| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] > | Machine Translations: Should Proz.com advertise MT jobs? Thread poster: Lingopro
|
|---|
John Fossey 
Canada
Local time: 20:53
Member (2008)
French to English
+ ...
| True, but.... | May 31, 2013 |
Steve Kerry wrote:
Once upon a time, when I were a lad, there were some chaps called weavers, who got very cross when someone invented a mechanical weaving machine. They said it wasn't natural, and couldn't do the same as what a real craftsman weaver could do. They hopped up and down a bit, broke a few machines and then died of starvation. There aren't many weavers now. Except the ones working the machines, and there aren't many of them, neither.
The End
Steve K.
...the ones working the machines are now called operators and technicians, and they're supported by engineers, all of whom are earning many, many times what those weavers were earning. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the total earnings of the few left in the field is probably greater now than the sum total of what all those weavers were earning.
Furthermore, just because a mechanical weaving machine was invented didn't mean the market was promptly saturated with cloth. On the contrary, the demand multiplied to make use of what the new machine could produce, to the point that houses had to be redesigned with more closet space since everyone had more clothes.
Those who embraced the technology, upgraded their own skills and found opportunities ended up very wealthy. Those who looked on with despair (the vast majority) and didn't do anything about it except mope are the ones who died of starvation.
The Beginning
| | | | Attila Piróth
France
Local time: 02:53
Member
English to Hungarian
+ ...
| Textile industry analogy? | May 31, 2013 |
John Fossey wrote:
...the ones working the machines are now called operators and technicians, and they're supported by engineers, all of whom are earning many, many times what those weavers were earning.
Hi John,
Are you speaking of the $38 monthly wage of the textile industry workers in Bangladesh?
Attila
| | | |
John Fossey wrote: Steve Kerry wrote:
Once upon a time, when I were a lad, there were some chaps called weavers, who got very cross when someone invented a mechanical weaving machine. They said it wasn't natural, and couldn't do the same as what a real craftsman weaver could do. They hopped up and down a bit, broke a few machines and then died of starvation. There aren't many weavers now. Except the ones working the machines, and there aren't many of them, neither.
The End
Steve K. ...the ones working the machines are now called operators and technicians, and they're supported by engineers, all of whom are earning many, many times what those weavers were earning. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the total earnings of the few left in the field is probably greater now than the sum total of what all those weavers were earning. Furthermore, just because a mechanical weaving machine was invented didn't mean the market was promptly saturated with cloth. On the contrary, the demand multiplied to make use of what the new machine could produce, to the point that houses had to be redesigned with more closet space since everyone had more clothes. Those who embraced the technology, upgraded their own skills and found opportunities ended up very wealthy. Those who looked on with despair (the vast majority) and didn't do anything about it except mope are the ones who died of starvation. The Beginning
Beginning? I think not. I am far from being a 'doom and gloom' merchant, but I am merely making the point that every innovation in the history of science has been laughed to scorn in its infancy by its terrified detractors and that twenty years hence, the demand for manual translations, particularly of large technical documents, will be very limited indeed. And if the rates currently offered for 'post editing' of machine translations are anything to go by, I very much doubt that the people correcting the machine translations will be rolling in their carriages either!
Steve K.
| | | |
Attila Piróth wrote:
Hi John,
Are you speaking of the $38 monthly wage of the textile industry workers in Bangladesh?
Attila
Exactly. And they no doubt consider themselves fortunate to have any job at all...
Steve K.
| | |
|
|
|
| Would a lawyer become a legal secretary? | Jun 1, 2013 |
I think some people miss the point. Proofreading MT material only benefits the outsourcing agency. If you are meticulous and care about the quality of your work, it takes just as much time (sometimes more time) to correct an MT than to translate from scratch!
Crunch the numbers. If someone earns $300.00 USD doing translation, editing of MT being paid at 1/3 of the translation rate, 300 x 1/3 = $100. It all boils down to opportunity cost.
