Samuel Murray wrote:
Vincent Lemma wrote:
Please share your experiences and opinions.
Well, you've already taken a step in the right direction to reduce the amount of work that is required, by writing "SW" instead of whatever the full form is that "SW" stands for. (joke, sorry)
Vincent Lemma wrote:
Of course, they say, this means that jobs now are only revision and so rates applied will be that for revision on MT.
Well, that's a bummer. It means that either you diversify and become a reviser, or you look for another client. However, note that if you do decide to become a reviser, what they're asking for is NOT revising. What they're asking for is translating for a cheaper rate, using pre-inserted words that you might be able to use as a typing aid. If it is truly revising, then they should be paying you by the hour (and believe me, revising machine translation isn't much faster than just translating from scratch).
I have vast knowledge in the tech[nological?] fields (also applied) and just felt that I should not be selling my services for the cost of a revision.
Something vaguely similar happened to me: for one of my clients, I also used to be quite skilled at doing a certain type of translation, and then the client changed their workflow to something that not only reduced the amount of work I was able to do but also ignored the skill I had and tried to replace it with a convoluted QA system.
Has this ever happened to any of you...?
Yes, one of my biggest clients who used to put a high value on quality translations switched over the "inhouse" machine translation systems for most of their jobs... and the "inhouse" tool is worse than Google Translate (so... whenever I get such jobs, I'm often tempted to just use Google Translate, for it'll be quicker and better).
[Edited at 2019-11-19 12:00 GMT]
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
