4

Hello,

I wanted to share this to see if I'm the only one that has experienced these very frustrating issues or if this could be a wider problem with regards of how jobs are reviewed. 

First up there's the issue of subjective matters, and I can take direct examples of my own experiences so we're not even talking about imaginative scenarios. I've gotten marked multiple times as errors cases where I've translated words correctly but that the LS's consider that the English word is commonly used and should be left as is. Now, while I agree that a segment of the population, mainly the well-off and the ones that already speak English would have no issue with words in English being thrown in, I'm thinking here of people who speak no English at all. One example is the word: "vintage" and in this case it was used to describe clothing. I translated it as "con acabado antiguo" which in English would be something like "with an antique look". So, my translation isn't incorrect in the sense that I am not choosing the wrong words to convey what the original text says, but the LS's consider that it is an error because they consider that the word in English is widely used and should not be translated. All of this are subjective matters and what interests me is the question if my translation should be marked as an error? I would totally be okay with a suggestion (which is not marked as an error, mainly as a note for future jobs), but why is it an error? And who decides when the English word is sufficiently used to leave it as is? Yeah, I'd understand it and my English-fluent friends would as well, but I'm sure my immediate family who doesn't speak any English at all would struggle with those. Again, this is only an example but the list of words where this very same issue could happen is an extensive one. But the fundamental question is: in these cases; should they be marked as errors or simply as suggestions? I think it's also worth noting that our job is to translate and the goal is to translate one text and make it fully intelligible in the target language. When you consider this, I'd argue that my take on it, to translate them instead of leaving the source text as it is, is the better option of the two.

 

Another issue that I've seen happen is when it comes to large volume and multiple jobs from the same customer. I know we're not supposed to talk about who the customers are - according to the Translation Agreement -, as far as I understood, and I want to respect that, so let's just say that in this case I'm talking about a large e-commerce platform that sells all kinds of products. Pretty much anything you can imagine, you'd find it in such platform. Now, the issue here is mainly about brand names. And I want to point out that in the customer's instructions, there is no glossary of brand names nor any links to product's pages in order to see if the text is referring to the actual description of the product or if it's part of the name of the brand, and to see where in the text does the brand name begin and where it ends. I can also use a real-life example of one that occurred to me. So apparently there is a clothing brand whose name is: "Screaming Eagle", and in my case the text was describing a jacket from this brand. Now, I don't know if screaming eagle is the name of the brand or if the actual jacket has a screaming eagle and the product description is describing that. I should note that all of these jobs are TM jobs, so very poorly paid and again, no info or reference as to what are brand names or even links to the products so that translators can check them. It is also worth mentioning the immense volume of jobs coming in sometimes and the ranges of products that are covered, in essence: anything you could find at a large e-commerce store. So, I'm talking about products and categories that vary from auto parts - and those being both electrical and mechanical parts -, clothing, musical instruments, camera gear, baby products, food products, toys, furniture, home appliances, electronics of all kinds (computers, phones, tablets, etc.), audio equipment, beauty products, personal hygiene, cleaning products etc. And that is only to name a few or the ones that come to mind right now. Am I supposed to be familiar with all the brands that exist in all of the above mentioned (and beyond) categories of products? And with no index or listings of brand names or any links to the products themselves? And on top of that, with the incredible volume of these type of jobs and the very low compensation? And yet, they were marked as critical errors, and thus, severely impacting my final score of the review. 

At this point I'm simply tired and don't even want to submit re-review processes because they never seem to understand what my actual point is, and in many cases, they only double down or simply ignore some instances and they don't even comment on why they don't think it was wrong, so in some cases I don't even get any answers from the LS's. And sometimes people simply don't want to admit they were wrong and instead double down on their stance.

I thank you for taking the time to read all of this, and I wonder if there's others that have faced similar frustrating situations like the ones mentioned above?

87件のコメント

  • 1
    Avatar
    Ballmar

    Today I have been penalised for an option that the LS did not quite like (he/she suggested his/her own option which in his/her opinion sounded more natural). Is it about errors or LS's personal linguistic preferences?

