| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53] > | Ten common myths about translation quality
|
|---|
| | | It's a business decision | Jul 22, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
This site discriminates against non-natives translating into their non-native proficient language. So there is a lot of pent up anger against this site with regard to this issue, which pours out into the forums at he drop of the hat.
If proz.com stops restricting access to jobs on the basis of native language, all this passion will dry up the very next day.
I wish that day would come soon.
This is the way Proz is built. Though some of us may consider it a community, it's actually a business.
Therefore Proz will set its rules unilaterally, being fully entitled to do so. They may use marketing acumen to adjust their policies in order to attract more customers, like any business should do. However there are no customer-elected representatives to prompt their management on what to do.
Proz has chosen to give translation outsourcers the freedom to discriminate translators on some criteria, regardless of whether they make any sense.
For instance, I've received an EN-PT job notification that precluded me from bidding, because the poster had obviously mis-clicked on 'native speaker of Polish' as an essential requirement.
Proz allows the 'must have Trados' as a classic and often challenged essential requirement, even when the job is about translating handwritten docs, or script-less video for dubbing.
Requiring applicants to live in a specific geographic area definitely makes sense for most interpreting jobs, however it is allowed on translation jobs as well. Again, I have received a notification of an EN-PT job, requiring applicants to live in China, a likely mis-click.
If properly used, such constraints may be a time-saver. If everyone were allowed to bid, this could require more work. Imagine this (fabricated) example:
Dear Translator,
This job requires a truly native Brazilian. I can see from your CV that you were born in Argentina, and moved to Brazil at age 20, so most of your education was in Spanish.
Dear Client,
Yes, I was born in Buenos Aires, however my parents are Brazilian, and we spoke Portuguese at home all the time. My mother was a Portuguese language teacher, so she made sure I had access to Brazilian reading and educational material.
Dear Translator,
You got it right, educational material. This project involves translating junior high school material in Biology, so we are looking for someone who once in their lifetime took this very subject in a Brazilian school.
It's easy to see that this quibbling could go on and on, wasting precious time.
So it's not Proz who is discriminating on anything; Proz is just giving translation outsourcers the option to do so... or not!
| | | | Balasubramaniam L. 
India
Local time: 15:16
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | But Jose, that is equally bad, isn't it? | Jul 22, 2013 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
... it's not Proz who is discriminating on anything; Proz is just giving translation outsourcers the option to do so... or not!
Proz.com is not really helping outsourcers when one of its features (the native-only button) keeps qualified and talented translators from approaching them with their quotes. It is actually harming them, because in many cases a better qualified or better experienced non-native translator who is proficient in the target language would be able to do a better translation for the outsourcer, than a native translator.
So by preventing such translators from bidding on the job, proz.com is restricting the options for the outsourcer to a few less capable native translators.
The truth is, the native only button is one of the many ill thought out features of the site which should be retired as soon as possible as it will be to the benefit of everyone concerned - the outsourcers (who will get access to more translation talent), the non-native translators proficient in their target language (who will find more jobs opening up for them), the native-translators (who will have to improve their translation skills as they can now no longer bank on the native-only tag to fetch them juicy jobs), and to proz.com too (as it would become a less discriminatory and more facilitating site for all its translator members, which would encourage more translators to pay up the subscription fee).
So retaining this native-only button is a bad business decision for proz.com too.
That this irksome button propagates the myth of only natives being able to do a proper translation in their language, and that the button is grossly misused by outsourcers by routinely clicking on it even when the nature of their job does not call for its use, are additional reasons why the button should go.
[Edited at 2013-07-22 12:34 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:46
Hebrew to English
| You're missing the point Bala | Jul 22, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
So by preventing such translators from bidding on the job, proz.com is restricting the options for the outsourcer to a few less capable native translators.
Proz isn't preventing anything, the outsourcers are when THEY decide to stipulate it, and they have every right to do so.
If you feel so aggrieved at this "injustice", why don't you just do what everyone else does - lie about your native language?
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:46
Portuguese to English
+ ...
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The truth is, the native only button is one of the many ill thought out features of the site which should be retired as soon as possible as it will be to the benefit of everyone concerned - ...to native-translators (who will have to improve their translation skills as they can now no longer bank on the native-only tag to fetch them juicy jobs)
I can't imagine many would object to the "native only button" being removed. I can say it makes not a jot a difference to me. Let the outsourcer decide what they want. I wonder, however, if you can please explain why native speakers of the target language would have to improve their translation skills. Pray tell what makes you believe they have sub-standard translation skills?? I'm very puzzled.
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 15:16
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The point, Ty, is this | Jul 22, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
So by preventing such translators from bidding on the job, proz.com is restricting the options for the outsourcer to a few less capable native translators.
Proz isn't preventing anything, the outsourcers are when THEY decide to stipulate it, and they have every right to do so.
By providing that tantalizing button to click, proz.com is abetting the outsourcers' decision (made out of ignorance or indifference) to exclude qualified non-native translators who are proficient in their target language from bidding for their jobs.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:46
Hebrew to English
| You don't respect outsourcers very much, do you? | Jul 22, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
That this irksome button propagates the myth of only natives being able to do a proper translation in their language, and that the button is grossly misused by outsourcers by routinely clicking on it even when the nature of their job does not call for its use, are additional reasons why the button should go.
