Not as simple as it seems – the challenge of translating payslips

 

Most customers do not - and generally need not - understand the actual work process. Sometimes, this lack of knowledge impacts their price expectations. In this case, the service provider must provide some justification for charging an amount for a seemingly “simple” task. For example, private customers sometimes require translations of a series of payslips. To the uninitiated, while the first one may require a significant time investment, the additional slips involve very little effort. In fact, specifically because the forms are so similar but not identical, the later ones demand serious attention. The translator must look for expected and unexpected differences as well as perform a thorough QA on the document in order to avoid errors. All these efforts require time, which should be reflected in the price.

The most obviously challenging part of translating payslips is the original template. In the best possible world, it would be possible to use a conversion tool or AI that would automatically produce a usable template into which to enter the categories and numbers. Alas, in most cases, the template produced by these tools requires unreasonable time and effort to tweak. Even worse, the result is often not a visually exact replica of the original text. Furthermore, given that a translation may have a different number of characters, even significantly more in the case of Hebrew to English, the amount of space required for a given entry varies from translation to translation. Furthermore, the tools generally do not account for additional visual elements, such as shading and lines. Thus, in most cases, the translator has to manually build the template for the first payslip. Most customers understand this and take it into account when assessing the price.

The main issue revolves around the remaining payslips. While the form remains the same as well as some details, certain numbers predictably vary from month to month. Clearly, the payslip month and sometimes even year change, with this information generally appearing in several parts of the form. Likewise, service time increases in line with the date. On the financial side, the income numbers generally vary from month to month as do the quantity of hours of regular and overtime work. The cumulative pay numbers increase in accordance with the latest data. In addition, the summary of sick and vacation days changes according to their latest accumulation and usage. Finally, issuance and printing dates reflect the latest month. All this involves a methodical working through the form.

What is more challenging are the surprising changes. Income categories may come and go. For example, certain months include holidays, for which gift benefits show up in the payslip on a one-time basis. Sometimes, the employee receives a new or temporary benefit or loses a previously granted benefit. Thus, the number and type of benefits may vary from month to month. Employees occasionally change position, branch, home address and even bank. With all these numbers, it is surprisingly easy to miss a change in one number in a static data area. Employers occasionally add a short note to the employee regarding taxation, one that only appears in one payslip. Translators have to keep a keen eye for these among the sea of data.

Even when the translator finds all the differences, thorough editing is indispensable. Some of the common errors discovered in the first draft (hopefully) involve numbers. Notably, it is easy to switch two numbers, i.e., 4,214 instead of 4,124. Another minefield is the comma/period mistype. It is actually quite difficult to detect this error over a series of slips, e.g., 4.214 instead of 4,214 and 4,59 instead of 4.59. The risk is increased when translating forms from a language with a different set of punctuation rules, such as French to English. Finally, with so many details to which to pay attention, a translator can actually misspell a name in the first draft or change the spelling in another location in the document. Proper QA involves the careful checking of all these details.

Thus, translating payslips is ant work. This month, I told one of my customers that translating seemingly similar documents require great time and effort, with the quote reflecting those elements. The customer accepted my explanation. In practice, the project took as long as I predicted. Therefore, while there is no need to explain every detail of the work process, it is sometimes necessary to educate the customer to a certain degree. Not everything is as simple as meets the eye, especially to the unknowing.

The mirage of infallibility – Freelancers and self-forgiveness

 

In 1869, the Catholic Church issued an edict that the Pope, whoever holds the office, is infallible, at least on certain matters under certain conditions. To everybody but the most devout Catholics, this doctrine sounds completely absurd as every person, regardless of his/her wisdom, makes errors of judgment. Yet, most freelancers crucify themselves every time their work is not perfect. For example, among translators, a series of mistranslations discovered by the customer can lead to a wrenching soul-searching experience and massive self-doubt. In reality, not all errors are of equal seriousness. Furthermore, customers do not automatically end their relationship after they discover the error. Most importantly, entrepreneurs need to learn to cope with these experiences as they do occur, hopefully rarely, even after years of experience.