  • 1
    Avatar
    Nelson Bras

    Hi Lara,

     

    Thank you for replying so quickly.

    I have already submitted a request to the Support Team with an extended version of the re-review form.

    Let’s wait for the answer.

     

     

    Meanwhile… another day, another review, another suggestion treated as if it was an error… and another re-review request.

    Here’s what I mean:

    Source - “Different wearables and devices sync steps data in different ways”

    Translation – “Os diversos dispositivos utilizáveis e outros tipos de dispositivos sincronizam os dados sobre os passos de várias formas”

    SL’s comment: Error – word structure (Low) – “Por uma questão de facilidade de leitura, deveria ter sido utilizado outro termo que evitasse a repetição de ‘dispositivos’. Outra possível tradução seria ‘equipamento’".

    In a nutshell:

    - “weareables” = “dispositivos utilizáveis” (Client’s official translation)

    - “devices” = ”dispositivos” (Client’s official translation)

    According to the reviewer, to avoid repeating the word “dispositivos”, I should have ignored the terms adopted by (client name) and choose a different translation for the second term, thus improving readability.

    The SL finishes his/her judgement by providing a “possible alternative": “equipamentos” (equipment).

     

    1 - I always try to follow (client name)‘s guidelines/terminology as much as possible - since they are the major accepted standard you can find for apps, operating systems, etc. - and I always add a comment stating that “all technical terms were checked against (client name)’s terminology collection” where appropriate.

    2 - There is a huge difference between errors (mistranslations, omissions, untranslated terms, etc.) and suggestions (“I think it would sound better this way”).

    Bottom line: this is definitely not an error, but rather a suggestion, and it should be treated as such.

    It seems like the message “By popular demand, Language Specialists also have the ability to add suggestions that will not deduct any points and are purely for your information and to help you improve your translations” (you can find it here, along with a real-life example https://support.gengo.com/hc/en-us/articles/231441287-How-Gengo-measures-quality) didn’t reach the reviewers.

    This is an issue that could be easily solved through better communication between Gengo and the reviewers in question. Just imagine what you could save on re-review requests!

    Best regards,

     

    Nelson Brás

     

  • 1
    Avatar
    Lara Fernandez

    Hi Nelson - please note I’ve had to edit the customer name out of your comment as these forums are public and we’re not allowed to disclose our clients names, style guides, or content of their translations (even if just a single line.) Please note that the issue of confidentiality is clearly stated in Section 1 of our Translator Agreement :) I see also that you mention you’ve submitted a request for re-review - thanks!

  • 0
    Avatar
    Nelson Bras

    Hi Lara,

     

    1 - The name you edited is not the name of the customer who ordered the translation;

    2 - M********'s  language portal is a free tool provided by M********' for public consultation. There is no confidentiality issue associated with referring you to that link.

    As a matter of fact, I would advise every translator/reviewer to have a look - everything would be much easier if we all could share a common reference. I think this is a good start - no more "I don't like how it sounds", "because I say so", "Reviewer X thinks this way but Reviewer Y thinks otherwise", etc. 

    Best regards!

  • 0
    Avatar
    Lara Fernandez

    @Nelson — the way it was presented, it sounded as if it was a customer specific instruction and hence why it applied specifically to your job, and the following re-review request. If that’s not the case, I apologize, but please note that in cases like this we’d rather err on the side of caution ;) I hope you receive your re-review results soon!

  • 1
    Avatar
    Nelson Bras

    @Lara Fernandez — "in cases like this we’d rather err on the side of caution ;)" — No problem! I understand and totally agree with your cautious position :-)

    For clarity sake, do you mind if I repost the link here? Feel free to edit this comment if you think it breaches any confidentiality rule.

    - “weareables” = “dispositivos utilizáveis” (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/language/Search?&searchTerm=wearable&langID=601&Source=true&productid=0)

    - “devices” = ”dispositivos” (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/language/Search?&searchTerm=device&langID=601&Source=true&productid=0)

    Have a nice weekend!

