There seems to be a new Japanese-to-English reviewer who insists that translations mirror the original word-for-word. I always put in the effort to make my translations sound natural and fluent in English, so it's disappointing when I'm penalized for that extra effort.
For Job #91128XXX, there were two sentences that explained how a product could be customized. To improve the flow in English, I moved one of the noun phrases from the second sentence to the first sentence. The resulting meaning was identical. This was marked as a "syntactic error" because "the corresponding source segment was included in the sentence that follows."
Rearranging words is not a valid reason to mark an error, so I filed a re-review request with the following comment:
>I intentionally rearranged the wording to improve the flow. This is not an error under Gengo's guidelines.
>"Being accurate in a translation means accurately conveying the message of the source, not the order of the written words or sentences."
>"Always aim to re-order sentences and don’t stick to the word order of the original."
Since the reviewer did not allege an error in meaning, there is not much more I can say. My request was rejected as "not processed:" "Insufficient explanation. There is a lack of congruence in reference/resource you have provided. If you wish to have your request processed, please provide legitimate resources to back up your dispute. "
Here is another example. For Job #905XXXXX, I used the sentence [omitted]. The reviewer marked this as an omission with the following reason: "This seems to be the match for [omitted]; although this broadly works in this sort of context where "this" can directly point to the relevant text, it would be safest to handle this with some kind of term match just in case (the client might edit in images between the line and subsequent text, or any number of other context changes could occur)." In other words, the reviewer wants me to translate it as something like [omitted]. But the colon already indicates that "this" refers to what follows. I did not bother filing a re-review request.
I would appreciate it if reviewers could be reminded to only mark clear errors under Gengo's guidelines, and to allow plenty of room for non-literal translations. I do admire the reviewer's thoroughness.