12

I can't believe they simply refused to fulfill their duties! The review was completely incorrect, and I calmly explained why—even though it was clear to a native speaker—using well-chosen sources and convincing arguments. What should I do when they demonstrate such a lack of willingness? It is completely dishonest because they were unable to refute my reasons, therefore they stated, "We cannot treat your request." Example: I translated "US Open" (EN) as "US Open" (FR)...The reviewer tagged it as a "wrong term" because, in his or her opinion, "US Open de tennis" should have been used. And everything else was the same. I'm curious how those low-quality reviews that damage our score can go unreported. Well, now I am reporting it because there is no reason to be blamed so unfairly.

10 comments

  • 2
    Avatar
    Rica Tero

    Hi @logos! Thanks for sharing your concern in the forum.

    I would like to apologize for the delay in responding. I investigated and asked the quality team about your request. The reason it is not processed is because not all of your disputes have a reference or legitimate example. You can submit again with the same contention and all of the credible examples or resources. Accessible and credible resources helped the quality team process the requests.

    You can check out this training material they posted here in the forum about re-review process.

    If you have questions or concern, don't hesitate to message me or the support team. Thank you.

  • 4
    Avatar
    Ko

    Hi Rica, you wrote that the reason the re-review was not processed was that "not all of your disputes have a reference or legitimate example". I feel like that is a very strange reason to refuse to process the request altogether. If some of the disputes do have a reference or legitimate example, doesn't the translator, at the very least, have the right to have those be looked into?

  • 2
    Avatar
    logos_sarada

    Hello Rica, thanks for your reply... I wonder if I copy here my re-review request, along with the link and the justifications provided, would my fellow translators agree with the reason given by the quality team. I know they would not. Even though I am aware that the only issue here is a lack of willingness, I will nonetheless share more links with the quality team.

    But do I need to provide evidence when I specifically stated in my request that my translation of one section yields more than 300 hits in Google Search whereas the reviewer's translation yields only three? Isn't it enough just to say that, and it's up to the re-reviewer to determine whether it's accurate or not? How could I demonstrate it if I couldn't join screenshots? Moreover, it was clear from the context...

    There are several websites with links similar to the one I provided for "US Open" from a reputable sports news source. Should I join more of them given that "US Open de Tennis" is frequently referred to as "US Open" in both professional papers and spoken language, not just in France but around the entire world? Not "Tennis US Open," but "Us Open" was the original text. Therefore, my translation was flawless. Again, I did offer a link to back up my assertion.

     

  • 0
    Avatar
    Rica Tero

    Hi @Ko. 😊

    We only process one re-review request per job, so it is really important to fulfill the requirements per dispute. A translator can re-submit the request if it is not processed with all the requirements that need to be fulfilled. They can also consider taking out the dispute without request fulfillment.

    As I mentioned in my previous comment, it is important to fulfill this process as it helps the quality team verify the request.

  • 6
    Avatar
    logos_sarada

    There's also a problem that's out of the translators' hands. When words in an expression are chopped up into segments, the translation is sometimes impossible to do, whereas it is obvious when the words are put together. This was the case for three segments that were marked as badly translated. I had the following segments:
    Every.
    Live. 
    Game.
    Which I translated as follows: 
    Chaque. 
    En direct. 
    Match.

    If the sentence hadn't been broken up, I would obviously have translated it as "chaque match en direct". In this case, whatever my translation, depending on the proofreader, the last two segments could be marked as badly translated. I gave this explanation at length when I asked for the correction to be revised. No link could have been provided; the problem lies well upstream.

    Knowing that the word order differs between the two languages, who made the decision to fragment the sentence in this manner?

  • 0
    Avatar
    Rica Tero

    Hi @logos! 😊

    Unfortunately, we are not allowed to share most of the details of our work here, a it's a violation of the Forum Guidelines and Translator Agreement. Rest assured, I saw your re-review request before responding here.

    All of the disputes should have accessible resources. The quality team verifies these.The requirements and processes are put in place for a re-review request, as we want it to be organized and systematic. The reason why requests are not processed is always because they do not fulfill all the requirements, and it's not about the lack of willingness of the quality team.

    Regarding your question, you can provide the link where you get the data on the hits from Google searches. For the next one, you can explain it and back it up with examples and/or resources on the internet. If you can't find an exact example or resource for the words, you can use the fundamentals to explain why you translated them that way. 

