| विषय में पृष्ठों की संख्या: < [1 2] | Are we cheating ourselves by using analysis tools? विषय पोस्ट करनेवाला व्यक्ति: Heinrich Pesch
|
|---|
Heinrich Pesch 
फिनलैंड
Local time: 23:37
सदस्य (2003)
फिनी से जर्मन
+ ...
विषय आरंभकर्ता
Pablo Roufogalis wrote:
And there's nothing to discuss, those tools are here to stay.
I agree about that. But do you think that those tools must necessarily reduce our income by counting less?
100 kg is always 100 kg. But there were times when every town had it's own system of measuring.
Now if some firm, let's say a meat factory, would suddenly install balances, that show sometimes 95 kg, sometimes 82, 65 or whatever, but never ever 100 kg, what would happen? Would cattleraisers leave it at that? Or would they call the police? (or maybe shoot the guy?)
And of course the police would confiscate these balances and there would be a trial.
But in our business some have put in place such faulty balances in the form of text analysis tools, and got away with it.
Strange world, this world of self-employed translators, don't you think?
| | | | Pablo Roufogalis (X)
कोलंबिया
Local time: 16:37
अंग्रेजी से स्पेनी
I did work years ago for a company that asked for the work to be done in Word, but would count words for payment purposes using an obscure word processor that for one reason or other counts fewer words that the Microsoft product.
And the rates were already exploitative. Most labourers there were recent graduates that live at home and were happy to have some coins in their pocket for a weekend date.
Now if you have the skills for doing the job and also for self-marketing... See more I did work years ago for a company that asked for the work to be done in Word, but would count words for payment purposes using an obscure word processor that for one reason or other counts fewer words that the Microsoft product.
And the rates were already exploitative. Most labourers there were recent graduates that live at home and were happy to have some coins in their pocket for a weekend date.
Now if you have the skills for doing the job and also for self-marketing, you eventually stop doing work for these companies and leave them behind. A bit of luck doesn't hurt.
[Edited at 2005-02-18 13:12] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Pablo Roufogalis (X)
कोलंबिया
Local time: 16:37
अंग्रेजी से स्पेनी
Heinrich Pesch wrote:
Pablo Roufogalis wrote:
And there's nothing to discuss, those tools are here to stay.
I agree about that. But do you think that those tools must necessarily reduce our income by counting less?
snip
Strange world, this world of self-employed translators, don't you think?
It is only natural that the tools change the nature of the work and we don't have to like it. All my work is boutique-like, as I am unable to do translations as mass-production, even if I wanted and even if the rates don't allow for more. It's a curse.
Maybe the ones that will survive are those that are able to do a good-enough job faster and cheaper, taking advantage of all the existing tools, including cheap labor from deprived countries. Technology is key for that and it includes TM software and things we can only dream (or fear) about for team- and machine translation.
This world is indeed strange, and what shocks me more is that many do not see it a a business and act accordingly.
| | | | Marc P (X)
Local time: 22:37
जर्मन से अंग्रेजी
+ ...
Heinrich Pesch wrote:
100 kg is always 100 kg.
My printer confirmed today my order for business cards. I quote:
"10% Mehr- oder Minderlieferung sind nach den Geschäftsbedingungen der Druckindustrie zulässig."
Marc
| | |
|
|
|
| As always, it's a matter of educating the client... | Feb 19, 2005 |
I'm still quite new to Trados, but I've tried Deja vu and another CAT that a client believes in.
They have their place, and they are useful tools. For some texts or documents they do take the drudgery out of translating endless repeats.
Even in my more 'reader-friendly' texts, the concordance function is very useful and will improve as the TMs grow. I'm looking forward to learning to use Multiterm properly, but have not got that far yet.
We simply must make... See more I'm still quite new to Trados, but I've tried Deja vu and another CAT that a client believes in.
They have their place, and they are useful tools. For some texts or documents they do take the drudgery out of translating endless repeats.
Even in my more 'reader-friendly' texts, the concordance function is very useful and will improve as the TMs grow. I'm looking forward to learning to use Multiterm properly, but have not got that far yet.
We simply must make clients understand that for a start it costs money and time to buy a CAT and learn to use it. After that, it improves quality, but does not necessarily save time. So we have to be paid for delivering the quality they demand.
To get back to Heinrich's original question about numbers...
We who into English have to change all decimal commas into decimal points and all the points into commas.
Then I have to proof read the figures three times to be sure there are no mistakes. It calls for concentration...
Besides, I have to check all dates, sometimes even calling the client to be certain. Writing 04.03.05 is ambiguous, and how to translate it depends on whether it was written by a Swede, a Dane, an American or a Brit... and which target group this person was writing for!
