery.blogspot.de/2013/05/humpty-dumpty-and-taus-quality-concept.html (about the deliberate manipulation of language in the context of the MT and translation debate).<br />Some people may be tempted to see my objections as "mere semantics", although that in itself would be an ironic footnote to the whole discussion, as if "semantics" were unimportant in a discussion between professional linguists.Victor Dewsberyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18342577630994069368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-32585986520015608062014-06-30T03:45:45.995-07:002014-06-30T03:45:45.995-07:00By the way. I want to clarify that by using the pr...By the way. I want to clarify that by using the pronoun "you" I don't refer to anyone specific (certainly not to you, Kirty), just addressing the reader this way in general as a way of expression.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282909295316996770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-65565301430725072322014-06-30T03:43:00.996-07:002014-06-30T03:43:00.996-07:00I never say never, and some might find MT useful i...I never say never, and some might find MT useful in a translator-centric workflow. But PEMT is not a translator-centric workflow, and it will never be one.<br /><br />Using the cost and complexity as an excuse to exclude translators is not a valid argument in my opinion. If you want to develop a professional tool, you need professional input and feedback, not least to understand how to design the tool to fit the professionals' workflow. Because translators are for all intents and purposes excluded from that process (while other stakeholders are not), and coupled with more than a single isolated statement about the superiority of technology over the translators, how they fear it, and the very public claims that it is intended to reduce costs by technology proponents and some who resell translation services, one can only draw the conclusion that none of this is developed as a professional tool for translators.<br /><br />The MT technology proponents are playing a double game: when speaking with translators they speak about MT as a productivity tool; when speaking with potential customers their main selling point is the claim and promise of reduced costs. They speak about the superiority of the technology, while at the same time work very hard to try affect and alter the perception of translation quality in alignment to what their "tools and workflows" can produce. They now started to claim that MT is just a tool, yet exclude the professional and show contempt to them and the profession almost on every step of the way.<br /><br />Maybe someday a trained MT engine will be used in a translator-centric workflow, and maybe some will find it useful. I never say never. But the whole tone of the conversation need to be changed. Technology developers and their associates need to understand their place in the market (they are not patrons of anyone, nor authorized to speak on behalf of the profession), and accept that many professional translators are rejecting MT on a well-informed ground. If they want to change that, show the professionals who do the actual work how this technology can be incorporated into their workflow, and how it can make their professional lives better.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282909295316996770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-47526355081419112922014-06-30T03:17:44.498-07:002014-06-30T03:17:44.498-07:00Hi Kirty, this is the full content of my first com...Hi Kirty, this is the full content of my first comment above that got cut-off:<br /><br />A couple of comments if I may, Kirty:<br /><br />- You wrote <br />>There has been much talk amongst some translators about how MT is a technology that will take away work and ultimately replace them, and thus some translators dig in their heels and resist MT at every step.<br /><br />- Well, this is exactly the message that some LTA (Language Transformation Algorithm) proponents have very aggressively promoted (and some still do; some examples in the comments above), and the approach that many have (and still do) encountered "in the wild" as part of their daily encounters with some unscrupulous agencies in certain market segments. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.<br /><br />- About the use of LTA on knowledge content: It is enough to read the original content to understand how low priority it is for this company. The original content is usually written very poorly - sometimes even on purpose to due to the use of the so-called 'controlled language' to make it MT Ready. It is probably just there for for the purpose of legally covering the company's behind. Most corporations have turned into crowd support in online fora of various kinds, in which more knowledgeable users help (usually in English) other users to solve issues, many times issues that are much more complex and deep than what the standard documentation has ever covered.<br /><br />- MT is just a tool as you say, but good and reliable tools are supposed to be developed for the professionals that will be using them, and with their input. Show me the tool and how it is used, and I will tell you for whom it was developed. Generally speaking, Translation Supporting Technology is not developed to serve the interests of the translators, nor with their input. The technology targets a different audience(s) and developed with their needs in mind. Can you imagine a medical device or new drug being developed without medical input? Can you imagine healthcare professionals adopting them if they are being used as devices to artificially increase the profit margins of the insurance companies on the expense of the healthcare professionals? Can you imagine a Law firm management software finding any customers if developed without their input, without understanding what they need, and for being used to ridicule them? Many times the Translation Supporting Technology is developed by people with little to no understating of (or respect to) the profession, with no knowledge about a truly efficient translation workflow, and without understanding what tools translators really need. This is an artificial solution to a semi-artifical problem. If "productivity" was a true concern, there are other aspects, areas, and market inefficiencies that need attention.<br />- Furthermore, most articles about MT are written for the attention of the potential clients of MT. A general tactic in these posts is to paint the translators as outdated, misinformed, uneducated, and whiny bunch that fear and fight for their relevancy against the superior technology, and therefore the clients and "smart" translators need to be saved by the technology developers and its proponents in the marketplace.<br />- If you want more translators to consider the technology, demonstrate its merit and show them how it make *their* lives constantly easier and better. How it improves their ROI, if you can that is. <br />- Translators - like any other professionals - would be the first to adopt a tool that makes their lives easier, and just as easily reject inefficient technologies. Accept that the rejection of MT by many translators is not because they fear it, misinformed, or uneducated about it, on the contrary actually, they are rejecting it because they are educated and know the ins-and-outs of their work, informed about their clients' needs (which admittedly may not be the same clients that seek the MT refuge for cutting their costs), and just don't see how MT makes their lives any better.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282909295316996770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6748877443699290050.post-87517834163096178052014-06-29T17:28:39.412-07:002014-06-29T17:28:39.412-07:00There are situations where expert MT does provide ...There are situations where expert MT does provide value and benefit to some translators and hopefully we will see more of these situations in future. But the nature of the MT development process requires scale and data volume that require it be done at an organizational level rather than at an individual translator level. It is not done this way to exclude translators -- there are in fact many who do try with Moses but that is a difficult option that requires ongoing investment of time and money. It is possible in future that technology will reach a level that makes it possible for more translators to engage at an individual level but we all understand that it will need to offer more for this to happen.Kirti Vasheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.com