  • 0
    Avatar
    Lara Fernandez

    Perfect, Nelson, and thanks for your understanding! You have a great rest of your weekend, too :)

  • 1
    Avatar
    qx1984

    Agree. I have stopped working for Gengo for almost a year due to this issue. Now I am back.. due to Corona. And I sincerely hope I do not have to work for Gengo any more. When it comes to reviews, it can be very subjective sometimes. I think it would be better if Gengo could have two reviewers review the same piece of translation for better objectivity or simply trust translators more. I feel translators are treated unfairly as inferior just because of their role. I don't necessarily think reviewers are correct most of the time.

     

    Especially considering now Gengo seems to be keen on cutting translation rates by all means....It seems ridiculous that we translators, who are working for meagre rates under tight deadlines, are judged by reviewers who might be having a sip of tea, scrutinizing over all the minor problems that probably don't even matter at all. 

    qx1984により編集されました
  • 0
    Avatar
    qx1984

    I'd also like to add that the system is simply unfair. We can clearly see translators have much much less say than reviewers.

  • 1
    Avatar
    Nelson Bras

    Update 1

    Regarding the second case (the one about the word "dispositivos"), I have just received the result of the re-review request - 10/10.

    Looks like the "Suggestion" button is working fine, after all!

    Best regards.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Ballmar

    qx1984, I completely agree with what you say. We are pushed to leave. The only reason why the LSs denigrate us ths way is becaause they are supported by Gengo.

    Nelson, you have been luckier than me but, be careful, because this could change: two days ago the same happened to me, which made me feel quite happy for a while, today, though, they repented of their good action and my score reflected again the result of an unfair revision. 

  • 0
    Avatar
    Lara Fernandez

    @Nelson - Glad to hear your re-review request went just fine :)

  • 2
    Avatar
    Nelson Bras

    UPDATE:

    I am still waiting for the first re-review.

    I have a feeling that the result won’t come easy – I can only imagine how difficult it will be for the reviewers to digest the fact that they committed 18 mistakes out of 19 in a single text.

    Another possibility is that, due to the fact of not being able to substantiate the errors pointed out in their first review, they decide to find “new” errors, so they can keep the same rating and prevent the translator from defending his position regarding the “new” errors found in the re-review, since “the re-review decision is final” - I already went through that road before (I wonder if the reviewers do this to protect themselves from being “punished” for admitting a large number of mistakes).

    I really think that the re-review should be limited to the first errors found – if you don’t have the opportunity to submit another re-review, it makes little sense to talk about new issues, otherwise, the game is obviously rigged.

    Let’s hope for the best.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Nelson Bras

    Still waiting...

  • 0
    Avatar
    Nelson Bras

    ... and waiting...

  • 2
    Avatar
    Lara Fernandez

    Hi Nelson! Thanks for keeping track of this. I pinged the team on Friday when I saw your "Still waiting" comment, and I'm disappointed to know you haven't received you re-review yet. I will get in touch with the team again and hopefully you can receive your re-review within the week. Please do note that Thursday and Friday are national holidays in Japan this week, so I won't be available for follow-up until next week (if needed, which I hope won't be the case!)

  • 1
    Avatar
    Nelson Bras

    Hi Lara,

    As I told you before "I have a feeling that the result won’t come easy – I can only imagine how difficult it will be for the reviewers to digest the fact that they committed 18 mistakes out of 19 in a single text".

    I guess they are just struggling to find a way to disagree with the official sources attached to each comment, so they can keep the score as is.


    Thank you for your intervention.

    Best regards!

  • 0
    Avatar
    Nelson Bras

    Annnndd…. here we go.

    Just as I told you before, this is definitely not my best work and I should have declined it (like the previous translator) instead of trying to do my best without sleeping just to be able to pay my rent (&5$””*^ coronavirus!)

    Nevertheless, it gave me the opportunity to analyse the review and re-review system from one end to the other. And yes, I have learned a lot!

    1 – So… from 19 errors found in the first review, we are now left with 9 errors and 1 suggestion.

