| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] > | Machine Translations: Should Proz.com advertise MT jobs? Thread poster: Lingopro
|
|---|
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote: Dion Wiggins wrote:
6: There are many people that want to edit MT and are finding it lucrative. There has been a challenge with some LSPs who have not compensated properly for MT editing work and this has made translation professionals uncomfortable with MT as they feel they will not be compensated fairly. Not all LSPs are like this and many do pay fair rates. I have expressed already, I do not feel that MT post-editing is my kind of fish at present, but I sincerely thank you for taking the time to give your point of view even in the face of the present distrust towards this emerging branch of our industry. The views you shared are most interesting. I see a big need for training both for LSPs and for translators who do post-editing. Perhaps developers of MT systems should spend more time promoting this technology among translators, not LSPs only, and they would help change the perception among us translators.
If you see the new features in CATs to improve post-editing, I think the trend is pretty clear ... or I'm a little paranoid?
| | | | Abba Storgen (X)
United States
Local time: 14:05
Greek to English
+ ...
| MT translations.... | Jun 5, 2013 |
I think that at least "bottom 50%" of the market will be MT in a couple of years for quite a few language pairs. Individual users (financial blogs etc) already use it and they correct a few things themselves before publishing "translated articles".
End-clients are already asking agencies to provide them with trados discounts and they frequently ask them to edit Google translated texts (with google TMs that translators enrich continuously by using the service and by participating in ... See more I think that at least "bottom 50%" of the market will be MT in a couple of years for quite a few language pairs. Individual users (financial blogs etc) already use it and they correct a few things themselves before publishing "translated articles".
End-clients are already asking agencies to provide them with trados discounts and they frequently ask them to edit Google translated texts (with google TMs that translators enrich continuously by using the service and by participating in terminology glossary creation).
There is actually an ongoing effort by end-clients to standardize and sterilize their literature as much as possible, so that MT will work better - they are making an active effort to help agencies and themselves in reducing translation cost.
Volume available for human translators at living rates will rapidly decrease for most language pairs (especially small markets). To invest in this field today (human translation), is like buying "the best mechanical typewriter" in 1985.
Just imagine that home and business computers will have 100 times more computing capacity (and "smarts" and resources, and online "cloud" TMs) within the next 10 years or less.
So... ▲ Collapse
| | | |
First, thanks Ky for the posts.
Second, my answer would be "No".
Third:
Jared wrote:
The ProZ.com policy regarding job postings allows posts which may be of interest to language professionals.
Well I think it all boils down to the word "professionals". If I do some proofreading and the translator takes my comments to their heart (or vice versa), great, someone learned something new, and it is somehow genuine.
But how exactly is anybody's professional status fostered or improved by feeding the machines with perfect language, only to be eventually substituted by them in certain "cheap" fields as someone mentioned here? How willingly would a bus driver teach a robot how to drive a bus? Fascinated by the idea he could perhaps have the privilege of lighting cigarettes for it later?
Cutting the branch one sits on may seem to be suicidal... But professional? I don't care about MT but I would like to know how is MT post-editing linked to professionalism? The fact that a professional does (or is interested in) such work doesn't necessarily mean it is a part of his/her professional character/mission, or? So why should a platform for professionals mediate paid jobs that in the end harm the profession in terms of business and, if I may say, certain aspect of dignity? (Maybe not for you or for me, but on a larger scale.)
By the way (http://www.proz.com/about/): "ProZ.com's mission is to provide tools and opportunities that translators, translation companies, and others in the language industry can use [...] to experience added enjoyment in their professional endeavors.
- I'd wonder how is this aspect covered by MT post-editing. For me, this would be soulless and sterile.
And: "ProZ.com delivers a comprehensive network of essential services, resources and experiences that enhance the lives of its members."
- How does MT post-editing support this enhancement?
Also up is the number of translators who have done post-editing work, or who offer it as a service: 40% compared to 30% in 2011.
Where are these people please? Can we get some geodemographics? While at the ITI Conference a few weeks ago, there was (only) one girl in the rather full meeting room who suggested she does post-editing regularly. Where is this 40%? This is not to suspect the numbers, but some background info as to who/where would be useful. Thank you.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L. 