I suggest accepting a ... See more I think some people miss the point. Proofreading MT material only benefits the outsourcing agency. If you are meticulous and care about the quality of your work, it takes just as much time (sometimes more time) to correct an MT than to translate from scratch!
Crunch the numbers. If someone earns $300.00 USD doing translation, editing of MT being paid at 1/3 of the translation rate, 300 x 1/3 = $100. It all boils down to opportunity cost.
I suggest accepting a short MT editing job and timing yourself doing both tasks in order to draw your own personal conclusions.
We were not born as excellent translators, if you are any good at your profession, you know that it took years of study and dedication to learn what you now know, did those agencies pay for our education, our software programs, our internet access all these years?
Would a lawyer or physician after spending so much time and money getting their education and credentials be willing to work as a nursing assistant or legal secretary? Unless they got disbarred or suspended from medical practice, I seriously doubt it! ▲ Collapse
| | | | | A matter of degree... | Jun 2, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Only if you think computers will understand language in my lifetime...
It's a matter of degree, Ty. They may or may not have the full language ability of a human, but they will probably be able to cope with 99% of technical, commercial, legal and medical work which makes up a large part of the translator's spectrum - in particular since there is a growing trend to standardise terminology in all disciplines.
In other words, the large, high-value straightforward jobs will go and all that will be left will be the "awkward brigade". Which will leave you translating Welsh philosophy, of which I wish you joy (but I'm sure you'd excel at it.. smiles).
Steve K.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 06:23
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The rates for MT processing should be way different | Jun 2, 2013 |
Michelle Kusuda wrote:
I think some people miss the point. Proofreading MT material only benefits the outsourcing agency. If you are meticulous and care about the quality of your work, it takes just as much time (sometimes more time) to correct an MT than to translate from scratch!
Crunch the numbers. If someone earns $300.00 USD doing translation, editing of MT being paid at 1/3 of the translation rate, 300 x 1/3 = $100. It all boils down to opportunity cost.
That is exactly what I have argued for in my earlier posts - to treat MT-processing as an entirely different genre of work, different from normal proofing/editing of human-done translation.
That is how we should adapt to the emerging technology. Outsourcers of course would try their level best to pass off MT-processing as normal proofing/editing, but anyone who has actually tackled MT knows that this is not so. It is an entirely different cup of tea and the time required for processing it is unpredictable. We should therefore charge for the time that it takes to do MT, and in the end, it could be much higher than retranslating. We should make this clear to the client at the outset and proceed further only if he agrees to this.
We should actually be discussing here the best ways to charge for MT processing instead of this Ludditte discussion of banning it.
In my opinion, if MT-processing is charged on a per word basis, it should be nearly 75% of our translating charges. And we should not make any distinction between MT-proofing and MT-editing - there is no such distinction; every MT-processing is MT-editing. Ideally it should be charged by the hour, as we can't really predict how long it will take.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 01:53
Hebrew to English
| I'm not worried | Jun 2, 2013 |
Steve Kerry wrote: Ty Kendall wrote:
Only if you think computers will understand language in my lifetime... It's a matter of degree, Ty. They may or may not have the full language ability of a human, but they will probably be able to cope with 99% of technical, commercial, legal and medical work which makes up a large part of the translator's spectrum - in particular since there is a growing trend to standardise terminology in all disciplines. In other words, the large, high-value straightforward jobs will go and all that will be left will be the "awkward brigade". Which will leave you translating Welsh philosophy, of which I wish you joy (but I'm sure you'd excel at it.. smiles). Steve K.
Hmmm.... I'm not sure I agree. All the doomsaying from translators is based on vague predictions of the future ability of MT. The trouble with predicting the future is it's unreliable.
Aren't we all supposed to be zooming around on hovercars by now?
| | |
|
|
|
Lingopro
Israel
Local time: 03:53
Hebrew to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
We should actually be discussing here the best ways to charge for MT processing instead of this Ludditte discussion of banning it.
Thanks, Balasubramaniam for bringing the subject back home, and let me just say that when I started this thread I didn't suggest banning MT - I asked if proz.com should advertize MT jobs.