Most freelancers strive for perfection, an impossible goal in most cases and one that is often not economically justified. Like all people, for whatever reason, they make errors sometimes. Some are minor transgressions that the only the service provider sees. For example, when using a given template that has been applied numerous times, the translator suddenly notices an incorrect term. The matter has no impact on the content but the fact that it took so long to notice raises doubts and is bothersome. On a more serious note, customers sometimes catch minor errors and ask for correction. Often these mistakes involve names, terminology and numbers, which can escape the eye of QA tools in translation. The worst case is when these customers discover major errors. In translation, these include missing text, retained elements that should not be in the applicable document and clear mistranslations. These capital errors can shake the freelancer’s foundation of self-belief as the question of “how did I miss that” cannot be avoided. Thus, not all mistakes are created equally.

Nor do all clients react the same. Clearly, the mistakes they did not see do not bother them. As for the minor ones, in my experience, while customers would prefer perfection, they are willing to forgive minor errors if the service provider remedies them promptly and professionally. The serious errors are another matter. Here, the reaction varies greatly. At the worst, the customer pays for the job after the corrections and never returns to the service provider. More often than not, if there is a previous record of solid work, customers come back, maybe because finding a potentially better service provider is not worth the effort. In the best case, the customer sees how the freelancer remedied the issues and now has a greater appreciation of his/her professional approach. In other words, the error, however regrettable, may actually build customer loyalty. Therefore, “getting caught” is not necessarily an unmitigated disaster.

The greatest impact of making mistakes is on service providers themselves. Two essential elements of professional work and success are caring about quality and confidence in one’s ability. The discovery of errors, whether minor or major, stimulates the first and jars the second. The physical proof that, despite all one’s knowledge and efforts, such errors reached the customer is very disturbing. For many freelancers without support systems, it leads to serious self-doubt and even depression. After all, they are supposed to be the professionals, the knowledgeable ones. They may be mitigating circumstances, whether deadlines or lack of instructions, but that does not excuse the failure. The psychological cost of being less than perfect is often higher than the financial one.

As I look at my career, I see great progress in how I have come to accept my rare failings. Some twenty years ago, after I submitted a far more ideal translation, I felt depressed for over a week. I questioned whether I should continue in this profession. By contrast, recently, I submitted a translation of several complex official documents, some of them with handwritten text. The customer checked them and found several minor errors, mainly names. I calmly corrected them and resubmitted them. He paid me and appreciated the professional service. I focused my thoughts on how I could avoid such errors in the future, a constructive approach, and went on to my other work. I did not pose questions about my ability. I have learned from experience.

In summary, it is absurd to believe that any person, no matter how knowledgeable and experienced s/he may be, can achieve perfection. To err is human. While freelancers should always strive to achieve the best possible results, errors will sometimes occur due to circumstances and human limitations. In such cases, it is healthier, both on a business and personal level, to focus on remedying the issues, learning from them and moving on. By the way, even the Papal edict on infallibility did not apply to the Pope’s personal actions. Freelancers – forgive yourself.

Text-book perfection – in search of a QA panacea for revising long texts

 

Long translations pose special problems for translators. The intensive process involved in translating a long legal document or multipage text leaves little time and freshness for the no-less-crucial process of QA. Simply put, by the time the hard-pressed translator gets to the editing stage, the text is already embedded in the mind as basically acceptable, limiting the translator’s ability to identify syntactic errors. This problem is not new, with translators having long used a set of tools, some old and some new, to overcome it to varying effectiveness. I will discuss some traditional QA methods, some recently developed ones and my experience with Grammarly. Whatever the individual choice of tools, professional translators and writers must employ them to properly check their work.

