{"id":9956,"date":"2014-02-13T09:36:00","date_gmt":"2014-02-13T09:36:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/musik.a-z-translation.com\/ten-common-myths-about-translation\/"},"modified":"2020-01-03T11:35:40","modified_gmt":"2020-01-03T11:35:40","slug":"ten-common-myths-about-translation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.a-z-translations.com\/en\/ten-common-myths-about-translation\/","title":{"rendered":"Ten Common Myths About Translation Quality"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

As my workload has still not lightened very much yet, here’s an article<\/a> by the fabulous Nataly Kelly<\/a> published last summer by The Huffington Post<\/a>.  <\/i> <\/p>\n

The world of translation can be a confusing place, especially if
\n you’re the one doing the buying on behalf of your company. Many
\npurchasers of translation services feel like you might when you take
\nyour car to the mechanic. How do you really know what’s going on
\nunderneath the hood? After all, if you don’t speak the language into
\nwhich you’re having something translated, how can you measure quality
\nand hold your vendors accountable?<\/p>\n

As a result of this phenomenon, many translation consumers resort to
\ntactics that might seem logical to them, but can actually get in the way
\n of ensuring the best quality. Here are ten widespread misconceptions
\nrelated to translation that can actually do more harm than good:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Myth #1: Bigger is always better. <\/strong>Sometimes,
\npeople think that buying translation from a large agency will get them a
\n better quality of service. After all, if a translation company has
\nthousands of translators and handles hundreds of languages, this has to
\nbe a sign of quality, right? Not necessarily. Generalists are not always
\n better than specialists. If you are seeking translation for just one
\nlanguage or in a specialized industry, you might be better off working
\nwith a small agency or a professional freelance translator. Large
\nagencies have their role – usually in supporting large customers that
\nspend hundreds of thousands of dollars in translation. Just as a
\nmini-van might not be the ideal car for a single person with no
\nchildren, large providers are definitely not the best solution for every
\n single type of project.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Myth #2: All I need is a translator. <\/strong>Even the best
\n writers rely on editors, proofreaders, and others to make their work
\npop off the page. Likewise, a professional translation process often
\ninvolves various parties too. Not only do you need a professional to
\ntranslate content, but as with monolingual writing tasks, there usually
\nneeds to be an editor who can review it. You might even need to have a
\nseparate proofreader and someone to ensure proper formatting. Working
\ndirectly with freelance translators is a good strategy for certain types
\n of projects, and many freelancers can recommend reviewers to ensure
\nthat a second set of eyes checks their work. However, when projects are
\nmore complex – involving multiple languages, content types, or file
\nformats – an agency is often a better solution. <\/p>\n

\u2022 Myth #3: More translators will result in better quality.<\/strong>
\n Over time, translators become intimately familiar with the writing
\nstyles, tone, and messaging of their clients. Think of them as drivers
\nwho become increasingly familiar with the same route, and therefore can
\ndrive it more adeptly and quickly. Translators are not interchangeable.
\nGenerally, if the same translator – or the same small group of
\ntranslators – is not used repeatedly for projects, consistency begins to
\n slip, and the translations actually sound like they have different
\nvoices and styles. If you have recurring projects, you’ll want to make
\nsure to work with a dedicated team of people who become highly familiar
\nwith your source content, whether you’re working with individual
\ntranslators or an agency that assigns them on your behalf.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Myth #4: Pitting one provider against another keeps quality in check. <\/strong>Many
\n buyers of translation think they are being savvy by paying one agency
\nto translate their content, and paying a separate agency to check their
\nwork for errors. There are several reasons why this approach is a recipe
\n for failure. First, the focus of the reviewing party becomes “error
\ndetection.” In order to prove they are doing a good job, they will often
\n flag as many “errors” as they can find, even if in fact, many of the
\nchanges they are suggesting are preferential. Indeed, some providers
\nmight be hoping that if they catch enough mistakes, they will be
\nrewarded with the translation work, which is generally more highly paid
\nthan the quality control work. Second, the customer ends up spending a
\nlot of time mediating between the two parties, and many “errors” boil
\ndown to one person’s opinion versus another’s. Third, the entire focus
\nof the process becomes combative instead of collaborative in nature. <\/p>\n