I still think it shouldn't - because as long as agencies attempt to exploit us, the paying members of proz.com, then proz.com should not lend a helping hand to such exploitation while it gladly takes our membership money!
I'm not afraid of the future or of MT but I am just not ready to do MT processing work quite yet.
I agree that our discussion should now turn to something more productive than some of the posts here... namely, how much should we charge for processing MT?
I am for charging by the hour - if and when I'm degraded to the point of, or ready to do such sewage work...
| | | | | ProZ just changed its scope | Jun 2, 2013 |
Most of you might not have noticed yet, but ProZ not only changed its design. Just hover over the logo in the top left corner you will see:
ProZ.com global directory of translation services
MT and post editing definitely belongs to "translation services". What do you guys believe why this was changed? The MT companies have tons of money to spend and they also need post editors. ProZ is just following what they preach - they are diversifying their services to also... See more Most of you might not have noticed yet, but ProZ not only changed its design. Just hover over the logo in the top left corner you will see:
ProZ.com global directory of translation services
MT and post editing definitely belongs to "translation services". What do you guys believe why this was changed? The MT companies have tons of money to spend and they also need post editors. ProZ is just following what they preach - they are diversifying their services to also serve the MT companies.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with it, ProZ is a company and they are trying to optimize their income streams. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Great point made! Let's start the thread! | Jun 2, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Michelle Kusuda wrote:
I think some people miss the point. Proofreading MT material only benefits the outsourcing agency. If you are meticulous and care about the quality of your work, it takes just as much time (sometimes more time) to correct an MT than to translate from scratch!
Crunch the numbers. If someone earns $300.00 USD doing translation, editing of MT being paid at 1/3 of the translation rate, 300 x 1/3 = $100. It all boils down to opportunity cost.
That is exactly what I have argued for in my earlier posts - to treat MT-processing as an entirely different genre of work, different from normal proofing/editing of human-done translation. That is how we should adapt to the emerging technology. Outsourcers of course would try their level best to pass off MT-processing as normal proofing/editing, but anyone who has actually tackled MT knows that this is not so. It is an entirely different cup of tea and the time required for processing it is unpredictable. We should therefore charge for the time that it takes to do MT, and in the end, it could be much higher than retranslating. We should make this clear to the client at the outset and proceed further only if he agrees to this. We should actually be discussing here the best ways to charge for MT processing instead of this Ludditte discussion of banning it. In my opinion, if MT-processing is charged on a per word basis, it should be nearly 75% of our translating charges. And we should not make any distinction between MT-proofing and MT-editing - there is no such distinction; every MT-processing is MT-editing. Ideally it should be charged by the hour, as we can't really predict how long it will take.
I agree with you and Lingopro, let's start the new thread. Please look for it and make your opinions heard!
http://www.proz.com/forum/money_matters/250210-how_should_mt_cat_translation_editing_be_billed.html
[Edited at 2013-06-02 14:01 GMT]
| | | | | Perspective from an MT vendor | Jun 2, 2013 |
This is a very interesting thread with some very strong opinions. As the CEO of Asia Online (an MT vendor), I have a different perspective and I may be somewhat biased, but here goes:
1: No one on this thread has differentiated MT (and associated quality differences) from different vendors, it is being represented as a single product. There are many vendors of MT, each has their strengths and weaknesses. Google provides MT that is designed for anyone, anytime, anywhere for anything ... See more This is a very interesting thread with some very strong opinions. As the CEO of Asia Online (an MT vendor), I have a different perspective and I may be somewhat biased, but here goes:
1: No one on this thread has differentiated MT (and associated quality differences) from different vendors, it is being represented as a single product. There are many vendors of MT, each has their strengths and weaknesses. Google provides MT that is designed for anyone, anytime, anywhere for anything – i.e. generic. Rules based MT vendors like Systran provide some customization. Moses is an open source MT tool that can work well with a large amount of effort and skill, but few have what is needed in terms of either, and then there is full customization like Asia Online Language Studio with a unique approach that uses very clean data and learns from your own translations using the statistical approach that is behind Moses, Google and Bing, but with a focus on your terminology, your preferred writing style and your target audience. Clearly to bunch these different products from different vendors in one big chunk of translation and labeling it MT is not a very balanced perspective when all have their different strengths and weaknesses. This is the equivalent of bundling all human translators as one. There are good and bad human translators, just like there is good and bad MT.
