| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | Can an agency impose a penalty on the translator for a translation that was proofed by someone else? Thread poster: Willemina Hagenauw
|
|---|
jyuan_us 
United States
Local time: 01:45
Member (2005)
English to Chinese
+ ...
Lieven Malaise wrote: jyuan_us wrote:
Reviewers should not agree to work on translations that have a lot of major mistakes in the first place. Or, they should request the translation agency to have the original translator rework on the copy as soon as they have found that the translation is not up to the standard. Translators shouldn't make any mistakes either, but they do. You buy nothing with 'should' and editing is a well-defined and established service, not some exotic activity that is only performed in exceptional cases. Any decent translation agency works for every project of more than a few hundred words with the translation/editing combo. It's even for a large extent why they exist. jyuan_us wrote:
As long as the reviewer has agreed tp proceed with his review job, it should be his sole responsibility to put everything right. This would invite translators to perform hasty and inaccurate work because all the responsibility would lie with the editor. How is it not ridiculous that a crappy translator would bear zero responsibility just because a second translator has to check his/her work?
1) Translators do perform hasty and inaccurate work but it is not necessarily because they know their copy will be edited.
2) A crappy translator will be out of the market sooner than later. Someone with a sound mind wouldn't provide a crap just because he knows his copy will be edited.
3) No linguist "bears zero responsibility" in the workflow. Everyone is supposed to fulfil the quality requirements specified in their PO's. Otherwise, their working relationship with their clients will not last vey long.
[Edited at 2022-07-12 11:25 GMT]
| | | | jyuan_us
United States
Local time: 01:45
Member (2005)
English to Chinese
+ ...
I often function as an editor/proofreader/quality control specialist/sign-off guy, etc. I understand it is my sole responsibility to make sure that my reviewed translation copy is error-free. I'd feel it extremely unfair and unjustifiable for the client to blame the original translator for errors on the copy that has been edited by a third party.
[Edited at 2022-07-12 11:04 GMT]
| | | | | Translator and editor: shared responsibility for blunders in the deliverables | Jul 11, 2022 |
Ice Scream wrote:
I think the question of how the translator and editor share the blame is an interesting one. Is there an established model for this?
Perhaps, proportionally to what they have been (or would be) paid for their respective jobs? 2/3 of responsibility lies with the translator, and 1/3 - with the editor?
| | | | | Three scenarios (or four) | Jul 11, 2022 |
1. I translate. Someone edits. I check the edits and make the final decisions. I'm fully responsible (like I wrote above; it's my favorite mode of working, even if there's no editor).
2. A huge text translated by a crowd. A week for me to edit the whole thing. PM says, 'It's got to be perfect.' I say, 'Can't guarantee with freelancers, I'll do what I can' (so far it worked out, but all such jobs have been tiring).
3. A huge piece of MTPE. I get a day to make it impossib... See more 1. I translate. Someone edits. I check the edits and make the final decisions. I'm fully responsible (like I wrote above; it's my favorite mode of working, even if there's no editor).
2. A huge text translated by a crowd. A week for me to edit the whole thing. PM says, 'It's got to be perfect.' I say, 'Can't guarantee with freelancers, I'll do what I can' (so far it worked out, but all such jobs have been tiring).
3. A huge piece of MTPE. I get a day to make it impossible to understand the text was machine-translated. I say right away, 'This can't be done.' PM says, 'Well, at least give it a try.' I do. It doesn't work.
One extra scenario, only happened once or twice to me: I get any kind of text from a translator and am given a regular editing / reviewing time limit. I look at the text and say, 'Wow, this is quite doable.' Then I do the regular editor / reviewer scope of work, after which I'm ready to assume the same amount of responsibility as the translator because the latter did a good job ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Adieu
Ukrainian to English
+ ...
| Sometimes it's just not worth it | Jul 11, 2022 |
I regularly fix absolute junk by redoing the whole thing because I'm collecting the same $50 minimum either way.
Although I do return really outrageous stuff occasionally.
Once I was Reviewer No. 2 (!) on a job and there was a spelling error in the very first segment. I looked at the timestamps and Reviewer 1 tried to collect payment for 3500 words... confirmed in less than 3 (!) minutes.
With a spelling error in the very first segment.
That's ... See more I regularly fix absolute junk by redoing the whole thing because I'm collecting the same $50 minimum either way.
Although I do return really outrageous stuff occasionally.
Once I was Reviewer No. 2 (!) on a job and there was a spelling error in the very first segment. I looked at the timestamps and Reviewer 1 tried to collect payment for 3500 words... confirmed in less than 3 (!) minutes.
With a spelling error in the very first segment.
