| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | Working under rush condtions Thread poster: R. Alex Jenkins
|
|---|
| inside story from a former PM | Nov 19, 2014 |
Hi Richard -- I feel so bad for you, it sounds like a shocking experience. Being cheated and lied to is always a shock, especially when we give our best to a project. It strikes at the core of our being, at the core of our assumptions about what is fair and just, about our expectations of social interactions, about the impact of our actions on the world. In translation, we're dealing with language -- the heart of what makes us human. As translators, we are therefore working with the basic bu... See more Hi Richard -- I feel so bad for you, it sounds like a shocking experience. Being cheated and lied to is always a shock, especially when we give our best to a project. It strikes at the core of our being, at the core of our assumptions about what is fair and just, about our expectations of social interactions, about the impact of our actions on the world. In translation, we're dealing with language -- the heart of what makes us human. As translators, we are therefore working with the basic building blocks of humanity. We pour our souls into fashioning a text made of these building blocks in the effort to allow other human beings to communicate across language barriers. We are putting a piece of our own humanity out there in the world -- the translation we created -- and we expect it to be treated with dignity. Your translation -- and therefore you -- were not treated with dignity. This is an act of violence.
I bet you are a superb translator and that you produced a fabulous translation. Why do I seem so certain you were cheated and lied to? Because I don't buy their excuse one iota for not paying you. In a few agencies, this kind of excuse is regularly brandished to save money. Listen to what one former project manager had to say about the big translation agency he used to work for, in this review from Glassdoor.com (in keeping with Proz.com rules, I have XX'd out the agency name):
Pros:
You learn how malicious management can spread a negative culture, and try to avoid it in the future. The only positive is that you appreciate other agencies when you finally leave "____ agency."
Cons:
a) We used to constantly lie to the linguists and sometimes to each other. Most "client reviews" are just proofreader's opinions. We used to tell linguists "the client has an issue", while the project was still in production. It's psychological terrorism through lies. Similar practices sometimes among employees. The management from America has established this malicious culture, it affected us all.
b) At “___ agency” all linguists involved in a project may be paid less than half of a project's budget. I felt ashamed asking people for highly specialized work at such rates.
I had to use good linguists to secure a client (samples, glossaries etc), and promised them "a big project coming up", and then we would send the bulk of the work to the cheaper ones. To those that worked to get us the client, we would lie that "the client cancelled it".
Our promises worth nothing in this company, I felt I was not a trustworthy person.
Project managers are trained in methods to lower the linguists' rates, as if the linguist are fat cats (!). The "production metrics" for linguists are based on no scientific or empirical evidence whatsoever and are unrealistic. Cheaper linguists accept them and then we consider them responsible for the entire project.
Sales charges clients with "formatting", which is actually done for free by the linguists (!!!). Shameful, and not standard in the industry at all. In one case the linguist asked me for formatting fee, which we charged the client at 3x what the linguist asked me, and I had to refuse it.
c) There is no work-life balance whatsoever, you must stay until you' re done, and you will end up hanging out with your other colleagues. The financial crisis has made many people willing to accept such conditions. The company is extremely profitable and has no reason to resort to exploitation of pretty much everyone, that's really low ethics.
Advice to Management:
Management thinks that they should make money by lying to the clients, cheating the linguists and abusing any sense of "work hours" of their production employees. Most other agencies live very well by not exploiting and not lying. I know that this is the core mentality of certain people, so it won't change. Any advice would hit on deaf ears.
I get the distinct impression you were the victim of someone schooled in these tactics. My heart goes out to you.
Catherine
[Edited at 2014-11-19 15:53 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | R. Alex Jenkins 
Brazil
Local time: 06:54
Member (2006)
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Thanks your posts. Here's an update... | Nov 19, 2014 |
The agency in question is not one of my favourites. I've been working for them on and off for six or seven years, and had previously stopped working for them, but returned a year or so ago when I received a decent offer of work, and have been getting semi-regular work ever since. Their rates are reasonable, but their deadlines are almost always unacceptable, thus being an agency that I work for if I've got enough time, but not an agency I want to establish a permanent relationship with. That's p... See more The agency in question is not one of my favourites. I've been working for them on and off for six or seven years, and had previously stopped working for them, but returned a year or so ago when I received a decent offer of work, and have been getting semi-regular work ever since. Their rates are reasonable, but their deadlines are almost always unacceptable, thus being an agency that I work for if I've got enough time, but not an agency I want to establish a permanent relationship with. That's perhaps the hardest thing of all, knowing that I can't grow because of their intrinsic 'beat every other agency on the planet and get it back first' policy. Even though most of the PMs are really nice.
