所以不知道到底是我询问 re-review 的进展的 ticket 起了效果还是我在这里发帖子被看到了起了效果。感觉应该是后者。当然我觉得这有点不符合程序正义，应该还是递 ticket 比较合规吧。不过我看总 Community 里也有很多其他语言对的译者这么干……总之，要用尽可以使用的一切手段呐。
你最近的 review 还好吗？
0
Lara Fernandez
Hi Ch'ü Tsê-t'ien,
Thanks for bringing this up.
I actually spoke with our Quality team after I saw your post here and, after looking into your specific case, they decided to create a third review, as an exception. It seems that the source text for this specific job was ambiguous, and the LSs mistakenly assumed that the extra spaces and slashes were supposed to be corrected in the Chinese target in order to make sense. After a closer look, the team realized that the slashes may have been there to indicate some type of formatting. At the moment, we can't tell 100% what the intention of the end client was but, as per the last review you have received, we have made a decision to mark it as a suggestion, and hope you can take it into account in the future :)
support
5件のコメント
我来跟大家说说具体情况。
事情很简单，原文是 ad text, 句子类似：
Lorem ipsum /dolor sit/ amet, consectetuer /adipiscing elit/.
Maecenas /porttitor congue/ massa.
Fusce posuere, magna /sed pulvinar/ ultricies, purus /lectus malesuada/ libero.
注意，原文的 / ... / 的斜线是贴着关键词写的，但左右都有空格。我就译成了（上方的假文用的 Word 的 lorem() 函数，下方的假文用的是网上随便找的一个假文生成器）：
何很广置 /造去连历/ 山王表，众日义劳约先实 /类权光真/。
二为届 /僚北述励/ 组志。
铁为专步就断候状记专，引准例 /适立满提/ 技引断，七价 /届医大复/ 义心。
结果两次的 Reviewer 都给出了「空格前后不一致」的「错误」。甚至第二位 Reviewer 还说标点不应该在行首，也就是说他认为斜线表示换行。可是斜线并不表示换行，斜线只是突出它想要强调的词或者词组。
这么简单的问题，两个 Reviewer 都看不明白吗？！？
更新：第三次 Review 已到，repeal 了前两次 Review 的这一裁决。在此提请诸位，有问题，一定要申诉啊。
不懂就问，如何再次申诉？直接给 support team 发邮件吗？
@Chatty
我也不知道。首先我递了 ticket 询问 re-review 进展（这个在前），然后在此之后收到 re-review 结果，因为对 re-review 不认同，就在这里发了这个帖子，然后我就快速被再次、也就是 re-re-review 了，之后我又收到了之前 ticket 的进一步回应。
所以不知道到底是我询问 re-review 的进展的 ticket 起了效果还是我在这里发帖子被看到了起了效果。感觉应该是后者。当然我觉得这有点不符合程序正义，应该还是递 ticket 比较合规吧。不过我看总 Community 里也有很多其他语言对的译者这么干……总之，要用尽可以使用的一切手段呐。
你最近的 review 还好吗？
Hi Ch'ü Tsê-t'ien,
Thanks for bringing this up.
I actually spoke with our Quality team after I saw your post here and, after looking into your specific case, they decided to create a third review, as an exception. It seems that the source text for this specific job was ambiguous, and the LSs mistakenly assumed that the extra spaces and slashes were supposed to be corrected in the Chinese target in order to make sense. After a closer look, the team realized that the slashes may have been there to indicate some type of formatting. At the moment, we can't tell 100% what the intention of the end client was but, as per the last review you have received, we have made a decision to mark it as a suggestion, and hope you can take it into account in the future :)
Thank you for your patience!
Lara
Thanks, Lara!