Re: [dejavu-l] Re: Client not happy I used Google Translate
- View SourceHm. Interesting. Wonder if www.cheatingtranslators.com/ is using this as a ploy to get good translations into their database or what.
Roy2012/4/26 steven.marzuola <marzolian@...>
Perchance did your client see this site?
When I saw it last year, I tried to track its creator and argue that "cheating" was not a fair description. But he never responded and I see it's still up.
--- In email@example.com, "elizabeth_dezoysa" <elizabethdezoysa@...> wrote:
> Has anyone had negative feedback from clients about using Google Translate? I recently completed a small job for a highly-reputable agency I work for and used Deja Vu, of course using Machine Translate. The raw translation was very good, I spent my time polishing the translation in other areas and returned it for proofreading. The proofreader was happy, inserting a few hyphens here and there and then the job went to the end client. However, the end client translated the document themselves using Google Translate and compared it with my version. I provided a robust defence, especially as my own translation was flawless except that I inserted an unnecessary space in the name of a company.
> However, the agency is now asking me for a full refund. As the job was very low value, it isn't a problem but the principle has major ramifications as I do the majority of my work using DVX2. I'm loathe to give a full discount. I think it would be reasonable to offer a discount for the one mistake I made, i.e. inserting an unnecessary space in the company name, which was silly but should really have been picked up by the proofreader.
> Any views?
NO-1354 Baerums Verk
Mobile: (47) 996 46 797
Home tel.: (47) 67 80 19 66
- View SourceAt 20:11 30/04/2012, Michelle wrote:
>Are you trying to say that it is better not to trust GT? :-D
>Those who use GT should remember also that when GT sends a
>"translation" it asks whether the person receiving it wants to
>"improve" it. I suspect many do. Although not all so-called
>"improvements" really are that.
GT's very untrustworthyness is what makes it so useful for
professional translators. In the hands of anyone without an excellent
knowledge of their subject and good language skills, GT can be a very
dangerous tool, whereas we are in the position to reliably take
advantage of its power to speed things up and help with research.
And while some of GTs unreliability (to make an understatement) might
be due to the "improvements" you mention, most of it is due to the
fact that while the technology is amazing...it's still just not that
good. It's still no replacement for an human being with expertise,
despite its advantage in speed and memory.
Here is an example of my latest GT result:
"Another aspect that emphasizes the separation of the lateral bodies
than the central band is the bricks with which it is treated the top
of the first, while the hoof, which gets up to two meters from ground
level, runs smoothly throughout the building."
Sometimes I get near perfect results (kind of scary), and sometimes I
get a gem in amongst the gibberish (happily added to my
TDBs--confirming a term based on subject knowledge is generally much
faster than finding it yourself). And sometimes, as in the example
above, there are no gems, most of the terms are wrong, it makes
little sense, and yet GT still speeds things up by giving me a
structure to start dictating from, based on my understanding of the
original sentence and on the terms I know or have stored in my databases.
Your milage may vary. In any case, in case it is not clear to
everyone on this list, GT only asks people for "improvements" when
providing translations from their website. DVX2 DOES NOT sends our
translations to Google.
Happy May Day,