[Edited at 2013-07-22 12:34 GMT]
You don't respect their right to stipulate the requirements they see fit for THEIR work and to stream only the candidates that meet the criteria and you don't respect their intelligence enough for them to know the implications and ins and outs of making this decision, who are you to say that the nature of their job does not call for its use?
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:46
Hebrew to English
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
the outsourcers' decision (made out of ignorance or indifference)
So I was right.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 15:16
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The beginner natives would lack it | Jul 22, 2013 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The truth is, the native only button is one of the many ill thought out features of the site which should be retired as soon as possible as it will be to the benefit of everyone concerned - ...to native-translators (who will have to improve their translation skills as they can now no longer bank on the native-only tag to fetch them juicy jobs)
I can't imagine many would object to the "native only button" being removed. I can say it makes not a jot a difference to me. Let the outsourcer decide what they want. I wonder, however, if you can please explain why native speakers of the target language would have to improve their translation skills. Pray tell what makes you believe they have sub-standard translation skills?? I'm very puzzled.
I am glad we have found something here to agree upon - doing away with the natives only button. I hope that proz.com too would be noting this consensus.
Regarding the other point, beginner native translators would have far less translation skills than experienced non-native translators who are proficient in their target language. The latter any day would produce a better translation than a rookie native translator or a native with poor language skills (believe me, there are many natives like that in all languages).
[Edited at 2013-07-22 13:16 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Well, it's Proz's business decision | Jul 22, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
But Jose, that is equally bad, isn't it?
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
... it's not Proz who is discriminating on anything; Proz is just giving translation outsourcers the option to do so... or not!
Proz.com is not really helping outsourcers when one of its features (the native-only button) keeps qualified and talented translators from approaching them with their quotes. It is actually harming them, because in many cases a better qualified or better experienced non-native translator who is proficient in the target language would be able to do a better translation for the outsourcer, than a native translator.
So by preventing such translators from bidding on the job, proz.com is restricting the options for the outsourcer to a few less capable native translators.
The truth is, the native only button is one of the many ill thought out features of the site which should be retired as soon as possible as it will be to the benefit of everyone concerned - the outsourcers (who will get access to more translation talent), to non-native translators proficient in their target language (who will find more jobs opening up for them), to native-translators (who will have to improve their translation skills as they can now no longer bank on the native-only tag to fetch them juicy jobs), and to proz.com too (as it would become a less discriminatory and more facilitating site for all its translator members, which would encourage more translators to pay up the subscription fee).
So retaining this native-only button is a bad business decision for proz.com too. [Edited at 2013-07-22 12:29 GMT]
Bala,
(which means both 'candy' and 'bullet' in PT)
Conceptually (as I tried to show with my example) it should cause no problem, as long as all translation outsourcers and/or their PMs knew exactly what they are doing. Otherwise, such sine qua non requirements would hold as much water as, say, having blue eyes, driving a Ford, smoking Marlboros, etc.
So blame the outcome on judgment-impaired translation PMs. I'd give a 'not guilty' verdict to Proz on this. As I'd rather avoid being hired by unreasonable clients in order to prevent later trouble, Proz is actually helping me to do so, albeit involuntarily.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 15:16
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
Ty Kendall wrote:
... who are you to say that the nature of their job does not call for its use?
It is always safe to keep dangerous toys and gadgets away from the hands of those who don't know how to use them.
And yes, I don't have a very high opinion about outsourcers who cannot distinguish who is better between an experienced non-native translator proficient in his target language and a newbie native translator raw in his translation skills.
I am not at all a fan of the idea of putting outsourcers and their PMs on a pedestal and worshiping every little word they utter as gospels of truth and every little action they do as highly worthy of emulation by everyone concerned.
I believe that as a translator who understands his trade well, it is also my burden to educate PMs, fellow translators, outsources as well as sites such as this on what appears to me to be detrimental to all concerned.
[Edited at 2013-07-22 12:59 GMT]
| | | |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
will be doing possibly 6+ years of studying (apart from the Scottish) in view of the HUGE cost attached to that? You'll be regretting it for the rest of your life.
It's probably cheaper to go to Russia or Poland and enrol in a university there (provided you understand enough of the language). I'm not confident that will happen any time soon, though.
There are two aspects to this: those who argue for native speakers target only forget that some language pairs either have very few of such translators or that there are aspects of these languages that are so treacherous that you should be, as Lukasz (?) says, a native target genius who can just 'catch' things in the source without really knowing them. You cannot teach these things and you cannot learn them by studying, you have that linguistic talent or you don't.
Well, those two geniuses I mentioned were a Pole and an English person, each of them translating in both directions, but I mentioned them specifically because they were able to understand Polish legal texts and translate them properly. I also knew an Irish lawyer once, who was brought up here, wrote spotless Polish and would probably make a good translator (but I'm pretty sure she makes much more, elsewhere, sorry for the pun).