India
Local time: 00:35
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | We might have an unlikely ally in agencies on this issue | Jun 6, 2013 |
After reading the link posted by Aurora in her recent post, I realize that agencies are equally unhappy with MT as we translators. MT has as much potential to hit their bottom-lines as it has to decimate our work pool.
MT is directly marketed to companies as a cheap and fast solution (nothing, I am sure, is said about quality, in the marketing pitch) to human translation. Since most companies know nothing about translation, they assume MT is an equally good (or better) replacement f... See more After reading the link posted by Aurora in her recent post, I realize that agencies are equally unhappy with MT as we translators. MT has as much potential to hit their bottom-lines as it has to decimate our work pool.
MT is directly marketed to companies as a cheap and fast solution (nothing, I am sure, is said about quality, in the marketing pitch) to human translation. Since most companies know nothing about translation, they assume MT is an equally good (or better) replacement for human translation, which eliminates several links in the production process. The eliminated links include not only translators, but also agencies, as companies can install their MT engines in their IT systems and churn out versions of their business literature in any language they want, without having to interact with agencies and translators.
May be, we should work with agencies to address our common issues with MT. Agencies with more resources and greater marketing experience would be in a better position to educate companies about the limitations of MT and the advantages of human translation.
The major drawback in our stance as I see it, is that we pin our hopes on the quality argument, while communication, not quality, is the chief requirement of the end client (companies). Of course, linguistic elegance contributes to comprehension, but lack of linguistic elegance does not completely block communication. Even a badly written or translated piece can communicate the required message. So as far as companies are concerned, MT too can serve their basic requirement - that of communication.
What we should try to focus on is that the brand value of a company that resorts to MT can take a serious hit in the market because of the linguistic inelegance of its MT-translated communications. Companies worry a lot about their brand image, and if we can make them realize that their brand image could go down because of MT use, then that would be a message that they would better understand, rather than the message of the superior quality of human done translation per se. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 21:05
Italian to English
In memoriam | Faster, cheaper, better | Jun 6, 2013 |
There's an old marketing adage - "faster, cheaper, better - pick two". You can probably work out which pair MT users have opted for 
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
After reading the link posted by Aurora in her recent post, I realize that agencies are equally unhappy with MT as we translators. MT has as much potential to hit their bottom-lines as it has to decimate our work pool.
Or expand it, as Dion has pointed out.
It depends on which "pool" you choose to fish in, of course. If you are happy casting your net wide and taking whatever comes, you are probably going to lose out. But if you can continue to deliver "better", and perhaps try rod-fishing for a higher-value catch, the future should hold more opportunities than threats.
| | | | Lingopro
Israel
Local time: 22:05
Hebrew to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Aurora Humarán wrote:
I know we can have a cup of coffee, Dion, and talk about Joan Collins, veganism, or "Oblivion" (I didn't like it, by the way), but there is no way a MT software seller (you) will see MT as a translator (me) does.
I think this just about sums the whole issue - a pure conflict of interests.
Dion Wiggins wrote:
There seems to be a false assumption that if content has been processed by MT then it has taken the job of a human. There is a huge amount of content that simply would not have been translated if it were not for MT.
I've seen the posts here, talking of millions of words going un-translated if not for MT - oh please!
Have you considered that maybe this need to translate millions of words is only a means to justify the development of MT? And for what?
Seriously!!! MT is not human language - it is machine language. If you are so keen on melting down one of the last fibers that accentuate our different cultures, only to produce a pool of goo, then I feel sad for you - by you I mean any MT advocate and promoter.
If many cases the post editing work for a human translator that comes from that project would not have been possible. There are many projects that are now viable as a business case due to MT + PE that were not at all viable as HT only. Without MT, these projects simply would not have existed.
and on and on and on...
What MT promoters fail to see is the human aspect. You fail to see us the translators. You fail to see how what you promote threatens (even if only as a fleeting thought) our livelihood, our passion, our profession.
I'm sorry for getting a bit bent out of shape - but I feel that although we are all typing in English, we are speaking different languages.
[Edited at 2013-06-06 09:15 GMT]
| | | | | why automate? why destroy jobs and livelihoods? and what for ? | Jun 6, 2013 |
Many moons ago I went to China for the first time. In those days, you travelled in groups. It was that or nothing. On our trip, we saw peasants in the fields tilling the land with oxen and ploughs. Shock horror ! Most of the group were up in arms: the poor things. Don't they have tractors?