2: Many of the opinions appear to come from using a generic MT system or from trying MT some time ago (years perhaps?) and drawing a conclusion from that point in time. MT has matured significantly in recent years.
3: There is a huge amount of content that would never be translated without MT as part of the equation. One of our customers is translating 500 million words per day (every day) of technical content from Japanese to English. In other cases, MT is used to lower total costs that make content viable to translate that would have cost too much otherwise, so would have never been translated. This in turn has created new work for human translation professionals in editing the output.
4: MT is not a replacement for humans and never will be. It is a productivity enhancer. We have real world case studies with customers on record delivering 23,000 words per day of edited content per translator. We have many published case studies where LSPs are finding 50% plus of the output from raw MT does not require editing. Not every engine can do this, but this is not uncommon for this to be achieved. Depending on the purpose and the quality required, editing is faster or slower - just as it would be with human translations.
5: There will always be a huge amount of human work, content is growing at a rate faster than all the human translators in the world could translate. There is no threat from MT. If you don’t want to edit it, carry on with human only work. If you want to edit MT, you can do that too. They can coexist quite happily.
6: There are many people that want to edit MT and are finding it lucrative. There has been a challenge with some LSPs who have not compensated properly for MT editing work and this has made translation professionals uncomfortable with MT as they feel they will not be compensated fairly. Not all LSPs are like this and many do pay fair rates. Some even pay better to edit MT than to human translate. Post editors should get a sample before you accept any job. Some MT is terrible, some MT is excellent. Don’t treat them as the same thing and make sure the LSP does not take advantage of you with bad MT. Bad MT that has not been customized may even require you to retranslate the entire segment.
7: MT creates more jobs for translation professionals. As I mentioned above, there will always be plenty of human only work because the market is expanding so rapidly – the demand for human only work is increasing, not decreasing – even with the advent of very useable MT. Sure, some jobs that a human only approach may have been use for in the past may switch to a MT + PE approach, but as the market is expanding so rapidly, that does not mean there will be less jobs. Many projects are a combination of human only, MT only and MT + PE. without the element of MT, the entire project would not be practical.
8: Customized MT + human editing can deliver higher quality output than human only for the same job. We have several customers that have delivered this level of quality where the MT has been highly customized to the writing style, terminology and target audience. The goal of our MT platform is to create an output that requires the least amount of human post editing possible in order to publish at the required quality level (or better). When multiple human translators translate on a large project, you get different writing style, terminology and personal preferences. With a highly customized MT engine, this has already been normalized with terminology locked in based on previously human translated content. The result with highly customized MT + human PE is that the overall quality is increased and the job is significantly faster than human only. This is not wishful thinking, this is fact from real customers with published case studies where the customer is talking on record. These are not simple domains, they are highly technical domains.
9: Often for complex topics, MT can be faster to edit than first past HT. We have a client who translated 8 million words of highly technical content from EN to ZH. There were more errors in the MT output that the first pass human translator and on first glance the MT looked much worse than the human translation. But metrics showed clearly that the nature of the errors that a human made were very different to that of the MT. The human translators made many more errors on terminology, but was very accurate on grammar. The MT was very accurate of terminology, but made more grammar errors. The terminology errors made by the human translator were slow to find and correct. The grammar errors made by MT were obvious and fast to correct. So even though there were more errors in the MT output, it ended taking half the time to edit the same segment as the human translation.
10: This is not about predicting the future. Many LSPs are already using MT today. We have a significant portion of the top 100 LSPs from the Common Sense Advisory list as customers. Some are using our products, some are using our competitors, but the reality is that MT is here now and good enough for many purposes. It is opening up new markets and projects for LSPs that would not have been possible with a human only approach and creating new work for human translation professionals as a result.
