| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17] > | The global TM I want... Thread poster: Felipe Gútiez Velasco
|
|---|
Nicolette Scholte (X) 
Local time: 07:07
English to Dutch
+ ...
| Ehh Oneeee, twooooo, threeee | Sep 3, 2008 |
Gabriela Mejías wrote:
Nicolette Scholte wrote:
Who wants some tea? LOL
I do!!  Almost midnight here...
Save your energy, Nicolette... better count the balloons... 
Warmly,
Gabriela
LOL, you don't need tea, you need your bed!
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 07:07
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| The question of quality | Sep 3, 2008 |
Felipe Gútiez wrote:
Will there be sufficient critical mass of top translators/revisors as to feed and maintain in top quality this public TM? ... What about specialised TMs too with restricted access? ... What about several levels of quality TMs?
I can see that you favour a TM system that can be interactively edited. I fear the amount of work required is disproportional to the amount of value a translator can get from the TM, and therefore the amount of money he'd be willing to spend on it.
This is why I proposed a system whereby quality is not measured by some internal aspect of the TU itself but through identifying its author. In a social networking setup, translators would then indicate which other translators they trust, and this would give the submitted TUs from those translators more weight. This can only be effective, however, if the TUs are shared at TM level, and not at TU level, because translators simply won't have time to grade each and every TU they use.
| | | | Nicolette Scholte (X)
Local time: 07:07
English to Dutch
+ ...
| I get what you mean | Sep 3, 2008 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Nicolette Scholte wrote:
Felipe only answers when he doesn't have to think long about the answer, even avoiding a direct question to him.
No doubt some people regard it as rude if a respondent in a thread does not reply to all questions directed to him. Other people might regard it as rude if a respondent pollutes a thread by posting trivialities unrelated to the discussion and using the thread as a vehicle for banter between those no longer interested in the original discussion.
I think there are different styles of responding in a thread. I myself answer only the questions that (a) I have time for, (b) I have an answer for, (c) I think is a valid question, etc. In my opinion, doing so keeps the thread tight and to the point.
Felipe may not have answered all your questions, but he is raising some interesting points that are still largely related to the original discussion. Your responses show that you have no interest in the original discussion yourself -- all you're concerned about is proving some tenable point of etiquette. No doubt you regard your posts about having tea as humorous, but is there anything you can offer us in terms of the original discussion or the other posts related to it?
I get what you mean yes, but to be fair, up until know he has not answered any of my questions, either gave a "calculation" that I cannot answer, or just plainly ignored me.
How can I show my interest in this topic when I gave my opinion already, stated it clearly and there was no feedback from the person of who I pointed the text at (Felipe)?
The tea thing is just some banter, I'm very sorry if it caused you to become irritated, that is not my meaning at all. Just some fun in an otherwise serious subject.
The fact that you take the time to answer, is very different in the way Felipe takes time to answer; I'm pretty sure that if I start a post with "Samuel,... " "Samuel, I do have a question for you" or any other version that you would take the time to read it and answer.
I'm pretty sure that Felipe had the time to answer, as he keeps posting other parts of his thoughts. If he doesn't have an answer to my question, please let him say so to me, sure then I'll stop asking him, the same if he thinks this isn't a valid question.
| | | | Nicolette Scholte (X)
Local time: 07:07
English to Dutch
+ ...
| Matter cleared up | Sep 3, 2008 |
Well in regards to my post yesterday regarding the anonymous email, it has been cleared up.
This gentleman send me an email this morning and explained to me what I meant. It was not an intention to tell me to "shut up" but merely the information that I should be careful with what I say. I had not understood it that way, so I hereby say my excuses to this gentleman for putting him in a difficult position.
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 07:07
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Can you explain what you mean? | Sep 3, 2008 |
Felipe Gútiez wrote:
A TM for companies up to 1000 workers? ... What about opting out big corporations for the global TM?
Erm, do you perhaps mean that big corporations should be excluded from the global TM? If so, why would that be? What benefit would it have if big corporations are excluded from the global TM? I'm afraid I don't understand why this would have any impact on any of the issues we've discussed so far.
Or are you saying that big corporations should be given the option to keep their submitted TUs somehow separate (while still contributing to the global TM accessible by all members)? Is that what you're trying to say? If so, then I think it is a good idea, but it has little to do with the size of a corporation. If a global TM has multiple users who know of each other and interact with each other, those users can simply select certain other users as "favourites" to be included in their default searches.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 07:07
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Some comments on your previous posts | Sep 3, 2008 |
Felipe Gútiez wrote:
Apparently, the failure of Logoport has been not having known how to gain a critical mass of top translators to feed and continually improve the global TM. ... Because top translators ... felt cheated by Lionbridge.
Failure? Can you provide a URL attesting to Logoport's failure?
What about a cooperative of translators, owned by translators, managed by translators? ... But we cannot do nothing without a sufficient critical mass of top translators who feed and continually improved the global TM.
You are suggesting that instead of offering the global TM (GTM) as a service that can be bought by any translator, it should be operated as an association, a club, a cooperative of translators who identify themselves to clients as "GTM translators", so that clients associate the quality of the translation not with the translator but with the cooperative as a whole -- am I right? I'm afraid few freelance translators would be willing to give up their own professional identities in favour of a giant organic entity consisting of thousands of translators.
| | | | | Medium-sized companies up to 1000 workers, for example | Sep 3, 2008 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Felipe Gútiez wrote:
A TM for companies up to 1000 workers? ... What about opting out big corporations for the global TM?
Erm, do you perhaps mean that big corporations should be excluded from the global TM? If so, why would that be? What benefit would it have if big corporations are excluded from the global TM? I'm afraid I don't understand why this would have any impact on any of the issues we've discussed so far.