I'm no good at figures, but you can't trust Trados on that sort of thing either. Luckily my regular clients understand this, so there is hope.
My Trados and training day were useful, but have not not paid for themselves after three months, so the only thing to do is to explain to clients that if they demand Trados and pay peanuts they will get a translation done, if not by a monkey, then by Trados unaided!! (I'd love to try sending one!)
In some cases a separate charge for proof reading might be appropriate.
{0>Happy translating! God fornoejelse! ▲ Collapse
| | | | | you're the bean counter and they | Feb 20, 2005 |
Heinrich Pesch wrote:
But in our business some have put in place such faulty balances in the form of text analysis tools, and got away with it.
Strange world, this world of self-employed translators, don't you think?
Heinrich, it seems to me that you've gotten it into your mind that a nefarious software company has deliberately hoodwinked all of us and managed to have its tool become the industry standard for metrics and you, perhaps recently smarting from having to give in to these "tricks" and play hard ball that didn't go your way, are now rallying forces to opposition.
I don't know the intricacies of intra-company dealings with Trados but I, too, early on realized that we're at the losing end if we accept Trados fuzzy rates as standard measures having an impact on our daily bread. No one will probably know for sure why the analysis function was designed, and for whose principal benefit. But, indeed, it has been perverted by many - prominent agencies some of them - to the detriment of the freelancer.
However, if you read Marc's and Ralf's contributions carefully, you will conclude that YOU are the bean counter. It took me a while as well to realize this blaringly simple fact: just say no and make a counter proposition of bean counting.
My standard reply: if it can be demonstrated that the text is not repetitive (some legal, pharmaceuticals, medicine, for example), Trados fuzzy rates are futile and discounts based on them are economically detrimental.
Caveat: if the client provides a TM for a seemingly non-repetitive text and where fuzzy matches may be established between new and old segments, then I would probably agree to the usual 75%-60%-45% (or some such scale) fuzzy rate discount.
If Ralf will allow me to paraphrase him (poorly): the freelancer is the prime mover who establishes the method of calculating target income based on metrics which covers all his costs and yields profit, and simultaneously satisfying client requirements of cost reduction.
So the next time company OUTTOGETCHA proposes to pay you 10c for 95% and above, have a look at the text first. Ask: is it really repetitive? (many machine manuals are - I've had hundreds of those). Yes or no? Make your decision. No one is being hoodwinked in this transaction.
Marcus
[Edited at 2005-02-20 12:46]
| | | | Heinrich Pesch
फिनलैंड
Local time: 23:37
सदस्य (2003)
फिनी से जर्मन
+ ...
विषय आरंभकर्ता | Thank you all, esp. Marc and Marcus! | Feb 20, 2005 |
We freelancers of course can decline the proposition of a client and make a counter proposition. That's what concsious people would do. In our real world though, we can assume, that most of us did not realise these differences between CAT-tools and the analysis funtions I mentioned. At least I have never seen this mentioned in comparisons between these tools.
I could be wrong though.
Many of us believe the word of an outsourcer and dare not to correct low estimates because of fear ... See more We freelancers of course can decline the proposition of a client and make a counter proposition. That's what concsious people would do. In our real world though, we can assume, that most of us did not realise these differences between CAT-tools and the analysis funtions I mentioned. At least I have never seen this mentioned in comparisons between these tools.
I could be wrong though.
Many of us believe the word of an outsourcer and dare not to correct low estimates because of fear the project would be awarded to someone else.
Some international body should look into this matter and outline a standard, and perhaps there is already something done in the EU-commission. The EU as the place where most translations take place would be the most natural candidate.
I'm going to digg into this matter through my association and directly through my MEP.
Regards
Heinrich ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Standards and calculation methods | Feb 23, 2005 |
Heinrich Pesch wrote:
Let's take this piece of text:
When I use Word's statistics function, I get: 402 characters, 77 words.
With Wordfast analyse I get: 397 characters, 76 words
With Trados WB 6.5 I get: 329 characters, 76 words (so if I go with the Trados analysis I would charge the customer 18 % less than according to Word's statistics).
Now I understand why agencies prefer Trados over Wordfast.
Is that what we translators want? Why do we go with it?
Hold on.
First of all, I'm not following your maths here - I'm getting a -1.3 percent deviation in word count, which is what all billing of Trados translated documents should be based on. No major cheating, but only a slight aberration. (The number of characters is shown for informational purposes only and, by the way, matches the number of chars without spaces.)
