Google-eyed translator search – Shocked and uh-ed translation buyers

 

Freelancer marketing has never been a simple task just as finding any proper professional for the first time has always been a bit of a gamble. As an exercise, I “posed” as a translation buyer in my area of specialty – Hebrew-to-English official documents, a marriage certificate in this case – and searched for a service provider using both ChatGPT and Google. While the former provided a reasonable response, the options raised by Google illustrated the irrelevance of the search for translation purchasers and the need to focus marketing for translation providers.

In terms of methodology, I used free ChatGPT and posted the following prompt: “I am looking for a certified Hebrew-English translator to translate a marriage certificate for immigration purposes.” I then added, “I am looking for three freelancers”. Aside from some fairly accurate but somewhat vague background information, which is understandable since my prompt did not include all the relevant information, the AI engine initially provided three agencies and then, following the second prompt, three freelancers. The referred translation agencies and independent translators were all experienced professionals. Thus, GPT did provide an adequate starting point for a search for a translation professional.

By contrast, Google’s output to the same initial question was highly biased. The first page was almost entirely AI-based translation companies. I understand that people pay for top billing but I am not familiar with any government agency that will accept a certified translation of an official document produced by AI. The first human agencies were a few large, low-cost agencies. I am aware that some customers have a limited budget but it seems penny- wise and pound-foolish to skimp on the translation of a document that may make or break an important opportunity. Among the early entries (page 2) was a site for freelancers. It was shocking to see their average prices. Almost all of the more than 20 freelancers on the first two pages posted a rate of 5 USD a page, without defining what a page is. At that price, I would not trust the result as the rate is too good to be true. Thus, faced with a choice of AI, budget agencies and prostituting freelancers, the search was a non-starter.

It would seem that first-time translation buyers seeking a professional translator should take a much more directed approach. The best option may be national association search engines (such as the ATA in the US and ITA in Israel), which allow a full comparison of credentials and demonstrate some measure of professional approach. Service provider recommendation lists may also be relevant, albeit with a grain or two of salt. Of course, traditional personal recommendations are always relevant. Notices in relevant Facebook groups will provide several options. Finally, ChatGPT with more specifics is an ever more relevant path. Clearly, finding an appropriate translation will require some thinking and effort.

This situation should determine how translators market themselves. As AI seeks specifics that make one option more relevant than the others, translators need to include relevant details in as many locations as possible. These factors include languages, qualifications, experience, types of documents and skills. A website is an important but not the sole place to post such information. Furthermore, appearing on reputable translator lists, e.g., national associations and government bodies, enhances the probability that a search will produce one’s name. Of course, additional activities, including lectures, blogs and volunteer work, further enhance one’s presence. Ultimately, word-of-mouth, whether through customers or peers, is the best source of reference, requiring translators to produce quality results regardless of the rate. It is not enough for translators to prove and improve themselves. They need to market those attributes in multiple ways.

God helps those who help themselves. I am not sure that Google is a god even if it does seem to be omniscient and omnipresent. AI is far too naive to be a god but people increasingly treat it as one. Translation providers need to help purchasers find an appropriate option. Keeping on the astral plane, the devil is in the details. Purchasers need to make intelligent decisions while freelancers must provide the information they need to make those decisions. The result can be awe-inspiring, far superior to the uhs produced by simple Google searches and even ChatGPT.

Of words and truth

Can a name of an object be true or false or does custom determine its virtue. I was surprised that in a Plato dialogue Cratylus, cited in translation to English by Anne Fremantle in her Primer of Linguistics (1974), the issue of the essence of words was discussed. Interestingly enough, words were described as an instrument just as a shuttle or an awn. In other words, any person can use these tools but only experts know how to use them correctly. A linguistic example is the use of the word basically. While it does have a specific and correct meaning, many people throw it in as a breath stop, without meaning.

Plato through Socrates in the dialogue argues that instruments should be defined by the wise, i.e. experts in their use. In regards to words, he specifies politicians but apparently they were a bit more educated in his days. Nobody would praise the precision and truth of the words that politicians use today. The closest current institutions are the various national language institutions, such as in France and Israel but not in the United States. They attempt to establish correct usage and meaning, with varying degrees of success.

The problem is that language, including the name for an essence, is almost always established by popular consensus, i.e., how people use it.  A modern example is the acceptance of blog for web blog. No academy proposed or approved it but it is the correct word. On the other hand, funnest is still incorrect (as far as I know) even if thousands of children say it.

In terms of the classic debate between Hamilton and Jefferson, the people always decide but the former would say that they don’t always do correctly while the latter would say that argue collective wisdom. In other words, can one million references in Google be wrong? Yes and no. The debate continues.

Computer Program Verbalization

Many years ago, when I operated a photocopy machine (sounds funny, but true) at a large legal office in Los Angeles, the Xerox technician would correct us if we dared say the term “to Xerox a copy”, immediately reminding us that the term was to make a Xerox copy.  The reason for this insistence was the fear of over-identification of a company with a process or products, specifically the unique company name would become a public domain item, as in aspirin, originally a specific product.

Today, this concern has disappeared, especially in the software field.  People, including non-computer nerds, regularly google for information, photoshop their picture to eliminate the red eyes, and skype with their relatives abroad, or at least understand what these expressions mean.  Note that these verbs are not capitalized although they are registered trademarks nor does their trademark holder seem upset by their use.

Similarly, social media application developers love that people can icq each other, twitter a message to an athlete or just a friend, or chat by writing a text, not sitting and talking like it used to be.

These extreme successes make developers of other software drool. I am sure the Ways’ new owner would just love to have it replace the verb to gps.  Can you imagine the ecstasy of Microsoft if Windows became a synonym for panacea (like Ford’s Edsel once signified a completely lemon of a car)? Yahoo’s stock would reach the moon if to yahoo something meant provide a complete service.  Not everybody is so lucky, alas.

So, in a world when anybody can rent a limousine or tuxedo and even afford caviar from time to time, the symbol of ultimate success may, rather ironically, be found a two line entry in a dictionary. To paraphrase that Frank Sinatra song, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere……”