MT and TM are merging to become “pre-translation” where the result is high quality from the outset, with minimal edits required. In coming years, this will be very seamless, like TM is today. We have some exciting announcements in this space coming soon. Sign up to our mailing list if you want to know more when it is released.
11: There are so many industries that felt threatened by technological advancement. Music synthesizers were seen as a threat to musicians – but were never really, they just helped the industry expand. Desktop publishing was seen as a threat to traditional printers – but they still have a healthy business, we just get more junk birthday cards from our friends . Word processors most certainly did replace typewriters, but for the better, greatly expanding the market. In the case MT and human translation, there is and will continue to be significant opportunities for both to prosper, singularly and together. If we did not move with technology when it provides an advantage, then we would all still be riding horses rather than traveling in cars, trains and planes.
I know my opinions are not shared by everyone on ProZ, but I do think there is a healthy space for both translation models and that they are not mutually exclusive. If there are translation professionals that are happy to do post editing of MT, then I believe they should be able to find work through ads here like any other translation professional. If you don’t want to post edit MT, don’t accept the jobs. If you don’t want to do human only translation, you can be equally free to not except those jobs.
Bottom line, there are many translation professionals that fit both categories on ProZ. One group should not be dictating or restricting work and earning potential from the other. Each is free to make their own choices of what areas they would like to be specialists in.
[Edited at 2013-06-03 11:41 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall wrote: Steve Kerry wrote: Ty Kendall wrote:
Only if you think computers will understand language in my lifetime... It's a matter of degree, Ty. They may or may not have the full language ability of a human, but they will probably be able to cope with 99% of technical, commercial, legal and medical work which makes up a large part of the translator's spectrum - in particular since there is a growing trend to standardise terminology in all disciplines. In other words, the large, high-value straightforward jobs will go and all that will be left will be the "awkward brigade". Which will leave you translating Welsh philosophy, of which I wish you joy (but I'm sure you'd excel at it.. smiles). Steve K. Hmmm.... I'm not sure I agree. All the doomsaying from translators is based on vague predictions of the future ability of MT. The trouble with predicting the future is it's unreliable. Aren't we all supposed to be zooming around on hovercars by now?
And unpredictable, indeed.. By the way Ty, if you want to see unlikely future predictions and hovercars check out the video of "Road Rage" by Catatonia on Youtube, it's excellent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH04i4eTrJk
Steve K.
[Edited at 2013-06-03 18:28 GMT]
| | | | DLyons
Ireland
Local time: 01:53
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Yes. But careful checking is/will be needed. | Jun 3, 2013 |
Steve Kerry wrote:
... I am merely making the point that every innovation in the history of science has been laughed to scorn in its infancy by its terrified detractors and that twenty years hence, the demand for manual translations, particularly of large technical documents, will be very limited indeed.
Steve K.
I completely agree!
Despite a segment having just popped up "En vue de l'Ile" -> "In information technology"
(72% match)
| | | |
Michelle Kusuda wrote:
Would love to hear your thoughts!
Michelle,
Let's not forget that MT is a coin with many sides:
1) Online MT (Tradukka, Google, etc.). It's illegal to use them for our professional work, and we can be sued for using it.
2) Offline MT: when you buy a license or develop your software. Your clients' documents are safe in your computer, they are not exposed to a new party.
1) PEMT (post-edited MT) for the benefit of others: when you post-edit for an agency or direct client. This is professional suicide because the more you post-edit, the less necessary you will be (and exponentially so).
2) PEMT for your own benefit. You use it and increase nobody's corpus, but yours. Like we do with TMs: they are a tool for us. (Needless to say, I do not accept CAT tools discounts. Why would I? Same with MT (should I ever start with that). If I buy a license and/or devote time to learn/implement Moses, that will be my asset.
It's impossible to imagine a guild helping another party to destroy the guild's future. Insane, I would say.
Kind regards,
Au
[Edited at 2013-06-04 01:06 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Machine Translations: Should Proz.com advertise MT jobs? | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