Those who argue for non-native speakers (particularly in the rarer languages) are aware that the target will not be totally 'native' and won't flow xas a native would write it,
Depends which native. Not everybody who is a native speaker and writes, for a living or otherwise, can beat a talented foreign speaker. A lot depends on the field also. Legalese, academic writing, marketing, PR, press... sure. But translating a piece of fiction into a foreign language, with flowery descriptions of the landscape down to reflects of the sun in a puddle in the dirt of the road, is something that taxes me heavily, stresses me a lot, and I can't be 100% sure of the result. I definitely am not a Joseph Conrad. Then again, I'm probably not stellar at it in my native Polish, either (just slightly more prepared to spot and avert a blunder). Heh, this is another reason to think that the L1 rule is too simplistic.
BUT they think fidelity to the meaning of the source is more important.
Yeah, I'm disappointed with the disregard for the source in general and comprehension in particular in modern linguistics. It is parallel with the condescending attitude of some philologists towards mere competence in a language.
Particularly in intricate and difficult languages or languages where certain aspects are too difficult for most mortals to understand (sometimes even source natives)
Whatever the language (including English), it takes a smart, talented and educated native speaker (and in this order) to understand nuanced speech. But some languages are indeed more difficult than others.
it seems to me to be pretty straightforward to at least value both non-native and native target translators on their FIDELITY and not on their nativeness.
If transcreation is what you're after, you probably want a native speaker, per average. On the other hand, for faithful translation you may need a native speaker of the source, or perhaps an old-school translator without a nonchalant attitude. In PLEN, whichever language is the source or target, I frequently become dismayed with linguists' inability to encode or decode the nuances of register or complex syntax or grammatical choices. Frankly, when I see someone with plenty of education, degrees etc. and he can't even keep the register, fails to understand the emphasis conveyed by sentence order, or decids to omit an important part of the message or insert risky additional information begotten of his guesswork... I get depressed, and the world stops being a nice place. I feel like I can't trust anybody. I really do have this attitude with regard to PLEN. This said, PLEN can't be unique, especially given how Polish linguists tend to have more education per average than elsewhere in the world.
My husband and I both believe there is a very vague line between a bad native target translator and a very good non-native target translator.
Non-native translators probably don't achieve complete perfection, but I think some can achieve excellence. At any rate, I'm pretty sure it's possible for non-natives (target-wise) to be above average in their pairs.
What is the most important in this whole issue? That the text is properly translated (the ideas and style in it) or that it flows properly? Essentially, you can make it flow properly by using a good native target editor.
Yeah, or in some cases just a proofreader, depending on the nature of issues that are more likely to surface in that particular non-native speaker's writing. At any rate, you typically need an editor to make any translation offered by a native speaker of the target language flow really well, so the difference isn't overwhelming.
Once a text has been badly translated, it's a bad translation, full stop. Whether it flows properly or not.
Yeah, that's the 'fine' point the L1 rule fails to appreciate.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:46
Hebrew to English
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
And yes, I don't have a very high opinion about outsourcers who cannot distinguish who is better between an experienced non-native translator proficient in his target language and a newbie native translator raw in his translation skills.
Who says this dichotomy is what they are faced with? It's pure fantasy Bala. How, by eliminating non-native speakers are they restricting themselves to newbies natives? And if they opened it up to non-natives, why would there only be experienced ones applying?
There's no logic to this path you're going down Bala.
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 15:16
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Naturally you would prefer to err on the side that benefits you | Jul 22, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
And yes, I don't have a very high opinion about outsourcers who cannot distinguish who is better between an experienced non-native translator proficient in his target language and a newbie native translator raw in his translation skills.
Who says this dichotomy is what they are faced with? It's pure fantasy Bala. How, by eliminating non-native speakers are they restricting themselves to newbies natives? And if they opened it up to non-natives, why would there only be experienced ones applying?
There's no logic to this path you're going down Bala.
However, it is easy to understand your logic. By keeping out the talented non-natives, you (by which I mean natives, not Ty specifically) improve your chances at getting the job. So this is laudable and exemplifies the wisdom of the outsourcers. But, opening up the job to all qualified translators (natives and non-natives) demonstrates unequivocally their foolishness, as it would also attract the incompetent non-natives. That the former method attracts a lot of incompetent natives does not trouble you.
Does this take you along a smooth and logical path, Ty?
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:46
Hebrew to English
| Ok, let's just stop now... | Jul 22, 2013 |
Agree to disagree, it's getting personal.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:46
Hebrew to English
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
However, it is easy to understand your logic. By keeping out the talented non-natives, you (by which I mean natives, not Ty specifically) improve your chances at getting the job. So this is laudable and exemplifies the wisdom of the outsourcers. But, opening up the job to all qualified translators (natives and non-natives) demonstrates unequivocally their foolishness, as it would also attract the incompetent non-natives. That the former method attracts a lot of incompetent natives does not trouble you.
Does this take you along a smooth and logical path, Ty?
Just to note - neither the "natives", nor I am "keeping anyone out", the outsourcers are!!!! (and the outsourcers aren't necessarily natives of the target language!)
[Edited at 2013-07-22 13:19 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Ten common myths about translation quality | 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 » |
| | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