To illuminate the problem, the act of translating a long text, whether a legal document, a set of technical instructions or personal journal, involves multiple hours and multiple readings. Working from first draft to non-QAed finalized version may require the linguist to read through the original and source four or more times. Aside from the time invested, the creation process creates a sound and vision in the mind, which become de facto acceptable. Professionals are aware that many areas for correction and improvement lurk in the text and strive to find them in the jungle of text. However, the longer the text, the more difficult it is to locate them. The moment of truth is when the customer or translation agency editor sends back a document riddled with red marks, a truly unpleasant and often embarrassing experience. The question that most translators and editors ask is “How did I miss that?”. It often was not from lack of effort but  due to the tools they used.

The tools of translators and other linguists at minimum include
Word “spellcheck” (F7), printing and reading and use of outside editors. The Spellcheck function in Word identifies the most basic of errors with the failure to use it bordering on professional incompetence. A more comprehensive manner of editing is to print and read a text. For some reason, a text appears differently on paper than on a screen and, thus, fresher to the eyes. I personally read the text backward, i.e., from the last paragraph to the first paragraph, in order to render the document even more different and prevent me from going into “read a story” mode. Ideally, all linguists would employ outside editors, a fresh pair of eyes, to review any resulting text. In practice, the time and cost factors limit this practice from becoming standard except in literary translation. Translation agencies employ editors, especially those applying the various ISO standards. As I wrote, it is unpleasant to receive red-dotted corrections even if such a result does not affect future work. As for direct customers, the linguist is solely responsible but most technical translators do not use outside editors as a standard practice.

Two more modern and comprehensive methods are text-to-speech and AI. The text-to-speech function in Word is a simple manner of reviewing a document using a completely different method. Instead of having the eyes read a given sentence for the umpteenth time, the ears filter the sentence. Thus, poor-sounding phrases and structure immediately hit the linguistic warning bells and cause the translator or editor to reconsider the wording. It is a tool that I may try in the future. Another trendier tool is AI editing. Using one of many applications, it is possible to have AI analyze a document, identify possible errors and suggest solutions within seconds. On the surface level, it sounds quite magical, even ideal. My serious issues with this method are the lack of confidentiality, the actual process and results. First, as of today, in most cases, once a text, even without any identifying names, is posted to AI, it enters the public realm, which may be a breach of the confidentiality conditions. Some writers may be risking their copyright privilege if they use AI. Furthermore, I personally find the process of writing prompts to define and limit the range of errors as well as desired style I seek to be overcomplicated. Even when a person overcomes that difficulty, the suggested changes represent some collective image of the ideal such text, much of which is not relevant objectively and/or subjectively. In other words, the benefits, i.e., AI’s comprehensive and standardized approach, do not justify the risks, i.e., the loss of confidentiality and hassle of writing prompts. Thus, I do not use text-to-speech or AI.

However, recently faced with specific challenges, I applied Grammarly to two especially long and complicated texts and found the results positive on the balance. One text was a 20,000-word personal journal while the other was a 5000-word contract. As time and energy were short, I sought a tool that would identify phrasing errors and improve my translation in my text without risking confidentiality. I used Grammarly, an application that does involve a user fee. The process was simple, merely uploading or dragging the text into the editing box. I then selected the type of text, e.g. informal or formal. The result was a long list of possible errors and suggestions for improvement. To give a perspective, the program created 500 comments for a 5,000-word text. The vast majority, around 80%, were false positive either because of context or personal choice. For example, the program was not familiar with legal language and questioned many acceptable terms. In terms of subjective choices, I personally do not apply the Oxford comma, the comma before the word and, nor place a comma before the word but. Thus, I ignored those comments. On the positive side, it did identify many passive sentences that I could render in the active voice. This comment was of great value in the personal document but less so in the legal document even if I  try to limit use of passive structure in legal documents. Grammarly also identified sentences that could be joined or split, suggestions that I adopted several times. Overall, review of these long texts using the program involved several hours but produced better results in less time as compared to rereading.

