容空案突

17:14 Oct 6, 2013 

at least 8 native Chinese speakers don't understand it. There could have been 200 more translators looking at the question, who don't know what it is either.

07:06 Oct 6, 2013 

I won't mark it as nonsense as I appreciate the efforts of the respondents, but I'd still mark it and let the client know that I can't make out what it means even after consulting many people, including Chinese native speakers.
I think it is OK to make guesses to the best of our ability in the course of translation, but if the probability of them being correct is not high enough, we should refrain from submitting it and just let the client know.
When translating survey responses, I seldom encounter responses that I can't understand (more often than not, they are riddled with typos or lack of punctuation but in the end, I'd still know what they are talking about), but if I do, the above is how I'd approach the issue. I think this case qualifies...

Edited to add: It's OK to add translator notes stating the likely (highly probable) interpretations. I do that as well.

19:33 Oct 5, 2013 

Hi What do you make of this - 買署罹置 or 美姜羨着？

Just to look at the question from another angle.

14:30 Oct 5, 2013 

I think it is "unethical" if a person trying to more vividly express his idea but his answer is marked as nonsense just because the reader doen't understand its meaning.
And I don't think Reesecc's and Koret's answers are "wild guesses." They are “interpreting” Chinese classic language--or, called 文言文，which may become confusing if characters are simplified--just like we are interpreting English, where we may encounter difficult phrases, new combination of words, or antique expressions.
Maybe, there is really some typo involved here, but I truly appreciate Reesecc's and Koert's efforts and sincerity to approach things as it is in the right way. At least, we learn something, especially about traditional Chinese characters, from their answers.

10:50 Oct 5, 2013 

Rather than making wild guesses out of something that doesn't make sense at all, I strong advise you to deal with it this way:

[the characters in the source file don't make any sense]

When the researcher analyzes the responses, he will classify it as an non-qualified/non-eligible answer.

It is more ethical to consider it a non-eligible answer than providing an wrong interpretation.

05:02 Oct 5, 2013 

The phrase seems to be a poetic metaphor used as the answer to defining success.
Like many traditional Chinese poetic lines, the word order might be changed, in this case, from "容案突空" (allowing the desk/platform to abruptly rise in the sky/void).

19:31 Oct 1, 2013 

This could be some meaningless characters created by someone trying to be funny.

10:55 Oct 1, 2013 

Could it be something that is easy free planned and quick?

06:37 Oct 1, 2013 

Not necessarily typos, could also be corrupt fonts. System incompatibility could result that.

22:02 Sep 30, 2013 

All four words have the 宝盖头 radical. Could it be a typo from using a certain key-in method (as David mentioned)?

18:20 Sep 30, 2013 

Usually four-character words could form a Chinese proverb but then these four characters combined don't make "any" sense "at all"! If it is typed on a computer it could be wrong characters especially if it is from a respondent in Hong Kong who might use a Chinese key-in method by hand. If it is handwritten, then it'd be a joke for a broad question - how do you define success? :)

15:49 Sep 30, 2013 

Well it's nice to know it's not just me. Is there any chance that the wrong characters are being used? I should also say that the respondent was in Hong Kong if that helps at all.

15:35 Sep 30, 2013 

Hi What's this? the four Chinese words combined don't make sense to me. Or just me?