Finally, cleared stressed, the guide (local) retorted: at least they all have jobs ..... (sub-text, unlike in your countries);
Flash forward 30 years and here we are debating the ethics of MT witho... See more Many moons ago I went to China for the first time. In those days, you travelled in groups. It was that or nothing. On our trip, we saw peasants in the fields tilling the land with oxen and ploughs. Shock horror ! Most of the group were up in arms: the poor things. Don't they have tractors?
Finally, cleared stressed, the guide (local) retorted: at least they all have jobs ..... (sub-text, unlike in your countries);
Flash forward 30 years and here we are debating the ethics of MT without necessarily realising that much more is at stake than just translators being out of work.
In truth it is our whole social model that is in jeopardy. At the moment, education is largely free (OK - not at all levels nor in all places but I have to generalise or this would take too long), we have contributory pension schemes and healthcare, not to mention unemployment benefits, in most parts of Europe, at least.
However, for these schemes to work, those in employment have to pay in contributions, so that when they retire or have health problems or lose their jobs, they can rely on the "common pot" to support them.
Yet here we are busily inventing systems and software and machines that can replace the human being, blissfully forgetting that we are potentially creating more unemployment and therefore more people dependent on a system with less people to "feed" it with the funds it needs. And this is at a time of already high unemployment.
Naturally, the guy who invents Facebook and sells it off for a fat sum is laughing all the way to the bank. Idem for google and all the rest.
But, if the process continues on logically the way it is going, before long there will be machines for everything but nobody in employment with the wherewithal to pay for them. Take things a step further and who will need translations anyway?
The inventers, the get-rich-quick have a lot to answer for. Our lives are more comfortable and convenient than those of earlier generations, it is true. But it seems sad that we have created such a self-centred society than nobody cares about what the end consequences might be.
PS I only once found myself confronted with a machine translation. It was from a direct client. I took one look, realised what it was and why, recognised the impossibility of doing a good job on it and promptly sent it back marked "no can do". I later received a better version to edit.
Stick your heels in guys - you've got nothing to lose but your jobs ! ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 00:35
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Cheaper and better seem mutually exclusive | Jun 6, 2013 |
Giles Watson wrote: There's an old marketing adage - "faster, cheaper, better - pick two". You can probably work out which pair MT users have opted for
Have you got the wording of this adage right? Cheaper and better seem mutually exclusive, so these two can't be picked together from the three.
Nor can faster and better, nor faster and cheaper, come to think of it.
The sarcasm in this adage has completely gone over my head.
[2013-06-06 12:15 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | |
|
|
|
Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 21:05
Italian to English
In memoriam | Two out of three ain't bad | Jun 6, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Have you got the wording of this adage right? Cheaper and better seem mutually exclusive, so these two can't be picked together from the three.
Nor can faster and better, nor faster and cheaper, come to think of it.
The sarcasm in this adage has completely gone over my head.
No sarcasm intended.
The origin of the quote, or at least of its popularity, was Daniel Goldin's tenure as head of NASA.
You're right about the lack of logic, though.
| | | |
polyglot45 wrote:
Many moons ago
This could be a nice MT pun. :)
| | | | Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 21:05
Italian to English
In memoriam
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Have you got the wording of this adage right? Cheaper and better seem mutually exclusive, so these two can't be picked together from the three.
Nor can faster and better, nor faster and cheaper, come to think of it.
The sarcasm in this adage has completely gone over my head.
No sarcasm intended.
The origin of the phrase is here:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Goldin
and yes, the logic doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
| | | | | one way or the other | Jun 6, 2013 |
Dion Wiggins wrote:
There seems to be a false assumption that if content has been processed by MT then it has taken the job of a human.
How much false is that please? As someone else already pointed out:
"To keep pace with ever faster technological developments, in July 2013 DGT will deploy a new machine translation service (MT@EC) for use by other Commission departments [...] Like the other EU institutions and the public sector throughout the EU, the Commission is confronted with the dual challenge of reducing costs while adding value [...] DGT is no exception to this challenge. With our new structure, coming into effect on 1 January, we aim to do better with less. In 2013, we will start seeing the first effects of staff cuts."
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/amp/doc/dgt_mp_en.pdf
Dion, do you suggest that introducing (MT@EC) has nothing to do with staff cuts and reducing costs at DGT, i.e. with giving less work / lower salary to the employees and more to the machines?