    2 – Meanwhile, the scoreboard didn’t change much (before - 5.8 / after - 6.21 --- final score = 8.6), because some of the first low severity errors were changed to “critical” and “medium”. Yep… you have to admire the reviewer’s effort to keep the score as low/ close to the first one as possible (remember my comment above? I had a feeling).

     

    Let’s do some math:

    - At first sight, the first reviewer was 50% wrong!

    - My translation was 1671 words long, while the “errors” found in the re-review amount to a total count of 91 words – ergo, 95/1671 – i.e. a 5% failure.

    - Considering that a 5% failure results in a 6.21/10 score, what kind of rating should we consider for a reviewer who is 50% wrong vs a translator who is 5% wrong???

    - Also, 6.21/10 = 62%, meaning that if you are 5% wrong, the system translates this number into a shameful score, as if your text was 62% wrong! What?! The relative weight of each error should be reviewed, don’t you think?

    Yes. I have learned a lot from the re-review:

    1- Gengo Style Guide

    • Gengo Style Guide (Portuguese) – regarding the use of “tu” instead of “você” - “As únicas exceções são os casos em que o ciente pede especificamente o uso de linguagem informal”.If the reviewers think that the client’s request to use informal language is not enough to choose “tu” instead of “você”, the style guide should be amended, because it clearly states otherwise – here’s a possible version: As únicas exceções são os casos em que o cliente pede especificamente que se utilize linguagem informal e/ou “tu” em vez de “você”.

    BTW – the Style Guide has a typo in “ciente” (it should be “cliente” and the sentence mentioned above sounds unnatural to a native speaker (it says a lot about its author).

     

    4 - There is more than one reviewer out there who thinks that

     

    “The number of hours the average churchgoer in the United States spends on mobile devices each day”

     

    should be translated as

     

    “The average time that church members in the United States spend…”

     

    What!? Can anyone here spot the difference? That’s right! In statistical terms, this is just WRONG – the time spent by an average subject is not the same as the average time spent by a subject. The definition of “average subject” is well known for every student of statistics 101 - “Do consumidor médio” https://repositorio.ucp.pt/bitstream/10400.14/10927/1/TESE_MariaAnaFonseca.pdf) /// “Rendimento médio disponível das famílias” https://www.pordata.pt/Portugal/Rendimento+m%C3%A9dio+dispon%C3%ADvel+das+fam%C3%ADlias-2098. /// “facilmente compreensível para o leitor médio” https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:184E:0001:0007:PT:PDF /// “um agregado familiar médio poderia poupar” https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/pt/IP_08_1874, etc.

    But this was not enough to convince the reviewer that “frequentador de igrejas médio”, although not “pretty”,  is definitely the right technical/statistical way to say it.

     

    5 - The reviewers lack the required statistical knowledge… what about marketing knowledge?

    According to both reviewers (I wonder if they are the same), “The number of app impressions the average church sees” should be translated as “the number of visualizations obtained by a church”… WHAT?!

     

    There is a huge difference between “app impressions” and “app views” - https://support.google.com/google-ads/thread/1450851?hl=en /// https://pt-pt.facebook.com/help/274400362581037 . Could it be clearer? Once again, it was not enough.

     

    6 - Apple Developer account – According to both reviewers (again, are they the same?), “Apple Developer” (the name of an app connected to the “Apple Developer Program - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/apple-developer/id640199958) shouldn’t be left untranslated. Well… if Apple decided to leave it untranslated (and possibly registered as a trademark), who am I to say otherwise? Should I also translate “Microsoft Office”, “Apple Afterburner, “Face ID”, etc.? I don’t think so.

     

    7 - Let’s skip the parts where the reviewer blatantly ignores the difference between formal language and the informal language style requested by the client (maybe he/she should check the following links: https://ciberduvidas.iscte-iul.pt/consultorio/perguntas/linguagem-formal-e-linguagem-informal/11318 or https://ciberduvidas.iscte-iul.pt/consultorio/perguntas/linguagemregisto-formal-e-informal/32750), and tries to turn an app into a novel by Umberto Eco – Meanwhile, the only substantiation provided for his/her verbosity is a generic, all-encompassing comment based on “language subtleties of text cohesion”. In some cases, he/she does not even provide any alternative - Yep… it’s so easy to work like that, and what a great excuse for just about everything!