    I hope it helps. If you have any other questions or concerns, please share it here or message me. Thank you. 

  • 10
    Avatar
    mdj_cm

    Did the reviewer provide any justification for requiring "Tennis" to be added to the French "translation" of "US Open"? I can't think of any situation where this would be warranted so I'm curious to know how it may be the case.

    In any fair review system, the burden of proof lies with the original "claimant" (the party who alleges an infringement, fault...). This is to prevent arbitrary reviews and penalties. In our case, Gengo is the original "claimant" disputing the quality of your work and giving you a penalty by reducing your overall score. Given that your ability to get work from Gengo is directly based on said score, and that your ability to get work from other clients may indirectly be based on said score (when you share it with prospective clients), reducing your score does amount to a penalty which may be harmful. Therefore it would be for Gengo to provide proof for every mistake made by the translator. In practical terms, that would be every time a translator requires such proof to be provided.

    I would tend to agree with you regarding the second example you give, especially if the source contained similar segments with no relation between them (as is often the case on Gengo).

    It is unfair for various reasons, one of them being that the source should always be displayed orderly (in a self-evident way) so as to prevent any confusion. It shouldn't be part of the translator's job to guess how a segment is actually used or displayed in the source after it has been outputted for the translator in a way that is often disorderly and confusing; Sometimes, but too rarely, we are provided with relevant and sufficient per segment contextual notes which may include pictures of the segment "in action". But oftentimes, such info is missing and the confusion created by the source outputting process greatly impedes on our ability to translate correctly or in a reasonable amount of time, as the best way to remedy such confusion as a translator is to ask the client for more information every time it happens, which can be very time consuming depending on the job.

     

    Edited by mdj_cm
  • 7
    Avatar
    gengo313

     

    If my particular experiences can provide any indication, I have concluded that when doing translations for this platform, I not only have to be absolutely perfect from an editorial level of literacy and choice of words perspective, but also be absolutely perfect in terms of providing a literal translation that covers all of the syntactic details in the original source text. In other words, it has to be "good" enough to pass the copy editor at the New York Times and Conde Nast, but also be literal enough to satisfy the bean counters at your local municipal office.

    And it does not seem adequate these days to find online references and sources that will back up your claim for a re-review. If the reviewer thinks it doesn't satisfy "their" requirements, you don't qualify for an upgrade of your score.

    I think most of the readers here know what I am talking about. It means that we need to dot every i, and cross every t, and make sure that no one can assail it, because it will eventually be assailed.

    And oh, by the way, I'm willing to bet that a good number of people who submit a re-review will find themselves suddenly reviewed en masse. Likewise for submitting a post in this here Community forum. Coincidence? I don't know. But I find it highly unlikely that I'm not being watched.

    The benefit from that is that I am always hyper vigilant, always checking and double-checking my translations to make certain that both the culture warriors manning the editorial gates and the bureaucrats who slavishly adhere to literal rules are satiated.

    The cons are obviously, it's exhausting to always be worrying about who is looking over your shoulder, always wondering, am I pleasing the right audience? And inevitably, what should I do when my efforts to please the bureaucrats are in conflict with what I believe to be the right methodology for the customer? Sometimes, the customer makes that decision easy because they say they don't want a literal translation, etc. But many times, they don't, and so, in the split second that is required these days to pick up a job, I have to decide whether the effort is worth it or not.

    Not exactly a happy work environment, if you ask me.

  • 1
    Avatar
    logos_sarada

    Thanks @mdj_cm for your pertinent reply!

    There is a French adage that states, "You mustn't be more royalist than the king.": We don't have to make the efforts that people who are in charge of them don't bother to make. ;)

  • 1
    Avatar
    Rica Tero

    Hi everyone. 💚

    Thank you for sharing your experiences here. We are continuously working on its improvement, and your valuable insights and experiences shared here in the forum will help us achieve this goal.

    I also want to share some details about the re-review request. For Q3 2023, 68% of it was processed. The common reasons for requests not being processed are the time period and the lack of resources. The quality team is improving some aspects of it to better assist translators in submitting a re-review request.

    If you still have disputes with your requests, please don't hesitate to contact the quality team. Thank you.

Please sign in to leave a comment.