If that is your opinion, could you please kindly provide arguments for your position and explain why shouldn't the costs reduction above be considered as linked (even if not 100%) to MT? Thank you.
There is a huge amount of content that simply would not have been translated if it were not for MT.
Of course. The problem is that the MT "aggregators" somehow do not seem to care if the MT will be always used for "otherwise it would not be translated" content only, or if it will go on into areas where humans are/were already doing the job - i.e. "when we already have MT, why not use it not only for the non-translated content, but also for tasks we paid for in the past". Or do Taus etc. allow the user to define if they want to insert their final translation into the global MT pool 1 (additional translations) or pool 2 ("replacement" translations)?
In other words, following the example in my first post in this thread and your idea about "would not have been translated" - if there will be robots doing the job of bus drivers at any point in the future, does this mean that we will have new bus connections in areas where earlier there was no connection (the same "it would not have been done if it were not for machines" scenario) or that there will be two times more bus connections in the same area than before? I dare to doubt about this.
| | |
|
|
|
Abba Storgen (X)
United States
Local time: 14:05
Greek to English
+ ...
| I've already spoken to deaf ears | Jun 6, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
After reading the link posted by Aurora in her recent post, I realize that agencies are equally unhappy with MT as we translators. MT has as much potential to hit their bottom-lines as it has to decimate our work pool.
MT will eradicate agencies, erase them from the map. Because agencies have a high operating cost. So I told to a couple of them that the less they pay the translators, the less support they will get from the translators when they will want to convince their clients to maintain the agency.
A translator that is poorly paid does not have enough vested interest in the business. He won't jump in to support the agency... and the end-client will say "well, I'm not convinced by your brochures - I can get very similar content from Google".
Wait until many translators actually sign up with Google for the more "difficult" texts or the photocopied sources etc. Google will assign jobs directly to its own cloud - it's a piece of cake for them. Everyone knows google, everyone will send their documents to them. Translators will have no reason to work for agencies, unless agencies pay them a lot more.
| | | |
MT will eradicate agencies, erase them from the map. Because agencies have a high operating cost. So I told to a couple of them that the less they pay the translators, the less support they will get from the translators when they will want to convince their clients to maintain the agency.
I'm sorry but I miss the link. The poor quality of some human translations was here long before MT, or? Also, I think you generalize a bit, as if all agencies were paying 1 cent and producing garbage. (NB I don't run an agency.)
the end-client will say "well, I'm not convinced by your brochures - I can get very similar content from Google".
Google Translate is no real competition for brochures translation done by humans. Maybe for some lamp manual which nobody reads (still I'd wonder about the precision of safety instructions) or for translations done by some humans who don't care about quality. (But is the latter anything that should make any professional concerned?)
But not for the core marketing material. Or possibly yes - until the clients of such a company will find out the cheap approach. Or did I miss something and suddenly GT got a miraculous grasp of context?
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 00:35
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Agencies too are resilient | Jun 7, 2013 |
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
MT will eradicate agencies, erase them from the map. Because agencies have a high operating cost. So I told to a couple of them that the less they pay the translators, the less support they will get from the translators when they will want to convince their clients to maintain the agency.
A translator that is poorly paid does not have enough vested interest in the business. He won't jump in to support the agency... and the end-client will say "well, I'm not convinced by your brochures - I can get very similar content from Google".
Wait until many translators actually sign up with Google for the more "difficult" texts or the photocopied sources etc. Google will assign jobs directly to its own cloud - it's a piece of cake for them. Everyone knows google, everyone will send their documents to them. Translators will have no reason to work for agencies, unless agencies pay them a lot more.
The way I see it is that it would be better for us to have agencies in our camp than in the enemy's camp.
Agencies too are resilient and when they see the market for human translation dwindling, they will unscrupulously switch to other areas, such as MT-post editing, and then start putting pressure on us translators to take up this new genre of work, and even dangle the carrot of higher rates for this to entice us into doing this. And I am sure many translators especially the new entrants to our trade will fall for it. But we know this is professional suicide as many here have explained.
On the other hand, if we can convince agencies that they should do more to retain their current working models by explaining to their clients (the companies and corporations who use translation) the advantage of human translation, then agencies would work to our advantage.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Machine Translations: Should Proz.com advertise MT jobs? | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