The translation, technically speaking was not difficult. I have now received the revised copy back from the aforementioned agency and have had time to analyse it. Please note that I have removed my originally posted excerpt due to potential legal issues.
The source text consisted of some very long sentences separated by commas, no pauses - an absolute minefield for translating correct expression, but I was sincerely really happy with the quality of the my work.
There are two points of note concerning the revision work which I have now received. Firstly, the technical aspect of the work; was it correct and properly researched? Yes, in my opinion. For example, I chose the word "tumbler", which I had technical doubts about, but this was accepted across the board. Why? Because the reviewer did not need to research this term - I did. I'm very technical by nature and my skills in finding the right terms are mostly very good.
The second issue was the writing style and my ability to express myself - obviously what the reviewer picked up on. Let me give you some examples:
My sentence:
"in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 14.3"
revised to:
"pursuant to Article 14.3".
Have I am been too wordy? Possibly. But is my translation wrong?
In the next sentence you'll notice no revision of this previously mentioned 'error':
"The date for submission of the application, in accordance with Article 22 of the Patents Law". Why has this not been changed to 'pursuant to', as in the previous sentence?
It goes on and on, and this is the general tone of the entire revision. I baulked when I read the tiny phrase: "In either instance, ...", changed to "In either case, ...". I have perfected the word "instance" over the years, for what it's worth!
Annoyingly, it seems to be a 'case' of changing words for the sake of changing them, but not doing so consistently. Destroying another translator's work, possibly because the reviewer in question was not chosen for the work in the first 'instance' (or should I say case)?
I've rambled on too much, but what really upset me yesterday was the request not to issue my invoice, based on the opinion of this reviser. It's not going to happen. I've had enough of being pushed to the limit, so I will contact the agency in due course and talk to them in a calm and measured fashion.
I hope this post has been informative. It's very hard to be express myself and be business-like at the same time, but I'm trying to be as transparent as possible. I'm looking forward to any further comments from other translators, if you have them. Now I've got to deal with the agency - more unpaid work - and get this sorted out, which is the most distasteful thing of all.
All The Best ▲ Collapse
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 10:54
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| Some things in this really surprise me | Nov 19, 2014 |
It doesn't seem as though you had any real reason to say "yes" to this job, whatever its content. You're an established translator so hopefully you aren't desperate for the money, and it clearly isn't a superb client you feel obliged to go the extra mile for:
R-i-c-h-a-r-d wrote:
Yesterday, an agency that I occasionally work for contacted at about 11 a.m. asking for a 'rush' translation of around 2500 words for the next morning.
...worked solidly, with one break for lunch and another rest later on, until about 23:00 hours
This particular agency only ever contacts me at the last minute for rush-rush work
And yet you accepted it, despite the fact that it was a completely new area for you (an area that's known to all of us as a highly technical one) and there were added complications present in the form of the file format and suspect support information. I'm all for pushing the envelope - no need to restrict yourself to the few things you learnt first - but new ground should be trodden with respect, in an atmosphere of reflection and study, not at a breakneck charge.
I am still surprised at how an agency can get in touch with a translator asking them for rush work, and then crucify them for shoddy work, especially as I know how hard I worked.
Not only had I translated more than my regular quota per day under rush conditions, but I had revised that work, formatted the documents from PDF to Word myself, navigated a useless glossary and links, and got to grips with an area that I had never worked in before.
But none of that was what the client was paying for. The client ONLY pays for the result: a near-perfect translation that's fit for use, in this case as a patent. If that isn't what you delivered then you haven't succeeded. I have no idea whether you delivered a good job or not, and I certainly agree that the client is obliged to provide proof of failure. If you did a good enough job, with a few little slips due to the rush, then I'd say it was the proofreader's job to tidy it a little, and the agency's job to pay both of you - after all, they'll no doubt be paid a premium rate for the translation. If it really was unfit for its purpose (and I suspect you aren't the best person to judge a patent translation), then you have to be prepared to give a hefty discount (maybe as much as 100% ), and lose the client to boot (no great loss ), no matter how hard you tried. We don't get paid for trying; we get paid for succeeding.