It is clear that linguists, especially translators, must provide high quality products, meaning documents as clean of errors as possible, especially in the light of AI-created documents. The longer the document, the more difficulty that task is. Thus, translators and writers must use a wide variety of tools to achieve the required quality. I intend to use Grammarly on longer texts where a lack of time and freshness may harm the quality of revisions. While linguists can choose their preferred tools, it is clear that no specific method is a complete panacea.

AI and I – an attempt at perspective

 

I admit to feeling somewhat hostile about the idea of using AI in my work as a professional translator.Thus, I felt (and still feel) a need to ascertain whether my internal resistance is stubbornness or intuition, two similar but not identical impulses. Consequently, I invested the time to listen to Doron’s Tzur excellent 2-hour presentation to the Israel Translators Association on March 26, 2025 on the subject of AI for translators. He gave an excellent introduction to the approach of AI as well as its practical use in translation, providing examples using several different AI applications. Granted, this presenting does not make an expert on the subject but the lecture did provide me with some updated data. I thus feel more at ease discussing my perspective. I now understand that an AI-based translation method does not fit me in terms of task/time allocation, the resulting standard and the produced style. Yet, while I do not see AI as a practical tool in the initial translation phase, I definitely can see its value in the editing stage, when it is possible.  In short, my personal answer is: “No, but”.

One of the Doron’s first points is that AI can and does change the time relationship between translation and QA, which include both finding errors and improving style. Specifically, he noted that the initial translation process, what he called the white paper stage, using AI takes minutes, if not less, allowing translators to focus their energy and skill and improving the text, rendering it both accurate and human. It should be noted that many translators, including myself, actually prefer the creative stage, the writing of the first draft, over the editing stage. An important passion in translation is the joy of playing with words, preferably in at least two languages. Thus, as demanding and time-consuming as translation can be, the work is fascinating and satisfying. By contrast, editing is a technical skill requiring great attention to detail and great discipline. Consequently, as I have no great desire to specialize in editing, I prefer the traditional method of translation, i.e., without AI.

Another point made by Doron is that AI is becoming or has become the new standard. He noted that it is possible to produce a workable translation of even long texts in hours, not days. I certainly do not dispute his assessment of time requirements or creation of a standard. However, I do challenge the worthiness of the standard. Written communication, especially in English, necessarily involves polishing and repolishing. Each QA session reveals more underlying issues, theoretically infinite but in practice limited by delivery deadlines. Clearly, any translation produced and edited in three hours lacks that polish if even it suffers from no concrete language error. Thus, it is possible to produced rushed translation but the issue is to what standard.  I am aware that, historically, people have come to accept lower quality standards, e.g. cars and clothes, but I find that disturbing.

Finally, AI, because it is based on statistics, not intelligence (Doron’s words), produces a clear but somehow flawed text based. To paraphrase Doron, average is never good as the 50% of the other texts are better.  The actual level of finishing depends on the skill and knowledge of the editor, many of whom are not even native speakers. Consequently, the AI-produced and human-edited translation often is correct but off, like a fluent but non-native speaker telling a story. Everything is clear but a real person would not write that. For many purposes, this artificialness is not an issue, in particular when a person only requires the translation to ascertain the main idea or find a detail. However, if the writer wishes to move the reader to buy, be inspired or any other action, this dissonance ruins the effect. People believe writers and speakers because they are authentic even if their facts are not quite accurate. Effective written communication must reflect the writer’s voice, not the statistical average. Therefore, I feel that using an AI-produced translation does not serve the needs of most if not all my customers’ needs.