I don't think the whole norm line calculation scheme makes sense, anyway, because it is a covert character calculation scheme. And the number of characters has, in my opinion, much less relevance for the amount of work involved in getting the translation done than the number of words.
As I stated in this topic, the MS Word count simply does not reflect the number of words to be translated - because it was probably never intended to be used for that purpose.
On the issue of TM systems excluding numbers from the count, there seems to be a lot of confusion:
Simply put, numbers inside text segments are counted and paid for by your client. Only if the segment contains nothing but numbers, it is excluded from the count, as you don't even have to touch this segment upon translation. (And therefore, Workbench will skip it, anyway.)
I think the reason why there is no standard for calculating translation costs is that there is no standard for what a translation is. Or a source text. No two texts are the same and thus every text might require a different approach to calculating the price.
Regards,
Benjamin
| | |
|
|
|
Klaus Herrmann
जर्मनी
Local time: 22:37
सदस्य (2002)
अंग्रेजी से जर्मन
+ ...
| I'm in favor of de-regulation | Feb 24, 2005 |
Heinrich Pesch wrote:
Some international body should look into this matter and outline a standard, and perhaps there is already something done in the EU-commission.
I'd rather use my discretion and common business sense to accept, counter-propose or decline an offer than having the EU regulate another aspect of my business.
| | | | Marc P (X)
Local time: 22:37
जर्मन से अंग्रेजी
+ ...
| I'm in favor of de-regulation | Feb 25, 2005 |
Klaus Herrmann wrote:
I'd rather use my discretion and common business sense to accept, counter-propose or decline an offer than having the EU regulate another aspect of my business.
Klaus,
A standard, if used properly, would further regulation. Translators and their clients would be free to apply it or not. A DIN standard already exists governing the translation process, but the EU hasn't regulated that we all apply it.
Some people believe that standards are regulation by the back door; I prefer the view that a lack of standards is confusion by the front door.
Marc
| | | | Heinrich Pesch
फिनलैंड
Local time: 23:37
सदस्य (2003)
फिनी से जर्मन
+ ...
विषय आरंभकर्ता | Standards would guide the software vendors, not us | Feb 25, 2005 |
If software vendors cannot agree on common protocols, as it seems in this case, a standard would just level the ground.
Then the quality of the software (ease of use, sophistication) would matter most, not any price calculation scheme.
Alas, I hear currently the EU is not preparing any standards for CAT-tools.
Regards
Heinrich
| | | | Marc P (X)
Local time: 22:37
जर्मन से अंग्रेजी
+ ...
| The EU and standards | Feb 25, 2005 |
Heinrich Pesch wrote:
Alas, I hear currently the EU is not preparing any standards for CAT-tools.
Heinrich,
The EU doesn't prepare standards. The EU doesn't really do anything, in fact, but the European Commission, which is responsible for most of what "the EU" gets up to, doesn't prepare standards, either. It commissions standards in certain areas, in support of EU directives, for example in order to protect public safety. CAT tools are unlikely to be the immediate subject of an EU directive, so the Commission is unlikely to mandate a standard for it.
Even so, there is nothing to stop a standards body, you, or anyone else from drawing up a specification for CAT tool metrics. If it is public, anyone would then be able to use it, and if it were to find widespread acceptance, it might become a de-facto standard even if it has no political backing. A standard serving as a point of reference doesn't automatically have to be a regulation which everyone must follow.
Marc
| | |
|
|
|
Manuela Ramalho (X)
Local time: 22:37
स्पेनी से पुर्तगाली
+ ...
| I also agree with you , Marc and Heinrich. I do not work with Trados. | Feb 26, 2005 |
Mark Xiang wrote:
This is the very subject I was thinking to raise!
Just a few days before, an agency used Trados to cut its 3000-word project to a 1500-word job! I declined the job. I do not use Trados. If there is really large quatity of repetition, I will negotiate it with my client and we will agree upon a word number. If my client want to count out the repetition by using Trados, I will double my word rate.
In my opinion, Trados is not for freelancers. It is for AGENCIES!!! And many peers in my pair say it does not help much.
Mark
| | | | | 1.000 = 1,000 | Mar 21, 2005 |
Heinrich Pesch wrote:
100 kg is always 100 kg.
Yes, but "1,000 kg" in English is the same as "1.000 kg" in Dutch! And that means that numbers DO have to be translated in some language combinations, even if both languages use the same metric system. So IMHO, there's no reason to give discounts for numbers.
Joeri
| | | | | विषय में पृष्ठों की संख्या: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Are we cheating ourselves by using analysis tools? | 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 » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