Is the translation industry turning into a rush-industry, where the agencies just don't have the resources to cope.
Well, if it is going that way then it's at least partly because too many translators continue to attempt to dig them out of these holes. Why not just say "No can do" and leave the agency to deal with its self-created problems? It's much better in the long run to let this type of agency go bust and leave the field open for more organised agencies.
| | | | | errors were merely stylistic, not substantive | Nov 19, 2014 |
Sheila -- I usually agree with everything you say in your insightful posts, but I respectfully disagree in this instance ("in this case"?). Let me explain.
I agree with you that translating patents is a potential minefield and should not be done the first time on a rush basis. Richard seems to enjoy challenges, knows he's a quality translator, may like the adrenalin rush of working under a short deadline -- but he probably did not realize how narrow the parameters are in patent tr... See more Sheila -- I usually agree with everything you say in your insightful posts, but I respectfully disagree in this instance ("in this case"?). Let me explain.
I agree with you that translating patents is a potential minefield and should not be done the first time on a rush basis. Richard seems to enjoy challenges, knows he's a quality translator, may like the adrenalin rush of working under a short deadline -- but he probably did not realize how narrow the parameters are in patent translating. But that by no means warrants the response he received from the agency. He's done translations for this agency in the past, so they knew the quality of his work and that's why they gave him something as challenging as a patent translation.
The examples he gives of the proofreader's objections are stylistic differences, not substantive errors: they certainly do not add up to an "atrocious translation" that should not be invoiced. "In this instance" being changed to "in this case" should never have been altered by the proofreader. A passage like "in accordance with the provisions set out in Article xx" is wordy, and, yes, better phrased as "pursuant to Article xx" -- but that's what the revision process is supposed to improve. This is precisely why proofreaders and/or editors are hired -- to add value to the final translation product for the end client; revising is *not* supposed to be used as a weapon to wield against translators to deny them remuneration (except when an unethical translator did something like use only MT and pretend it was a human translation).
Just as in translation theories -- where there are many different approaches to how best to render a translation in different areas -- there is a range of different philosophies about how best to edit and revise someone else's translations. An excellent book on one particular approach is Brian Mossop's "Editing and Revising for Translators" (2nd ed.). He advises the light touch, making revisions only when necessary for meaning or stylistic conventions, *not* because the reviser might have rendered a phrase somewhat differently for stylistic reasons. I used to be a pretty heavy-handed reviser myself when colleagues asked me to look over their translations (I'd never do it for an agency) until I read that book.
While I'd never touch patent translations (after having heard a couple conference talks about them), I know that their stylistic conventions are very strict, very rigid, and allow for very little creativity. Some translators like the challenge of fitting in new patent language into these narrow conventions -- I've heard it compared to writing haikku. Until I heard those conference talks, I had no idea how rigid patent language conventions are; maybe Richard didn't either, but that doesn't mean this debacle is his fault. The agency itself had an obligation to (a) locate an experienced patent translator, (b) give the translator enough time to render a proper translation, not a rush deadline, (c) compensate the translator for the job appropriately, and (d) hire a similarly experienced proofreader/editor who knows how to distinguish style from substance. None of these conditions were met. I suspect, given the horrible language they used with Richard and their refusal to pay, that this agency is not merely incompetent, but unethical. An ethical, quality, decent agency would have *discussed* problems it may have perceived, perhaps "negotiated" payment issues, but would not have gone on the offensive and used abusive language and payment practices against a translator.
Please see the review I posted earlier from a project manager who was disgusted with how he was expected to lie and cheat to translators to save money. Note in particular the tactic he deplored of lying to the translator by saying the "client had issues" with the translation when it was in fact still in production, something he himself called "psychological terrorism through lies"!