One of the most attractive features of AI was its editing capacity. The ability of AI to identify errors of all types, including context-based spelling errors on some applications, is highly useful and a significant improvement on Word’s Spellcheck and even Grammarly, to name a few non-AI applications. However, to use these AI-tools efficiently requires consistent effort and time investment in attaining the computer skills and keep up with the weekly changes and newest versions. Moreover, translators cannot upload many legal, commercial and medical documents  due to confidentiality issues. I would love to upload the first draft 18,000 words I am working onto AI but will not do so because of the fear of it entering the public realm. Finally, it should be noted that most older people and quite a few younger people are not native to technology.  Yet, for many translators, using AI for editing makes sense both in terms of effectiveness and economics.

If I view the translation economic equation as time/effort as compared to income, at this moment at least, I feel that it is correct decision for me is to ignore AI but to keep an eye on it. AI is not the end of translation just as Computer Aided Translation and Google translations did not destroy the profession. Clearly, AI will change the industry but in what manner and which degree, nobody can say. It remains for each translator, or any other professional for that matter, to examine and decide, as Kirstie and Phil would say, to love it or leave it. I am leaving it for the moment.

Respect vs loyalty – on translators and editors

 

[guns at Gettysburg*]

An essential part of any successful translation is another pair of eyes. It is a standard part of the document QA process to have someone else, an editor, review the document as prepared by the translator. In some cases, notably in the medical and pharmaceutical industries, government regulations delineate the responsibility of each editor, ranging from fundamental check of the translation to identification of critical errors and formatting issues. In most other fields, the responsibility of editors is far more ambiguous. Editors can understand that it is their task to correct any translation and language errors but also can assume, as the agent of the paying party, that their mandate is to create the best possible translation, which generally involves also improving the style of the original translation. Depending on the approach, the physical and emotional result is quite different.

Many translation editors, often translators themselves, emphasize the checking aspect of their task. In other words, they compare the source and target document and amend the original translation if they find terminology or syntax issues that affect the reader understanding of the document. In most cases, such editors often think “I would have written this sentence differently but, as is, the content is clear and correct.” The resulting amended document is thus essentially similar to the original with minor changes (assuming that the translators did a reasonably professional job). For translators, viewing the tracked changes can be a bit annoying when they don’t agree but not an emotionally catastrophic event as the amended text shows that the translator expressed the essential elements of the original document in a reasonable way.

On the other extreme are those editors whose vision is solely to produce the best possible text as they see it. These are often in-house or monolingual (just considering the target text). The editing process approaches that of rewriting, with each sentence subject to total revision if the editor find that path appropriate. The translator’s writing style and terminology choices are not relevant factors. The resulting text resembles Picket’s troops after the Battle of Gettysburg, with the red (or other color) of tracked changes dominating the basic black of the original. For the translator receiving the marked up revised version, it is painful even to start to analyze the changes, especially when so many are “preferential”. It is generally but not always correct to say that the new version is better in most ways but that does not necessarily mean that the original translation was poor. For the most part, as a rule, any revision, especially by another person, will improve even the best written document.

Translators have almost no control on which editor their work will fall or the actual instructions to that editor. In the case of a gatekeeper editor that makes only essential changes, all the translators needs to do is to take a deep breath and patiently and objectively (as much as humanly possible) either accept or reject the changes, providing explanations in the latter case. This approach shows professionalism and adds to the translator’s prestige. If we wish to be honest, it is always possible to improve any text. Translators face a much more difficult task when receiving a total rewrite. It is important to avoid the two extremes, i.e., complete loss of self-confidence and indisciminate dismissal of the corrections of the editors. The truth is somewhere in between. Beyond the actual corrections, it is important but admittedly difficult to admit that the purpose of the whole translation process is to produce the best possible translation, with both the translation and editor having important role. In the final analysis, the bottom line is that the customer is happy.

When I work as an editor, I attempt to avoid imposing my writing style on the translation as I believe that a translated document is a piece of writing in itself, unique and characteristic of its writer, who happens to be a translator. In some cases, when the translator has confused or convoluted the content, it is necessary to make wholesale changes but that path is a last resort. There are many roads to Rome and almost as many ways to translate a given text. Yet, I have occasionally almost rewritten translations, producing not only a much better text but probably also harsh emotions in the actual translator.

