Agency pays 1/6 of actual time spent

Maria Teresa Borges de Almeida wrote:

When I started freelancing some 40 years ago I had some awful editing experiences that taught me to never accept a project without having a good look at it first...

Lingua 5B wrote:

I can see a lot of loose attitude and terms here…”maybe”, “they seem to”, etc.

You need to stipulate stronger terms, this is a business relationship, not a friendship. It sounds like you are improving AI, doing MTPE or cleaning very bad test translations, which is all very tiring. This tiring factor also needs to go into the price, along with the # of hours.

When you emailed them about this, what did they reply? Personally, I would politely withdraw.

Frank van Overveld wrote:

They called it proofreading but this is the job description (sensitive info censored with XXXX)

🧩Notes for linguists:
- Please use informal for NLNL, and formal for NLBE
- For XXXX, all product names should be kept in English. XXXX specific terminology should not be used as a reference for XXXX translations.
- Please use double quotation marks!
- Please make sure to double check all UI instances (read the instruction files)
- In case of queries: Please ask your query at the relevant segment in XXXX, then report in the comments in XXXX: 1. Segment number, 2. Question asked.
- - Regarding alt-text: we will always specify so in the instructions if it needs to be translated, and the final word count will include this text. In those cases where we don't include such a note, the alt text can remain as it is, especially if we have already marked the affected string as reviewed. This is the case for those images whose alt text is the name of the file.
REV only - Please do not approve segments in XXXX!
REV only - Scorecard: Please always add the language pair and for the Evaluator, you can just add XXXX.
Remember to add comments to the scorecards, not only the error and correction, so she understands what the error is about. Please ONLY log changes made to strings translated by us, the strings that are only for review in all projects shouldn't be added to the scorecard.

As you can see, this is not a simple proofreading, but a revision of a translation with very detailed instructions, including a style guide and UI interfaces and a Help Center that must be checked online to verify terminology.

They also specified adding detailed feedback to help the translator improve.

From what I understand, the agency I work for receives this work from another agency. So they are at the bottom.

It seems to me that they are more or less tied to whatever this other agency is paying them.

However, right now it is me that is paying the price with my time to carry out this work to professional standards according to the job description.

I have indeed reached the point where I am ready to take legal action if they do not pay for the work actually delivered.

They are now "discussing" my request for clarifications on the initial compension amount offered.

You are right I should have asked for clearer terms.

However, it's like I have to do this very often whenever they offer a job, because they don't provide the compensation amount or allocated time. I asked them specifically to do that about 2 months ago. I don't understand why that is so hard. It seems management is poor.

Frank van Overveld wrote:
this is giving me an opportunity to assess their integrity.

Samuel Murray wrote:

This type of LQA does have a certain speed that "everybody" assumes about it. From my experience, it's about 1000 words per hour.

Samuel Murray wrote:

You have my sympathy. I'm sure I know what had happened.

The client has a legal requirement to do a translation with an LQA round (revision in which errors are classified by type and severity) for quality control. The client gives the job to agency A (which deals with all European languages) and gives them a budget. Agency A contracts agency B (which deals with Benelux languages). Agency B sends the translation to agency C (who has a Dutch translator) and the LQA to agency D (who also has a Dutch translator). Agency C can't find their usual translator and so they hire a complete newbie off of the internet. The translation is terrible, but agency C doesn't know that, or perhaps they suspect it but their profit margins are so thin that they don't care. The reviser from agency D now has to do three hours' work in half an hour. Agency D's hands are tied... there is no way they can get six times as much money from agency B, and the bad translation isn't even their fault. Agency C might be penalized for part of the payment, but they won't be required to pay anything extra (and the main thing agency C is concerned with is that they prevented agency B from discovering a new, more reliable partner).

This type of LQA does have a certain speed that "everybody" assumes about it. From my experience, it's about 1000 words per hour. So, if the word count is 1000 words, you can assume they'll pay for 1 hour and they're expecting you to invoice for 1 hour (regardless of how long it actually took). Revisers are forced to bend their principles about what are considered "errors", depending on how bad the translations are, because you only have 1 hour. Revisers thus take a risk that their agency clients will receive complaints about the end-product that is the result of them not fixing all of the things that would normally be considered errors.

You mention 1600 words per hour, but there is no way to do an LQA at 1600 words per hour unless there are no more than 5-10 errors. The bulk of the time is taken up not by the revision but by copy/pasting text into the spreadsheet, selecting options from the dropdown list, and writing comments.

Charlie Bavington wrote:



I appreciate you would rather keep working with these people under a decent set of terms & conditions. And times are tough.

However, they are clearly not that keen to keep your services if they are maintaining a tough stance over 2.5 hours of time.

I'd be grateful the dispute is only a matter of what, €100 or so? And it seems counterproductive to spend far more than 2.5 hours of time to secure payment for 2.5 hours of work when the relationship has, it seems, turned sour.

I think I'd send a final invoice for 3 hours work (not 30 mins), maybe add a note referring to your discussions with them and the fact you feel 3 hours is fair, and forget it. If they reply insisting you change the invoice, then change the invoice and move them into your "ex clients" folder. Like I say, it could be a lot more money they are stealing from you next time. They have no integrity to assess.

Frank van Overveld wrote:
However, this time they handed it to an amateur and gave it to me to fix the mess.

[Modifié le 2023-12-22 11:19 GMT]

Lingua 5B wrote:



We typically refer to this as scam.

Particularly problematic because, in the middle of a mutually beneficial relationship, they hired an amateur behind your back, trying to save money, and when the amateur failed, then trying to serve it to you to fix the mess using poker tricks. Very, very problematic. Your having second thoughts on the basis of “but they used to be fair” is also slightly problematic.

The least they could have done was to inform you about a shift in their project management model in advance, ie. “cheap amateur followed by a qualified proofreader who will work cheaply if we hypnotize them with poker tricks and hold them hostage”, kind of model. This model was in their sight since the beginning of your relationship, it’s just that you were not aware of it. They were just looking for the right moment to shift and start saving money.

I once had a direct client like this. Their managers, extreme politeness, extremely high rate, extremely great feedback on my work. It was going on for a year or two and then one day, out of the blue, I was sent a mess done by somebody else to clean at cheap rate. But since I saw this scam a thousand times, I knew immediately what to do and that was not to comply, like you did. I offered them work from scratch at my regular rate instead and explained why.

Frank van Overveld wrote:

I'm still giving them the benefit of the doubt as I really think it's more incompetence than bad intentions, but this is their last chance.

Charlie Bavington wrote:
My key tip would just be: don't spend more than 2.5 hours trying to get paid for 2.5 hours. Otherwise you can easily end up losing 5+ hours of money.

Frank van Overveld wrote:

So this will be the last revision job I've done for them unless they change their approach.

Wishing everyone happy holidays and a successful 2024.

[Modifié le 2023-12-22 18:42 GMT]

Christopher Schröder wrote:

Although quite how you’d spend more than 2.5 hours firing off a few stern emails I don’t know…