[Edited at 2014-11-19 19:25 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 10:54
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| One PM's story cannot be applied to every case | Nov 19, 2014 |
Catherine V. Howard wrote:
The examples he gives of the proofreader's objections are stylistic differences, not substantive errors
I grant that, Catherine, but I really don't think we can extrapolate to say that ALL changes were preferential. This was a 2500-word translation after all, and quality can plunge due to the stress and tiredness associated with unrealistic deadlines. I'm not saying it did; just that it's a possibility that we can't dismiss. And anyway, as you yourself suggest, perhaps the proofreader was acting correctly:While I'd never touch patent translations (after having heard a couple conference talks about them), I know that their stylistic conventions are very strict, very rigid, and allow for very little creativity.
I bet you are a superb translator and that you produced a fabulous translation. Why do I seem so certain you were cheated and lied to? Because I don't buy their excuse one iota for not paying you. In a few agencies, this kind of excuse is regularly brandished to save money.
This is a quote from your earlier post. I'm well aware of the problems some translators have with agencies who will try anything to get out of paying. But they are normally the ones who pay peanuts, and the OP doesn't say he's had any problems with obtaining reasonable payment in the past; just that their jobs are always urgent. I really can't imagine why you've taken such an extreme view, even to the extent of calling it "an act of violence". Maybe you know the OP and/or the agency concerned personally and are privy to information we don't have.
The agency itself had an obligation to (a) locate an experienced patent translator, (b) give the translator enough time to render a proper translation, not a rush deadline, (c) compensate the translator for the job appropriately, and (d) hire a similarly experienced proofreader/editor who knows how to distinguish style from substance.
Well, ideally it should work that way. But then you could equally say that the translator had the obligation to (a) refuse the assignment if not suitably experienced, and (b) refuse the assignment if the deadline is too tight to produce quality work. Translators who only take on jobs that they are absolutely sure of being able to do competently are in a much better bargaining position when faced with unjustified complaints.
Let's hope that in this case the translator and the agency can obtain independent advice and subsequently agree on a suitable outcome.
| | | | | dealing respectfully with partners in B2B transactions | Nov 19, 2014 |
Hi Sheila,
Yes, your reservations are well taken. Richard probably didn't know how tricky patent translations can be. Now he does, thanks to input in this worthwhile thread.
I call the agency's treatment of Richard an "act of violence" because it showed no respect for a business partner in a B2B transaction, no respect for a long-term translator whose quality the agency already knew, and no respect for a fellow human being. Only the most dysfunctional companies would... See more Hi Sheila,
Yes, your reservations are well taken. Richard probably didn't know how tricky patent translations can be. Now he does, thanks to input in this worthwhile thread.
I call the agency's treatment of Richard an "act of violence" because it showed no respect for a business partner in a B2B transaction, no respect for a long-term translator whose quality the agency already knew, and no respect for a fellow human being. Only the most dysfunctional companies would respond in the way this one did, calling his work "atrocious" and telling him to not even send in an invoice. This is not professional. Some agencies and some companies *are* so dysfunctional that they will react this way -- but not the quality agencies that are a pleasure to work with. Maybe the PM had a fight with his wife that morning and took it out on Richard -- I have no idea, but there's no excuse for an adult to vent like this or for a professional to treat another honest professional this way; heck, not even a dog should be kicked around like that. Given the examples that Richard cited -- and I have no reason to suspect that he's covering up egregious errors -- the PM had no license to be abusive in this way or to violate the contractual agreement to pay a translator for the work delivered. It was not a botched MT job. Professional businesses adhere to certain standards of decency in their communication. The agency asked Richard to do this translation because he'd already done other translations for it in the past that proved his quality. If the PM didn't like his work, he should have discussed it with Richard, not verbally assaulted him, and negotiated a discount, if warranted, not insisted an invoice not even be sent.
I tried to explain in my first post why I consider this treatment he received to be abusive and violent. It's based on a centuries-old tradition of philosophical reflections on the deepest issues of what language comprises, what the existential meanings of our work as translators involve, and what it means to express our beings in the world through our work and the products we create. I was very moved by Richard's honest expression of being violated in this interaction. I believe the issues go beyond mere technicalities of this or that phrase to what it means to be human and be treated with dignity by other human being. My position is not extreme, it is simply indignant in empathy with what Richard was subjected to, in the context of these broader philosophical issues. Let me also highlight the anonymous PM's description (cited earlier in the review of working inside a certain agency) whose *own* words for using these tactics against a translator were "psychological terrorism."