     

     

    Meanwhile, it’s 2:59 AM here and I need to deliver another project.

     

    I will try to come back ASAP with improvement suggestions for the review/re-review process.

     

    Stay safe!

    Nelson Brasにより編集されました
  • 0
    Avatar
    Chris

    While I can't comment on the subtleties and have heard only one side of the story, I have to say this certainly sounds like grounds for a serious look at the reviewer(s) in question. 
    Mistakes in the review aside, raising the severity of errors in a re-review should be a no-go, unless it's a completely independent "blind" one, which can't be the case if specific errors are supposed to be addressed. It's not a huge stretch to suspect ulterior motives, here. Even if justified, it doesn't seem like a wise move. The mistake has been pointed out, raising its severity after the fact will only antagonize the translator. Also it should have been clear that this re-review would be scrutinized, at the very least by the translator, which makes the whole thing even more damning.

    @Nelson: Your "failure" rate would be 5%, though (or a fraction of 0.05, if that's the right way to put it in English).

     

    Sorry for the many edits (for those subscribed to the topic)!

    Chrisにより編集されました
  • 0
    Avatar
    AlexF

    My own recent experience to add to the overall frustration and hopelessness with Gocheck reviews:

             "Text" to translate: 8:01 PM - 11:59 AM

              My "blunder": 20 h 01 - 23 h 59

    I do recognize that this is a "major" mistake which sometimes could have some very dire consequences. But does it deserve a Gocheck review of 5.75/10 in an otherwise correct translation ? Seems kind of out of proportion to me.

     

  • 0
    Avatar
    Nelson Bras

    @Chris: Your "failure" rate would be 5%, though (or a fraction of 0.05, if that's the right way to put it in English).

    You are absolutely right.

    0.05% edited to 5%

    Thank you!

  • 0
    Avatar
    Nelson Bras

    @Chris

    1 - Here's a small sample of a "subtle" error:

    According to both reviewers, “hours spent by” should not be translated as “horas gastas por”, because they think the adjective “gastas” is pejorative and you should find a synonym instead.

    Well… this is clearly a biased opinion of someone who is not used to deal with marketing texts and Google Analytics. Please check:

    “Os objetivos de duração observam o tempo que um utilizador gasta numa página e encaram a duração como uma conversão para medir o seu envolvimento.” - http://digitalalive.pt/google-analytics-poder-dos-dados-nas-suas-maos/

    “A média de tempo gasto neste tipo de plataformas é de 2h10 por pessoa” - https://nipemedia.pt/blog/o-impacto-que-a-internet-trouxe-ao-mundo-dos-negocios/

    “o ano de 2015 foi aquele em que o tempo gasto no consumo de meios digitais em dispositivos móveis ultrapassou o tempo gasto em computadores e outros dispositivos.” - http://www.digital.com.pt/tag/marketing-digital-portugal/

     

    Personally, I would also suggest a term other than “gastas” – something “prettier”, more formal, like “dedicadas” - (as I said, this specific translation is far from the high standards I usually apply to my work)… Nevertheless, a “suggestion” is not an “error”. I agree with the reviewer that we can find a better word, but I am far from agreeing that this should treated as an "error".

     

    2 - "Even if justified, it doesn't seem like a wise move" - that is exactly my point. Now that I had the chance to rest for a while and my mind is clearer, I happen to agree with the fact that the mistake now marked as "critical error", specifically, should have been marked, at least, as a medium severity error by the first reviewer. But I don't think this is the time to change a low severity error into a critical error.