In technical translation, the golden path in most cases involves some combination of respect of the manner of expression of the translator and loyalty to the text and the customer. For the editor, it is often difficult to find that ideal compromise. For the translator, it is necessary to learn from one’s errors while recognizing that the editor due to personal reasons or professional guidelines chose to rewrite a reasonable translation, which does not take away from the skill of the original translator. Translators need to live, learn and believe in themselves and in their ability to live and learn.

* Picture captions help the blind fully access the Internet.

Picture credit

Poor translation – causes and solutions

 

[squash with many colors*]

Poor translation is both inevitable and avoidable. All professional translators, like every craftsperson, have a dark hidden virtual cabinet with their early translations, never to be opened on pain of unbearable embarrassment. As such, poor translation early in one’s career is not a serious issue. Unfortunately, as I and my wife repeatedly see in editing other people translations, some (not all or most, to be perfectly clear) never really improve and continue to produce unacceptable text. To define the term, poor translation is not a matter of style preference, occasional syntax issues or a minor misunderstanding of a matter. Instead, poor translation involves completely inappropriate style, generally unnatural language and little understanding of the matter in general.  The most important ways to avoid all these errors is developing knowledge awareness, using proper QA tools and insisting on sufficient time.

Discretion is the better part of valor. Simply put, regardless of the temptation, it is far wiser to avoid texts on completely unfamiliar subject matter. Translators are both more efficient and effective working within their comfort zone and far less likely to lose the customer in the long term. Especially in specialized areas such as law and medicine, a globally inaccurate translation is worth nothing to the customer. It is possible to wander into related fields but this expansion should be done carefully. Translators need to have sufficient time and seek appropriate help to ensure a reasonable product. While beginning translators often make this mistake in their search for business and a niche, too many experienced ones continue to produce such texts either due to overconfidence or a lack of direct feedback from buyers. One of the best ways to ensure that the knowledge basis is solid is ongoing education, whether from courses, videos, webinars or lectures. In this matter, you know what you know and also what you don’t know, which is just as important.

As in most matters, the 80/20 rule frequently applies in translation. Specifically, it is often necessary to invest 80% of the effort, if not time, in QA in order to produce a true professional result. Simply put, nobody wants to receive a first draft. QA can be a complicated process even with automated tools. It involves multiple layers that should include at minimum a comparison of source and target texts, a linguistic scan for spelling and grammar errors and general read through to identify literalness and illogical translations. One sign of a poor translation is when the editor asks “did the translator actually read this”. No matter how technically accurate a translation is, if it sounds like garbage and fails to reproduce the message, there is no need to pay a human translator; machine translation probably produces similar or better quality for less money and time. Thus, regardless of experience, every work of art, including translation, requires attention to the details and appropriate QA.

For this editing process to be effective, the translator needs time. Beginning translators often do not correctly assess the time required to produce the translation nor insist on it. Clearly, the actual number of days varies by individual, material, circumstances and offered rate. Yet, hurrying the process creates poor results as the QA process generally suffers. Moreover, complicated or long texts require disproportionally more time. For example, while it is possible to read a translation of a one-page notice in a few minutes and thus several times a day, the same task for a 30-page legal opinion involves multiple breaks to maintain concentration and requires several days to allow for a fresh reading of the text each time. The break time between reading, whether during or between editing sessions, is necessary to ensure proper concentration and a clear head. The customer probably does not understand the process. Therefore, the translator must insist on sufficient time to complete the project.

Therefore, translators can avoid poor translation by studying and focusing on texts in their base knowledge zone. They must understand and conduct proper QA to ensure a professional result. They also must negotiate viable deadlines and avoid overloading. While it is natural for a new translator to produce less than wonderful results, there is no excuse for an experienced one to produce a poor translation, one that is of little value to the customer. Live and learn.