As always, I get a lot from reading your posts, I mean that. I hope you'll get a bit more of an idea of where I'm coming from in this response.
Catherine
[Edited at 2014-11-20 00:13 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 10:54
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| We certainly agree on repect for business partners | Nov 19, 2014 |
I see where you're coming from Catherine, and I respect your point of view. We share the view that there must be mutual respect in business relationships if they are to flourish (as there must be in all other relationships, of course). Unfortunately, lack of respect, including a lack of self-respect, has been around since tribes began to trade furs for gourds, and it's showing no signs of disappearing.
I'm not a very learned person, relying more on common sense and my own experience... See more I see where you're coming from Catherine, and I respect your point of view. We share the view that there must be mutual respect in business relationships if they are to flourish (as there must be in all other relationships, of course). Unfortunately, lack of respect, including a lack of self-respect, has been around since tribes began to trade furs for gourds, and it's showing no signs of disappearing.
I'm not a very learned person, relying more on common sense and my own experience than what I read in books; a good job really, since I mostly read thrillers and sci-fi . It's great that those who raise questions on this forum get the views of such different people, with such different experience and backgrounds. Posters can be more sure of a balanced response. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
You're certainly right, Sheila, about the value of getting so many different perspectives in these forums. I've appreciated your level-headed views in the past and have always considered you a voice worth listening to.
Me, I like international spy novels for my recreational reading....
Catherine
| | |
|
|
|
| the translator is NOT always right, you know! | Nov 20, 2014 |
I have been following this thread with interest.
I have already said that I am ill-placed to judge the quality of the work delivered and whether or not the agency was justified in its criticisms and/or behaviour (which seems rather extreme to me but I NEVER work with agencies so...).
I consider that Richard was probably ill-advised to take on the job under the circumstances he describes, which is not necessarily justification for the treatment meted out to him. In his h... See more I have been following this thread with interest.
I have already said that I am ill-placed to judge the quality of the work delivered and whether or not the agency was justified in its criticisms and/or behaviour (which seems rather extreme to me but I NEVER work with agencies so...).
I consider that Richard was probably ill-advised to take on the job under the circumstances he describes, which is not necessarily justification for the treatment meted out to him. In his heart, I feel he knows he was perhaps too far outside his comfort zone.
That said, one of the things that irritates me profoundly on forums such as this is the way that, as soon as a translator complains about how he or she has been treated by a client (direct/indirect), the whole community seems to want to weigh in immediately to defend the translator.
I am not saying it is Richard's case but, believe it or not guys, not all so-called translators are good at their job, some bite off things they cannot chew, others are just a lost cause from Day 1.
We will lose credibility if we assume the translator is always right! ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 17:54
Chinese to English
| Don't be emotional | Nov 20, 2014 |
Sheila has a good point when she says
But none of that was what the client was paying for. The client ONLY pays for the result
Your emotions are high because you put in additional effort on this job. But that's not the relevant part. The only relevant part is that (it sounds like) you turned in an adequate job and they're refusing to pay. So stay cool and focused in your communication with them.
One thing worth noting - you mentioned the unusual punctuation of the patent. That's a standard patent convention, and it's worth knowing. If you deliver a translation with punctuation that doesn't fit the patent conventions, then a proofreader/client could get legitimately annoyed. If they have to recast whole sentences then that's a rewrite.
| | | | R. Alex Jenkins
Brazil
Local time: 06:54
Member (2006)
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Emotions run high | Nov 20, 2014 |
Phil Hand wrote:
...your emotions are high because you put in additional effort on this job.
You're quite right, Phil, and thanks for your understanding and for giving me the benefit of doubt on having put in the right amount of effort.
What you're perhaps not picking up on is that the agency requested retention of my fee. Perhaps it was a tentative bid to get me to reduce my fee by 10, 20 or more percent, based on the lost remuneration incurred by their reviewing team, but in 11 years working as a translator I have only ever failed to receive payment once, and that was for an 'agency' based in the UAE which turned out to be a scam artist with no credentials, fixed address, working out of a PO Box, etc. I did the translation for 'them' without doing any prior research and paid the price, but I have never been refused payment by even the most non-reputable agency, and I certainly hope it doesn't start now.