    Nelson Brasにより編集されました
  • 0
    Avatar
    Nelson Bras

    Let me just start by saying that I have no animosity towards this particular reviewer, or any other LS by the way - I understand their position because I also work as a reviewer/proofreader/editor for several translation agencies – My problem here (and I’m not alone) is the lack of dialogue (this is the only platform that treats translators as an inferior species, instead of promoting a healthy knowledge exchange environment between the parties to ensure the best possible outcome for each text) and the overwhelming weight that the LS’s smallest decisions have on our way to unemployment.

     

    I feel like the go-check system is now a rusty guillotine just waiting for a dreadful day to satisfy its blood thirst.

    In the old system, I could always think “let’s agree to disagree” and apply the reviewer’s suggestion to the following jobs - 30 days afterwards, my score would be 10/10 again.

    Nowadays, if you blink your eyes at the wrong moment in a couple of 1€ jobs, and commit a microscopic mistake (@AlexF)… it will haunt you for almost a year, even if the following tasks are all 10/10!

     

    Improvement Suggestions

     

    1 – Establish a clear difference between “errors” (objective - mistranslations, untranslated terms, grammar issues, typos, etc., duly substantiated by reference to official sources) and “suggestions” (subjective - “sounds better”, “maybe”, “it’s difficult to explain”, subtleties, personal interpretations, etc.)

     

    2 - Establish a clear difference between “formal” and “informal” language + specific cases where translators should use “tu” instead of “você” (the client should be asked to clearly state his/her choice through a “required” field).

     https://ciberduvidas.iscte-iul.pt/consultorio/perguntas/linguagem-formal-e-linguagem-informal/11318 or https://ciberduvidas.iscte-iul.pt/consultorio/perguntas/linguagemregisto-formal-e-informal/32750

     

    3 – Establish a clear difference between “standard” and “pro” jobs.

     

    4 – Establish a clear difference between different kinds of texts (e.g. apps vs legal, literary, etc.) and how these should be treated by the translator/reviewer.

     

    4 – Review the relative weights of small mistakes towards the overall score.

     

    5 - Raising the severity of errors in a re-review should be forbidden.

     

    6 – For language pairs where you only have 1 LS, Gengo should allow you to respond to the re-review.

     

    7 - All reviewers/translators should follow the same criteria.

    Nelson Brasにより編集されました
  • 0
    Avatar
    Chris

    I do appreciate the language specific explanation (and realize it probably wasn't written just for me), but I'm afraid I'm too mentally lazy to get into that right now. Agreed about suggestions, though.

    At the same time, I do think that ideally style should play a role for reviews beyond mere suggestions, but obviously that opens up a can of worms in regards to clear rules, personal preferences and the possibility of abuse. In the end, it all comes down to the reviewer, and it seems like some language pairs might have gotten more lucky in that regard than others. Personally, I have practically nothing to complain about over a span of several years now. Sometimes I'd have preferred to see a suggestion rather than an error, but even if something is counted as a minor error, it usually has little impact, so in my personal experience the mistakes seem to be weighted correctly. And the one time I requested a re-review, the score was corrected promptly and without any problem (just to add one more positive point of view to this discussion).

    In an ideal world, I'd prefer a more open review system, perhaps with a separate score for style, just to avoid that a slightly more awkward translation that follows the original text more closely becomes the safest bet, leading to a lot of slightly awkward translations. But in order for that to work, a strict quality control of the reviewers would be necessary, which is almost impossible when it comes to questions of taste.

    I do feel like some reviewers try to achieve something along these lines by bending the current toolset, and your case might be one where that went wrong.

     

    As for your suggestions, I agree with most of them, although in case of AlexF's example, you can hardly speak of a microscopic mistake, and I'd even have to agree with the low score (and I'm under no illusion that this couldn't happen to me). But it's true that the way to "redemption" seems unnecessarily hard and discouraging nowadays.

    A better system for determining formal/informal address it long overdue, in my opinion.

     

     

    Chrisにより編集されました
  • 0
    Avatar
    Nelson Bras

    Hi Chris,

    It is always good to know that you can find "best practices" to be followed within Gengo's system :-)

    Just to be clear: I don't think that AlexF's example is a microscopic mistake in terms of severity - when I say "microscopic", I am just thinking about the relative weight a single mistake can have towards your final overall score (dashboard) and the time it takes to revert that situation to a good standing.