That's not review, that's just theft. That person didn't even read it.
jyuan_us wrote: Lieven Malaise wrote: jyuan_us wrote:
What is the point of hiring a reviewer? Finding the mistakes the translator shouldn't make. But that doesn't mean the translator isn't responsible. Imagine what a beautiful world it would be if the translator could just happily make blunt mistakes (meaning mostly putting speed over quality) and put all the blame on the reviewer if he or she messes up too. Reviewers should not agree to work on translations that have a lot of major mistakes in the first place. Or, they should request the translation agency to have the original translator rework on the copy as soon as they have found that the translation is not up to the standard. As long as the reviewer has agreed tp proceed with his review job, it should be his sole responsibility to put everything right. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 07:45
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Ice Scream wrote:
I think the question of how the translator and editor share the blame is an interesting one.
I don't think they share the blame. They are paid separately, and although there is cooperation between the translator and the proofreader, their responsibilities are independent from each other. This means that if the client believes that the proofreader didn't do a proper job, but the translator did, he might penalize the proofreader only (and vice versa).
The translator's responsibility does not diminish with every subsequent proofreading.
It also depends on what the proofreader's brief was. Sometimes a proofreader is under time pressure and is expected to correct only glaring errors or certain categories of errors (of course, the proofreader has a duty to inform the client in good time if he discovers that the translation requires more than just an overall check).
Note that this opinion of mine relates specifically to jobs where the translator is expected to deliver an error-free product to the proofreader (not the types of jobs where it is expected that the translator will deliver a "quick" or "rough" translation, in which the proofreader's stated job is then more like that of a copy-editor).
I'm sometimes the proofreader of a translation that is very poor, but if I'm not paid to copy-edit (i.e. the rate doesn't allow for that, and the client refuses to renegotiate after being told about this), then I simply choose which types of errors to fix (usually the most glaring ones) and which ones to leave alone. Perhaps the OP's proofreader faced a similar conundrum?
[Edited at 2022-07-12 08:11 GMT]
| | | | William Yang
China
Local time: 13:45
Member (2021)
English to Chinese
+ ...
| not argue for the sake of arguing | Jul 12, 2022 |
People are talking about different roles here, reviewer/proofreader/editor in addition to the defined role of translating. Are we shifting blames?
| | | | | The blame game | Jul 12, 2022 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Note that this opinion of mine relates specifically to jobs where the translator is expected to deliver an error-free product to the proofreader
Which must nearly always be the case.
If a mistranslation survives into the final product, and the client complains/sues, both translator and proofreader have failed in their allotted roles. Surely they are therefore both to blame and both liable?
Vladimir's price-based model (2/3 translator, 1/3 proofreader) makes sense except that the proofreader's role is specifically to spot errors, while the translator does much more, which would suggest that the responsibility should mainly lie with the proofreader...
Does anyone have any real-world examples of how it works?
| | |
|
|
|
LEXpert
United States
Local time: 00:45
Member (2008)
Croatian to English
+ ...
| Blame ISO quality certification | Jul 15, 2022 |
jyuan_us wrote:
What is the point of hiring a reviewer?
Reviewers exist because agencies have largely been convinced by ISO certification consultants into believing that any quality issue can be solved or prevented by throwing more layers of people, procedures and paperwork at the process. So instead of simply hiring a qualified translator and giving them sufficient time to do the job at a rate that provides proper recompense for their skill and experience, the same budget and schedule must now accommodate 2, 3, 4 or more people. Otherwise, it is not "ISO-compliant", even if - depending on the reviewer and course the translator - this step may add little or no value.
[/quote]
| | | | | ISO certification per se doesn't mean much | Jul 16, 2022 |
Rudolf Vedo wrote:
Reviewers exist because agencies have largely been convinced by ISO certification consultants into believing that any quality issue can be solved or prevented by throwing more layers of people, procedures and paperwork at the process. So instead of simply hiring a qualified translator and giving them sufficient time to do the job at a rate that provides proper recompense for their skill and experience, the same budget and schedule must now accommodate 2, 3, 4 or more people. Otherwise, it is not "ISO-compliant", even if - depending on the reviewer and course the translator - this step may add little or no value.
---------------
From my own experience, I know cases when an ISO-certified agency skipped the editing/reviewing step in the workflow in order either to cut costs or meet the deadline.
A good reviewer is a godsend for translators. Yet, we all know reviewers who focus heavily on preferential changes or even introduce major errors in the adequate original translation.
So, even when translation agencies' owners and top managers strive to ensure quality, they have to rely on their employees and freelancers to do the job properly.
----------------
The previous generations and today's successful people have already summed it up for us.
“Quality has to be caused, not controlled.” © Phil Crosby
“Quality is not an act; it is a habit.” © Aristotle
“Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of intelligent effort.” © John Ruskin
“You can't fake quality any more than you can fake a good meal.” © William S. Burroughs
“Quality means doing it right when no one is looking.” © Henry Ford
| | | | | @Willemina, what does your contract say? | Jul 16, 2022 |
I am surprised that the discussion is shifted towards various scenarios of "sharing the blame" based on assumptions.