I made the mistake of taking on a patent translation without understanding the nuances of this particular work, but there is a vast difference between rubbish or MT translation, churned out at a clip for the sake of a few Euros, and the painstaking work that I did for that agency, dropping everything and pouring myself into that work until completion.
Put it another way. If I agree to withhold my fee, and this goes for all other translators out there who believe they have done an honest day of work, then it will make my relationship with that agency untenable, especially as I have worked for this agency many times before. It's not the right approach between an agency and independent service provider (freelancer) to request retention of a fee.
Yes, I'm an emotional, possibly insecure man, who perhaps overreacts, but I would have expected an approach along the lines of: we're not happy with the work and request that you revise it. Please don't accept patent translation in the future if you're not 100% qualified to do so. Let's learn from this and move on. We know you and we wouldn't have got in touch with you for such delicate, trusted work if we didn't view you as a highly competent translator, etc, etc.
Additionally, why are agencies contacting freelancers at 14:00 / 15:00 CET, requesting delivery by 09:00 CET the next morning for something as sensitive as a patent translation? I don't want to go off topic here, but surely the agency is pushing its rush policies onto the shoulders of the translator.
There's obviously a divided opinion here, and I'm happy to hear all of those opinions. It is, after all, only discussion. Thanks for all of your posts.
[Edited at 2014-11-20 21:08 GMT]
| | | | R. Alex Jenkins
Brazil
Local time: 06:54
Member (2006)
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
polyglot45 wrote:
That said, one of the things that irritates me profoundly on forums such as this is the way that, as soon as a translator complains about how he or she has been treated by a client (direct/indirect), the whole community seems to want to weigh in immediately to defend the translator.
Hello.
Are you absolutely sure? Catherine Howard's opinion is the most fervent in my defence, but I would say that 50-50, perhaps even two thirds of opinion are under the assumption that my work was of poor quality.
I delivered that translation when I was satisfied, after revision, with the quality of my work. I fully understood it and took on the work because I read a large chunk of the source document and decided to myself that it was well within my capabilities.
This particular instance revolves around the peculiarities of patent translation, largely consisting of sentences of several hundred words long, written in a rambling manner, comma after comma after comma. A reviser can only feel comfortable if the translation is written verbatim, in the same comma after comma structure. Once that reviewer has to actually think about the entire structure of the sentence, well, they could be lost and very inconvenienced.
The agency itself has assumed the stance of the reviewer, not the translator. That opinion was also influenced by the need to deliver a translation to the end customer under very tight deadline conditions. I think you can understand the situation a bit better when you realise that the reviewer possibly had an hour, maybe less, to whiz through the translation and check it off.
On that note, God forbid ever accepting patent translation revision work. A major lesson learned by me.
[Edited at 2014-11-20 16:00 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 17:54
Chinese to English
| This is our watercooler | Nov 20, 2014 |
polyglot45 wrote:
That said, one of the things that irritates me profoundly on forums such as this is the way that, as soon as a translator complains about how he or she has been treated by a client (direct/indirect), the whole community seems to want to weigh in immediately to defend the translator.
I understand what you mean, but I see this forum as a place where translators can offer each other a bit of support. We work on our own, so there's no-one to bitch about the "boss" with at the end of the day - so I come here to do it. There's nothing wrong with a bit of solidarity sometimes, especially as none of us are in a position to make a truly objective judgment.
@Richard - You're right, business is personal for us, because we're one-man bands. But for the agency, it's just business. They're wrong, and they can be proven wrong on their own terms. Good luck!
| | | | | Rogue agencies | Nov 20, 2014 |
Bom dia Richie!
Here are my thoughts:
- I sympathize meu amigo! I know how it feels. Your reaction is perfectly sound, and is a proof of your commitment and your professionalism. One word of solace: lucky you it was only 2,500 words!
- I won't repeat what others have already said, just add that on this one I'm on the same page as Kevin, Mervyn, Catherine and Phil, and Erik too. To sum up: even though your decision to take on the job seems a bit suspect, and... See more Bom dia Richie!
Here are my thoughts:
- I sympathize meu amigo! I know how it feels. Your reaction is perfectly sound, and is a proof of your commitment and your professionalism. One word of solace: lucky you it was only 2,500 words!