* Picture captions allow the blind to fully access the Internet.

Picture credit

Watch your tongue – critical safety guidelines for translators and editors

 

[leopard sleeping in a tree*]

Translators and editors are often called upon not only to correct texts but to make judgments about their writers. They even sometimes do so on their own volition. These assessments can potentially expose these linguists to a charge of defamation in certain circumstances. As I learned at an excellent webinar presented by Galit Golan , advocate, of the law firm of Firon and Associates, in Israel professional critiques enjoy significant projection from the charges of defamation but involve some care when choosing the actual words. This issue is relevant when performing professional services  and also when “entertaining” colleagues with awful examples and warning them of potential dangers from perspective customers. The key is careful consideration of any such comments.

In Israel, defamation involves several elements, primarily the sharing of information with another party that could objectively humiliate or harm the third party. Israeli law does protect certain circumstances, most notably when the receiving party has the authority or obligation to receive that information. Most interestingly, once defamation is established, the court can award up to 79,000 NIS, almost 22,000 USD, (as of this year) to the damaged party without the latter having to prove damages. Clearly, given the complexity of the matter, in the case of doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

As relevant to translators and editors, the issue can arise when completing QA and translation test assessment forms. To demonstrate, in a case involving a chef sending the management a picture of a member of the kitchen staff taking a nice nap under a tree, the court found the hotel and chef guilty of defamation not because of the picture since the chef had an obligation to inform the employer. Instead, the court found cause in the sarcastic caption under the picture, which mentioned the need to purchase a mattress for the employee. Likewise, it is the clear duty and obligation of the linguists to note all linguistic errors, whether objective or style, as well as answer any specific question regarding the overall level. Thus, it would be appropriate to write “The translators lacks sufficient knowledge in the subject matter to properly translate such texts” if the facts back up this conclusion. However, it may be dangerous to write “the translator has no understanding of the source language” as the provided sample does not justify that conclusion and may harm the career of the translator. When so requested by relevant parties, only relevant criticism advisable.

Considering the same case, linguists should be careful when sharing “funny” examples of poor translations or awful writing. Many translators share photos of amusing menu items and tourist site signs. In their basic form, these posts are merely publicizing public information, objective truths. However, if the posting party adds a comment such as “I hope the restaurant pays its chefs more than it paid its translators”, defamation may become an issue as the post goes beyond the linguistic disaster in the restaurant menu to question the quality of its food. Again, think before you post.

Of critical importance to freelancers, including translators and editors, is the sharing of information on problematic customers. The legimitate purpose here is prevent others from having the same unpleasant experience. In this regard, one of the cases brought up in the webinar is illuminating. A teacher received compensation after the letter to the parents specified conviction as the reason for dismissal instead of police investigation, which was the actual case. When colleagues request feedback on a specific agency or translator, whether privately or publicly, it would be advisable to stick the facts and avoid making general conclusions. For example, it would be apparently be acceptable to state the agency only paid after four months but riskier to write” the agency is a poor payer”, as the writer cannot justify the comment without checking with most if not all the translators working with it. Without the ability to prove a statement that may harm the third party, the warning party may be exposed to a defamation complain in Israel.

Clearly, every country has its own rules for defamation. Moreover, only legal experts can properly analyze any specific set of facts. However, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of care. Translators and editors should be very careful in how they write their critiques, however justified they may be, and avoid overreaching. As linguists have sharp pens, we need to watch our tongues.

* Picture captions help the blind fully access the Internet.

Picture credit

QA known – The why and how of polishing translations

 

[Demon*]

The large majority of professionals share a similar basis of knowledge, granted with individual style differences. They know how to produce the basic product or service, whether that is a chair or a translation. The devil is in the details. Customers expect a polished product or service, one free of errors and blemishes. This requirement separates the wheat from the chaff, distinguishing those whose work leads to long term satisfied customers and those who struggle to maintain a clientele. Using an example from a production line, no manufacturing process reaches 100% perfection. Thus, it is clear that no reputable enterprise passes on its products to others without a thorough quality assurance (QA) process.