\u2022 Myth #5: Getting a “back translation” will ensure quality. <\/strong>Often,
\n translation consumers think that they can measure quality by doing a
\n“blind test.” They send a project to one vendor for translation. Then,
\nthey send the completed translation to a separate vendor, asking them to
\n translate it back into the original language. Last, they compare the
\ntwo versions to see how similar they are. Their assumption is that they
\ncan spot errors by comparing the versions. In reality, this process is
\ndoomed to fail. Why? Because errors can be introduced at any point in
\nthe process. If the provider producing the “back translation” makes a
\nmistake, there will indeed be a difference between the source and the
\nback-translated version, but the customer will have no ability to
\nascertain the source of the error. As with backseat drivers, back
\ntranslations are generally a nuisance to be avoided.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Myth #6: Bilingual employees will provide me with helpful quality feedback. <\/strong>Many
\n translation purchasers think they have a shortcut to measuring quality –
\n simply ask a bilingual co-worker or employee to take a look. In
\nreality, this can be a little like asking your uncle, who tinkers with
\ncars in his spare time, to check to see if your mechanic made your
\nautomobile repairs properly. Your uncle knows just enough to be
\ndangerous, but his feedback might not always be relevant or helpful. He
\nalso is unlikely to be an expert in every single area of auto repair.
\nSimilarly, translators are professionals, while bilinguals are
\nlaypeople. The only way bilingual employees can provide helpful feedback
\n on translation quality is if they’re given explicit and focused
\nguidance on what types of things to look for. If they’re just asked,
\n“Can you read this and tell me what you think?” they will not be in a
\nposition to offer feedback of much value.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Myth #7: Translation quality control works well. <\/strong>For translation quality, the focus needs to be not<\/em>
\n on quality control (checking for mistakes) but rather, on quality
\nimprovement (producing a better translation from the start). Would you
\nlike to drive a car off the lot and then have to return it a week later
\ndue to manufacturer’s defects? Or, would you prefer to have a great car
\nfrom the very start? There are many ways to ensure a good translation
\nfrom the beginning, but chief among them are providing the translators
\nand editors with the necessary resources so that they can understand as
\nmuch context as possible to uncover the true goal of the communication.
\nTranslation teams who are armed with glossaries, style guides, support
\nmaterials, and contextual information can produce a translation of much
\nhigher quality than those who are just handed a text with no background.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Myth #8: My source content has no impact on quality. <\/strong>A
\n large percentage of “translation errors” are actually due to source
\ntext that is poorly written or unclear. Consider translation the “paint
\njob” – it can only do so much to hide the scratches and flaws of the car
\n underneath it. When a sentence can be understood in more than one way,
\nthe translator has to make an educated guess about what the original
\nauthor intended. Usually, translators do not even have the opportunity
\nto clarify with the source text author to find out what the intention
\nwas behind an ambiguous term. They rely on their research skills and
\nprofessional experience to try to figure out the intended meaning, but
\nthis is not desirable, and can obviously lead to a translation that does
\n not measure up – but not necessarily due to any fault on the
\ntranslator’s part. Communication is a two-way street. If the source
\nmessage isn’t clear, the translation often won’t be either.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Myth #9: Technology should be avoided. <\/strong>Many
\nnewbies to the world of translation mistakenly think that “translation
\ntechnology” refers to computer-generated translation, such as Google
\nTranslate. In actual fact, most professional translators use software
\ntools that incorporate “translation memory,” a database of previous
\ntranslations. Much like auto mechanics today use high-tech software,
\ntranslators also use tools in order to ensure consistency, and to speed
\nup their work. Translation memory also offers another advantage – it
\nusually ends up saving some money for the buyer, because it means they
\ndo not have to pay to translate the same sentence or phrase over and
\nover again. In any text with a lot of repetition, translation tools are
\nextremely helpful for ensuring quality and consistency. Not only that,
\nbut these tools are widespread among translation professionals, and have
\n been in use for many decades.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Myth #10: When you ask for a “translation” you’ll get the same thing from everyone.<\/strong>
\n If you see a sign that says “car wash,” does it mean that you will
\ndrive through an automatic car wash, for only the outside of your car to
\n be cleaned? Is a coat of wax included? Will the interior be vacuumed?
\nWill the seats be wiped down? A “car wash” can include many different
\nthings, depending on who is providing it. Likewise, with “translation,” a
\n variety of things may or may not be included. Some providers include a
\nprofessional editor and proofreader directly in the price of
\ntranslation, while others do not. Some companies will re-format your
\nsource document as part of the standard rate, while others will charge
\nextra for that. Most providers will charge you more if your project has a
\n fast turn-around time or contains specialized content. And, the rates
\nwill usually vary from one language to another, and even from one
\ndirection to another (French into English might be priced differently
\nfrom English into French) even with the same provider.<\/p>\n

The takeaway? Like measuring the quality of someone’s writing,
\ntranslation quality isn’t a simple topic. Often, it’s a highly
\nsubjective one. Who is the “best writer”? The answer varies, depending
\non the genre of writing and even who the reader is. And who is the “best
\n mechanic?” It’s hard for a layperson to judge that, but what they can
\njudge are other performance metrics – how the car runs, how many trips
\nto the mechanic it requires, how often it breaks down, how fast they can
\n get the car in for service, and how they are treated as a customer.
\nIt’s much more challenging for the average driver to understand
\ncomplicated technical and mechanical diagnostics. The same is true of
\ntranslation – understanding quality at a deep level takes far more than
\njust proficiency in two languages. <\/p>\n

In fact, for non-linguists, sometimes the best indicator of
\ntranslation quality has nothing to do with things like typos and
\nmisspellings. From the buyer’s perspective, translation quality often
\nhas more to do with the real proof of a good translation — the results
\nthat it enables — in the form of greater brand awareness, more
\ncustomers, more page views, more downloads, and more sales.<\/p>\n

\n <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As my workload has still not lightened very much yet, here’s an article by the fabulous Nataly Kelly published last summer by The Huffington Post.   The world of translation can be a confusing place, especially if you’re the one doing the buying on behalf of your company. Many purchasers of translation services feel like […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[524,797,90,798,208,799,166],"class_list":["post-9956","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-unkategorisiert","tag-business","tag-common-myths","tag-english","tag-myths","tag-quality","tag-real-life","tag-translation","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t