- I won't repeat what others have already said, just add that on this one I'm on the same page as Kevin, Mervyn, Catherine and Phil, and Erik too. To sum up: even though your decision to take on the job seems a bit suspect, and your translation may (might) have contained some flaws, the way they treated you - I mean mistreated you - is quite disgusting. A rogue agency wouldn't have acted differently. As Mervyn suggested, it's quite possible that there's actually no proofreader, or else that the proofreader is just the wife of the owner, Svetlana, who usually assumes the accounting duties, but sometimes likes to "give her views" on the job done by their cherished collaborators (even though she left school at 16 and never really got to learn a second language). The review pasted here by Catherine is certainly a very ugly story, but unfortunately it's not an isolated case of thuggish behavior (as Sheila seems to believe, e.g.). Many blogs are testimony of this fact, and it doesn't only happen in less advanced countries! There have been occurrences where translators who did a neat job had had their PO cut because someone had introduced gross semantic mistakes after them, possibly deliberately!!
The sole piece of information against the argument of a rogue agency is the "fair rates", but here it would be useful to know the actual figure, because unknowingly you could be just another translator affected by the virus of poverty...
- Of course, no one reading this thread can judge the quality you delivered and take sides. BUT everyone reading this thread will have noticed that you are not a clown. Your idiolect is rich, your communication is articulate, your reasoning is logical (even under emotional stress). Granted, it doesn't mean you are omniscient and cannot fail, but IT DOES show one thing: it's almost strictly impossible that your translation was to be done all over again as they claim. Why? Because when stylistically it's neat, even if there are semantic miscues here and there (which I don't imply was the case here), it's never overly time-consuming to fix. (The only situation I know of where a retranslation is needed while the style is good, is when it's been so unrestrictedly embellished that eventually the translation has become too approximate and misses the original point, but I'm sure you know that). Now you got a copy of the changes made by Svetlana, we know it was a lie, but before we didn't. Can you confirm there were no semantic flaws (or very very few) and the stylistic changes were mostly nitpicking by a pettifogger? If so, you need to keep fighting for your due (and ideally you should even demand a premium for moral damage).
- Fun fact: the one and only rogue agency I had to deal with in my career was from Serbia (like yours?) and tried to con me after I translated gambling contents for them!
@polyglot45: I think you don't often read ProZ when you say
That said, one of the things that irritates me profoundly on forums such as this is the way that, as soon as a translator complains about how he or she has been treated by a client (direct/indirect), the whole community seems to want to weigh in immediately to defend the translator.
Most people who participate in forums are passionate about their job, and by the very nature of this profession, they usually are discerning and fair people. I still have in mind threads by complainers who didn't get the support they were sure to get...
@Catherine: thank you for the book reference! I'll buy it sometime as I still happen to be a bit overzealous and inefficient in some review projects...
[Edited at 2014-11-21 10:27 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | @Phil@Frankie@Richard, etc. | Nov 20, 2014 |
That you should vent is fine. Part of my second post was a case of me venting, so who am I to criticise?
But I take issue with those who would claim that Richard's case is typical and, more specifically, with Frankie, who thinks I can't have read many posts on this site to hold the views I mentioned.
While it is true that I never read posts on Proz promotions (not interested), CAT Tools (even less interested) and anything vaguely IT technical (way outside my personal co... See more That you should vent is fine. Part of my second post was a case of me venting, so who am I to criticise?
But I take issue with those who would claim that Richard's case is typical and, more specifically, with Frankie, who thinks I can't have read many posts on this site to hold the views I mentioned.
While it is true that I never read posts on Proz promotions (not interested), CAT Tools (even less interested) and anything vaguely IT technical (way outside my personal comfort zone), since I am merely a "pragmatic" translator (the current preferred description - in French - of a technical translator), I almost always eventually read posts about complaints over bad translations and, I can assure, in at least 80% of all cases (I'm being extra, extra conservative here), the OP has bitten off more than he or she can chew and got his or her just desserts!
I suspect Richard was used and abused but I merely wanted to warn against the notion that the translator can never be wrong. I teach the subject. The tales I could tell! ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Working under rush condtions | 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! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