The fact is that the translator and the proofreader have a contract and a business relationship with the agency, and ONLY with the agency.
The end client also has a contract and a business relationship with the agency, and ONLY with the agency.
The translator and the proofreader has no business relationship with the end client.
Anything that happens betwe... See more I am surprised that the discussion is shifted towards various scenarios of "sharing the blame" based on assumptions.
The fact is that the translator and the proofreader have a contract and a business relationship with the agency, and ONLY with the agency.
The end client also has a contract and a business relationship with the agency, and ONLY with the agency.
The translator and the proofreader has no business relationship with the end client.
Anything that happens between the end client and the agency is none of the translators or proofreader's business.
The contract between the translator and agency should have a specific clause about quality control, and the process of handling errors and quality complaints.
The most common type of clause specifies a time limit for the agency to raise concerns about quality, and usually requires the translator to correct any errors for free. In good contracts, there is also a definition of what is considered error, as opposed to preferencial issues. This is the type of clause that we should agree to, never anything that specifies penalties or discounts. The translator's contract should never depend on what happens between the agency and the end client financially, especially that it is not possible for the translator to verify any of it. The translator is not privvy to their contract.
The agency should have a contract with their end client with similar clauses, to protect themselves from the end client raising false claims and demanding discounts. Most agencies do. If there is a genuine claim from the end client, that should be handled based on the contract between the end client and the agency. If the agency agreed to a discount, that is their business, it has nothing to do with the translator. Unless the translator agreed beforehand to such potential discounts, it is the agency's loss.
The agency should have sufficient quality processes in place, and select competent professionals to work for them. If they fail to pick the right people, or their quality control lacks, it is their problem. They may have to eat the entire loss, not try to pass it onto the translators. They make a profit on each job, so they should be prepared to have losses on some projects. This is the nature of being an agency, not just a "file pusher".
@Willemina, what does your contract say about quality issues? ▲ Collapse
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 07:45
French to English
Vladimir Pochinov wrote:
The previous generations and today's successful people have already summed it up for us.
“Quality has to be caused, not controlled.” © Phil Crosby
“Quality is not an act; it is a habit.” © Aristotle
“Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of intelligent effort.” © John Ruskin
“You can't fake quality any more than you can fake a good meal.” © William S. Burroughs
“Quality means doing it right when no one is looking.” © Henry Ford
There was also a lot of discussion as to the definition of quality in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values by Robert M. Pirsig. IIRC he basically says you can't really define it, only feel it.
For me, in translation, it's achieved by painstaking work. Very thorough research, trying out several different ways of saying things until you have something that flows smoothly, and then thorough clean-up: making sure you have used the same terms consistently, making sure all dates and times etc. are written the same way, with hard spaces to keep each one all on the same line, making sure all acronyms are explained at least once, or translated, spell check of course, and making sure there are no punctuation blips (I find that a lot of translators don't bother to touch punctuation even though we use it differently in different languages. The French use ... any time they can't be bothered to think things through properly or make sure their list is exhaustive, whereas in English it's a literary device to show that something exciting is coming up, with the writer pausing for effect.). I have a whole list of last-minute checks. This part is a huge bore, but I remind myself that it's every bit as necessary and nit-pickety as housework: nobody ever notices unless it hasn't been done.
| | |
|
|
|
Barbara Schmidt, M.A. (X)
Germany
Local time: 07:45
Dutch to German
+ ...
| How to proceed? | Jul 16, 2022 |
While I totally agree with Anton in that 'Unhappiness is not a legal argument', the real question to me is where such legal arguments would actually pack some wallop.
Very occasionally, a client may get bent out of shape for whatever reason. We have to count on it and factor it in. Discussions may arise with agencies as well as direct clients, some of whom may hand our text to external reviewers who come in all shapes and sizes.
If we've made a mistake, I believe we should own up to... See more While I totally agree with Anton in that 'Unhappiness is not a legal argument', the real question to me is where such legal arguments would actually pack some wallop.
Very occasionally, a client may get bent out of shape for whatever reason. We have to count on it and factor it in. Discussions may arise with agencies as well as direct clients, some of whom may hand our text to external reviewers who come in all shapes and sizes.
If we've made a mistake, I believe we should own up to it and face the music.
Personally, if I'm convinced that the changes are unwarranted, or it's simply a question of style or preference, and the client in question would like to keep working with me, then I'll dig in my heels.
In all other cases I aim for a financial agreement of some kind and move on as quickly as possible instead of relieving some high-octane feelings. Mostly, it's not worth my while to bother much about it. They may have a bad day or a bad decade, and for some, it's standard procedure to get out of paying the bills.
It does help to select clients carefully in advance. Legal procedures for payment are a pie in the sky... ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Can an agency impose a penalty on the translator for a translation that was proofed by someone else? | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