Or are you saying that big corporations should be given the option to keep their submitted TUs somehow separate (while still contributing to the global TM accessible by all members)? Is that what you're trying to say? If so, then I think it is a good idea, but it has little to do with the size of a corporation. If a global TM has multiple users who know of each other and interact with each other, those users can simply select certain other users as "favourites" to be included in their default searches.
Small and medium-sized companies do not have the ressources to pay top translations like big corporations. They could be a very good target market for such a cooperative of top translators.
Top translators could be just revisors (like for example in the European Union or in big translation agencies). Medium-level translators could be the translators receiving inmediate feedback in online collaboration to questions/partial translations/.
The only way I see that top translators would agree to such a system is that they take control and they are well paid (per correction, per hour? it must be still decided)
| | | | | Why should a top freelancer give up their own.... | Sep 3, 2008 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
I'm afraid few freelance translators would be willing to give up their own professional identities in favour of a giant organic entity consisting of thousands of translators.
Let´s forget about giant and organic.
Why should professional top translators be against an entity consisting of thousand of translators collaborating in a global TM? What is wrong with it?
Is that not better than having to deal with thousands of disorganised TMs which the client (who in most cases have absolutely no idea about how a TM works or what ambiguity or homonimy means) imposed us by force now or in the future?
Would´t be better to take control at source rather than just claiming about how horrible the TMs we receive are?
On the other side I read somewhere that something that usually will be forgotten is that the translation industry is a very, very fragmented industry. And this is a very difficult problem to deal with.
| | |
|
|
|
| The problem is that you don't listen... | Sep 3, 2008 |
Felipe Gútiez wrote:
Why should professional top translators be against an entity consisting of thousand of translators collaborating in a global TM? What is wrong with it?
We are telling you Felipe, but you don't listen!!! The "problem" (I don't see it as a problem, but as part of a trustworthy service) is that we have a commitment with our customers on privacy and copyright. We have been telling you for days on end... but you simply don't listen.
[Edited at 2008-09-03 08:25]
| | | | | That's the first question I've seen that makes me think you may have a point | Sep 3, 2008 |
Felipe Gútiez wrote:
Let´s forget about giant and organic.
Why should professional top translators be against an entity consisting of thousand of translators collaborating in a global TM? What is wrong with it?
Is that not better than having to deal with thousands of disorganised TMs which the client (who in most cases have absolutely no idea about how a TM works or what ambiguity or homonimy means) imposed us by force now or in the future?
Would´t be better to take control at source rather than just claiming about how horrible the TMs we receive are?
I've been following this thread from the beginning, though I haven't contributed. Essentially (leaving aside the issue of copyright and confidentiality), I am against the idea of a global TM, due to the quality issue. However, I'd agree that a global TM compiled by a group of "professional top translators" might be less likely to be a pile of useless garbage than one compiled by clients. (Although as I'd have no control over the contributors, I'm not convinced that in practice it really would be of a higher quality - my idea of a decent translation may be very different to someone else's.)
In any case, I simply don't believe that those of us at the mid-to-top end of the market, at the very least, are going to find global TMs imposed on us. I already have a couple of client TMs to use on various projects, with instructions from the agency to "change anything I don't like because it's full of cr*p". I can't see that ever not being the case. Even if clients have no idea how a TM works, they'll soon notice when the translation they get back is full of inconsistencies of terminology and style and reads like it was put together by a dozen different people (because it was!) - and if they don't notice, they're probably bottom feeders who will never form part of my target market anyway.
[Edited at 2008-09-03 08:32]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 07:07
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| I think you are mistaken | Sep 3, 2008 |
Felipe Gútiez wrote:
Small and medium-sized companies do not have the ressources to pay top translations like big corporations.
I think you are mistaken -- you can't generalise like that. Yes, large corporations spend more money on translation in total, but that doesn't mean they spend more money on translation per capita. In fact, I suspect large corporations often spend less per capita than smaller businesses. And I doubt if the big corporations necessarily draw translators of higher quality.
From my experience (and this may differ from yours) smaller companies tend to care more for their translators, and provide better opportunities for continued improvement. The translators who work for large companies are those who couldn't get jobs at smaller companies. Smaller companies tend to pay better, too, because they realise the value of the translator. In a large company, the translator is simply an administrative burden on the profit margin. But this is my experience and it may be that it depends on various factors that I did not take into account.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 07:07
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| You're saying | Sep 3, 2008 |
Felipe Gútiez wrote:
Why should professional top translators be against an entity consisting of thousand of translators collaborating in a global TM? ... Is that not better than having to deal with thousands of disorganised TMs which the client ... imposed us?
Clients do not generally impose multiple TMs on translators for a single job. And even if they did, I doubt if translators would be willing to trade not being imposed upon for losing their own professional identity and becoming subject to the rulings of a business club.
| | |
|
|
|
| More than 4000 readings more than 200 postings | Sep 3, 2008 |
And 2 million KudoZ
Making an assessment, uhmmm.... (haciendo balance).
It seems that TM is a hot topic....
Has anyone heard about a company started as a result of a forum?
When? Where?
Everything online?
Any books about this?
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 07:07
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Tomás Cano Binder wrote:
Felipe Gútiez wrote:
Why should professional top translators be against an entity consisting of thousand of translators collaborating in a global TM? What is wrong with it?
We are telling you Felipe, but you don't listen!!!
Actually, I think Felipe's question was in reply to a question posted by me. So he wasn't asking a general question. The question should be read in the context of the post that was being responded to.
| | | | | Speed, speed, speed | Sep 3, 2008 |
A global TM should be quick too.
What is your Internet speed?
Has anyone 32 MB bandwith?
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » The global TM I want... | Pastey | Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news related to CAT tools
