In this training, you will find a summary of the re-review process, you will find out what the re-review is, what are the grounds for submitting a request, the timelines and deadlines, and the limitations of the process.  Also, we prepared a list of best practices and arbitration etiquette, which makes disputing a change more professional and helps you provide solid argumentation.

The training is available under the below link: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1pFWgNOHT6MIAZL3lK-0kMkAxBp5qbYuEdbDV5nDyCZ4/edit?usp=sharing

We encourage you to comment on the training and share your own ideas!


-Lionbridge Community Team



  • 5

    Many thanks for these detailed explanations and logical instructions!

  • 4
    from Japan

    I have questions and concerns about the materials. They contain the following statements:


    “Requests should always be backed up by official references or legitimate examples.”

    “provide clear justification and reliable references to support your argument.”


    However, I believe that it’s not our responsibility, but LSs’ to justify their review. I don’t think it is a better way but the only way to address this kind of matter: under the principle of innocent until proven guilty. What they are saying is basically “guilty until proven innocent.” I strongly believe unless an LS proves a translation contains mistakes, the translation must be deemed correct. It is also unfair since LSs are able to mark anything they deem incorrect as errors and have always an option to remove part of a translation from the scope of review, which I believe they should exercise actively when they are uncertain or cannot provide enough supporting materials. Translators basically don’t have that option but always have to work on them no matter how unclear or difficult the source text is.


    I also do not understand why they provide the following as incorrect examples for a translator’s explanations:


    My translation is not unnatural...

    I don’t think the LS’s translation is better than mine


    Whether a translation is natural or not is often a matter of preference. And, a translator may indeed provide better work than an LS in some instances. It isn’t our responsibility to prove a translation is not unnatural or bad, but an LS should be able to clearly show it is actually unnatural or bad.


    I have just submitted a review request as the reviewer marked some points in my work as errors by suggesting examples for improvement which the source text does not say. If such an addition is required in some instances, it is not for the job in my opinion. They are somethings the LS just came up with based on my translation, not necessarily on the source text (it’s an 1129-word, rather difficult work and the LS worked on its entirety! How long did it take?).


    You also cannot expect a translator is always able to polish the work by adding things that the source text does not contain in a limited time, even when it is necessary. If this is ignored, Gengo’s service itself is not possible at all, although I find my translation is not at all bad but easily above the average.


    Strictly speaking, my re-review request does not meet the requirements, but how can I?

  • 1

    Thank you for your comment, for sharing your concerns, and for touching on this important topic. 
    In general, the responsibility to prove the correctness of the provided translation is on both sides: on the one hand the translator is responsible for the final quality provided to the Customer, on the other – when corrections are not self-explanatory (e.g. spelling, obvious grammar error, etc.) Language Specialists are obligated to provide clear explanations to translators why the initial translation is incorrect. The comment needs to give context to the error so that translators know how to revise it or avoid the error next time.
    The re-review process was created for the translators, who argue that their translation is absolutely correct/or when there is more than one accurate translation of the same term/phrase. This is an opportunity to defend your translation, verify your arguments, and compare it with LS. However, there are processed only those requests, which meet the criteria mentioned in training and re-review instructions. This is why providing arguments are so important.
    Re. examples from p. 4: the provided examples represent subjective feelings, not facts. Also, they do not represent constructive feedback and arguments why the initial translation is better. 
    The subjectivity of "natural sound" or proposing "better translation" is a very tricky matter and hard to evaluate, especially when we are talking about two native speakers, which translation decision may be based on a region-related factor, the influence of the local dialect, or just personal language preference. In such cases, it is very good to check the phrase in the language corpora to dispel any doubts (and this is a very solid argumentation in the re-review process).
    What about your latest re-review request please contact our Quality Team at GengoQualityTeam@lionbridge.com and provide details, and we will look into your request.  
    I hope this clarified a bit of concern. Once again - thank you very much for your engagement.

  • 2
    from Japan

    Thank you for your reply. However, what I meant to say is that reviews are currently conducted in a very arbitrary manner: marking things as errors by suggesting improvements that the source text does not say, saying a pronoun should be translated as the term it refers to even though there is no room for misunderstanding, etc. It places a disproportionately heavy burden on me. With no specific guidelines on how reviews should be performed, they will be able to mark errors in any way they like since a translation involves countless choices.


    The materials fail to consider this fact and the actual state that reviews are conducted. This has been always the way reviews are conducted to the extent I can tell (I don’t mean all LSs though) while I had more than two years of hiatus where I had not taken a single job at Gengo before I came back recently.


    Sometimes, the examples on p. 4 can be the only available or appropriate options for a translator. We should not be required to provide justifications as it is simply impossible or a waste of time. It is not our responsibility to prove that a given translation is correct regarding points marked by LSs as errors. This is the only reasonable way to address this kind of matter. Of course, translators are responsible for customers, but I’m not referring to them.


    There should be clear guidelines on what matters reviewers can mark as errors, and they should take into account limitations in working on jobs at Gengo (time, rewards, difficulties in working on Gengo’s platform, etc.).


    I have sent mail to GengoQualityTeam. Although I didn’t post the above comment for it, still I appreciate it. Again, thank you for your reply.

  • 2

    Thank you for kind and professional discussion. 

    Also, thank you for your suggestion (internally, we already have such guidelines for our LSs). We still working on the re-review process to make it more smooth and translator-friendly (some of the changes are implemented already, hope you notice them). 

    I confirm that we have received your e-mail, we are checking your request and will keep you posted about the results. 

Please sign in to leave a comment.