    Regards,

  • 0
    Avatar
    Chris

    Yeah, I can relate to that.

  • 2
    Avatar
    from Japan

    I am an EJ translator, and like qx1984, I also had been forced to stop working for Gengo for very a long period of time partly due to a review-related issue. But, I have also come back here around April because I too was affected by COVID-19, and completed many jobs since then.

    It seems that the person who was one of the persons involved in the issue for which I was forced away is still performing review. I noticed it because of very distinctive ways of pointing out what the person claims to be mistakes, most of which are not mistakes at all in my opinion. The person even rewrites the original sentence when the person thinks an original or translated sentence is unclear or awkward even though it is not something like a marketing copy, for which you are expected to exercise some creativity.

    If I agree my translation is indeed somewhat awkward in some instances, I think that for the reward for a standard level job, it is too much to mark one as an error and suggest a revised translation that significantly writes the original sentence which in my opinion is even more awkward than mine and does not fit in the context, or to correct a translation of a somewhat unclear oral statement into a smooth language that is not really said (spoken language is not always coherent, but in usual business translation, I don’t think you are allowed to change what is said, with some exceptions). Even if it is not an oral statement, original texts are not always well written as you know, but the person doesn’t take it into consideration at all.

    I didn’t request re-review for fear of retribution, for which I regret now as I have to anyway continue to receive unfair review. I don't know why, but the frequency of reviews itself has decreased quite a bit recently. However, it seems that I am getting review by the same person while I’m not very sure.

     

     

    Dear Gengo,

    Will you please, at the very least, make it impossible to identify a translator from the reviewer side. I believe if one can truly objectively evaluate works as you claim, a reviewer does not need to be able to identify us.

    Best regards,

    from Japanにより編集されました
  • 0
    Avatar
    Lara Fernandez

    @Nelson - Thanks for this, and for all the very important points you bring up. Please know that I will be sharing your feedback with the team. I will be also following up with the email you sent me within the day :)

    @AlexF - Unfortunately, as you yourself mention, the mistake you used as an example in your comment can indeed have dire consequences. While your translation may otherwise be impeccable, a seemingly minor mistake such as the time written does alter the overall meaning critically. It may seem small, and it probably is but a tiny part of the whole job, but it is very important nonetheless (we all know how getting the time right is important in our everyday lives, and it is the same for the customers and their communications with others, which they may carry out through your translation.)

    @Chris - You bring up such interesting points about style!

    @from Japan - Please do request a re-review when needed without fear of retribution! This is not allowed and if we had any reason to suspect such a behavior is occurring we would definitely investigate. As for the frequency of reviews, please note this is based on translator activity. The more you translate, the more chances your jobs will be reviewed.

  • 3
    Avatar
    Fernando

    Now I am quite impressed. I submitted a revision request in which out of the 6 points that I appealed, 3 of the explanations provided were quite poor, to the point where in one of them, not only did they failed to see it was marked as an error (they told me it had been marked as a suggestion and of course, they didn't correct the error) but they even went ahead and provided a link where my point was confirmed. That's just really frustrating. Everyone's allowed to make mistakes and I do expect them to be made from LS's as I expect Gengo to be reasonable when us translators make them, we're all human and we're always going to be prone to making mistakes, it's simply inevitable, but for god's sake that's the whole point of a revision request, to look very carefully and make sure to double check everything. Now it seems that LS's don't even read their own sources fully. Why is it like that? Do they fear that if they don't come up with errors that they'll be seen as not doing their jobs? I just simply don't understand it.

    After reading all the posts in this thread, it's clear to me that I'm not the only one and that the issue is not me. At this point it's just simply disappointing. I just wish all the best to my fellow translators.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Lara Fernandez

    Hi Fernando -- could you please send me (lara.fernandez@lionbridge.com) the details (collection/job number, etc) for this job where you said a "suggestion" is marked as an "error" by mistake. I would like to double check this.

サインインしてコメントを残してください。