Translation also requires QA. To explain, translators produce a first draft aimed at transmitting the content, tone, subtext messages and structure of the original text to another language. If successful, the result is faithful copy of the source text. However, the first draft is often neither faultless no seamless. It may suffer from incorrect word choices, grammar and spelling errors, inconsistency in terminology uses, punctuation misuse and missing or duplicate words. Even if technically correct, the first draft may use syntax patterns from the original document that are not acceptable in the target language, such as the use of active/passive and the placement of adjectives and direct and indirect objects. The longer the documents, the greater the probability of the occurrence of these mistakes. In fact, a first draft is not an acceptable final product in most cases regardless of the knowledge and skill of the translator.

The key for a proper translation is the QA. The first and easiest step involves software applications. The most obvious one is spell check, F7 in Microsoft products. This function will identify most spelling errors and duplications as well as many grammar and punctuation errors. Of course, there will be false positives and missed errors, especially when the word in error exists. Still, as a first step, spell check identifies the vast majority of the gross errors. An additional step is running a QA function. Most of the CAT (Computer Aided Translation) tools includes this function with others, such as Xbench, available for download. The purpose of these tools is to identify inconsistent translations, missing or incorrectly placed tags, which signal font aspects, missing or additional parentheses and mismatched punctuation. These programs help identify serious issues in the translation. Thus, spell check and a QA function are key elements of the mechanical QA process.

However, in order to create a seamless translation, as in all forms of writing, the translation must be reread, often many times. Theoretically, the best method is to have another pair of eyes read the translation, as is required by ISO standards for translation agencies. In practice, the effective use of an outside reader requires money, time and a trusting relationship between the translator and editor, a rare combination. Instead, in the vast majority of cases, translators must reread their own document and strive to identify errors and text to improve. One technique is a focused reading of the translation that checks a limited variety of issues while ignoring others. This approach is especially useful in documents with numbers, names and complex structure but requires a great investment of time as the document must be read multiple times, each one with a different focus. Another option is to print the document and read the black and white copy, which tends to make certain issues much more visible. My favorite technique, especially for longer documents, is to read the document backwards, paragraph by paragraph, which not only creates a “new” document in the mind but also forces the reader to check each paragraph separately without connection to the previous one. Some translators read the text out loud or use the available software to have it read out loud, allowing them to identify clunky language that needs to be recrafted. It is vital to pay attention to any “red light” that pops into mind and thoroughly examine the issue. A combination of any of these techniques usually produces a polished translation.

Of course, QA requires time. While the 80/20 rule does not apply in translation, review and polishing a translation can easily reach 50% of the total time investment. The rule of thumb is that the longer the document, the more time quality assurance takes. That is the reason why larger translation projects should cost more, not less. Furthermore, the longer the document, the more breaks are required for QA as it is impossible to attentively read through 10,000 pages without many breaks. Thus, translators need to allow for QA time in both scheduling and setting rates. As a result, except for very short documents, same day delivery is a recipe for disaster in translation. Curiously enough, most deadlines easily suffer a delivery delay to the next morning or end of day. In order to provide a proper product, translators must insist on reasonable deadlines.

All products, including translation, require proper QA processes. Whether done by software or human, these processes are not a waste of time but instead are integral to the production process. For translators, like many other professionals, the reward for this insistence on QA is satisfied customers and shining above the rest. Not only is the devil in the details, they are also the key to success.

*Captions help the sight impared access information. 

Picture: Pixaby: Image by <a href="https://pixabay.com/users/openclipart-vectors-30363/?utm_source=link-attribution&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=image&amp;utm_content=161049">OpenClipart-Vectors</a> from <a href="https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=image&amp;utm_content=161049">Pixabay</a>