| Pages in topic: [1 2] > | Revision rate: 2000 words per hour - really? Thread poster: Ramunas Kontrimas
|
|---|
It takes me much more than 1 hour to review 2000 words of another person's translation (checking for omissions, terminology, grammar...). Or is review about something else?
| | | |
is when you look it through and tell if it is "good" or "no good".
What you say is proofreading.
| | | | | Proofreading/revision | Oct 25, 2016 |
The terminology confusion is interesting (and alarming if you consider that terminology supposed to be our strong point!).
European Standard EN 15038 on Translation services says:
proofreading = checking of proofs before publishing
review = examine a target text for its suitability for the agreed purpose and respect for the conventions of the domain which it belongs and recommend corrective measures
revise = examine a translation for its suitability for the... See more The terminology confusion is interesting (and alarming if you consider that terminology supposed to be our strong point!).
European Standard EN 15038 on Translation services says:
proofreading = checking of proofs before publishing
review = examine a target text for its suitability for the agreed purpose and respect for the conventions of the domain which it belongs and recommend corrective measures
revise = examine a translation for its suitability for the agreed purpose, compare the source and target texts, and recommend corrective measures
I know we can all have our own ideas, but why not adopt a standard when it exists?
[Modificato alle 2016-10-25 15:47 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Doesn't matter what you call it | Oct 25, 2016 |
Revision, editing, checking, proofreading: it's about putting mistakes right. Two thousand words an hour sounds like a lot, unless it's a very good translation and you're just being asked to give it a quick read through.
[Edited at 2016-10-25 16:23 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Thayenga 
Germany
Local time: 11:29
Member (2009)
English to German
+ ...
| You mean proofreading | Oct 25, 2016 |
If you're asked to only check the translation for any mistakes, then it's proofreading. For a revision you will need both source and target texts. Revision might require relocation, localization, etc. Even if it's a very good translation, 2,000 words an hour seem to be just a little too many... unless you're a pro in speed-reading.
| | | | | There are differences... | Oct 25, 2016 |
philgoddard wrote:
Revision, editing, checking, proofreading: it's about putting mistakes right. Two thousand words an hour sounds like a lot, unless it's a very good translation and you're just being asked to give it a quick read through.
Doing a monolingual proofreading is quite different from checking the translation against the source.
Problem is that often those terms seem to be used/understood differently among both clients and translators, so in my opinion it's always a good idea to ask the client what they're actually expecting of you...
That said, in my opinion 2k might be a bit much even in case of monolingual proofreading.
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 10:29
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| More likely as a monolingual processing speed | Oct 25, 2016 |
Mirko Mainardi wrote:
Doing a monolingual proofreading is quite different from checking the translation against the source.
Problem is that often those terms seem to be used/understood differently among both clients and translators, so in my opinion it's always a good idea to ask the client what they're actually expecting of you...
That said, in my opinion 2k might be a bit much even in case of monolingual proofreading.
Monolingual proofreading in English is something I specialise in. If the translation has already been reviewed (or whatever you called the bilingual checking step), then there shouldn't be much left to do. In that case, 2k isn't uncommon. But if the text isn't really that good for any reason (non-native turns of phrase; not spell-checked; rambling sentences; inconsistencies; mix of variants...) then 2k would be a bit much to expect. 1,500 wph would be more realistic. To be honest, the jobs I get can be as slow as 750 wph. If it's a translation, I reject that sort of text. The only safe thing to do is retranslate it or at least check it against the source. But if it's been written from scratch in English (as so many non-native writers do nowadays), and I actually have some contact with the writer when necessary (either directly as my client or through a helpful PM) then I sometimes accept the job. However, all I can do in many cases is highlight the problem areas and give some suggestions. We aren't mind-readers, as I constantly remind my clients.
| | | | | I would suggest... | Oct 25, 2016 |
you make sure you know exactly what the client wants, e.g. comparing source with target or just proofreading the target etc. and then you have a look at the job on hand, estimate how long that would take you and tell them how much it costs.
[Edited at 2016-10-25 17:34 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| 1,500 words per hour is more realistic | Oct 25, 2016 |
I concur with Sheila.
| | | | | Editing vs proofreading | Oct 25, 2016 |
When target needs to be compared with source to check for mistakes, mistranslations, omissions, register shift, etc., I call it editing. 1,000 – 1,500 words an hour is more realistic, provided most of the translated text is of an acceptable quality.
I call monolingual work proofreading. No source is needed, unless you do not understand something. This must be a third step (following translation and editing). Not everybody is doing it. In fact, some LSPs only translate (which seem... See more When target needs to be compared with source to check for mistakes, mistranslations, omissions, register shift, etc., I call it editing. 1,000 – 1,500 words an hour is more realistic, provided most of the translated text is of an acceptable quality.
I call monolingual work proofreading. No source is needed, unless you do not understand something. This must be a third step (following translation and editing). Not everybody is doing it. In fact, some LSPs only translate (which seems more like ‘kamikaze’ practice to me). Provided you only accept text you are familiar with, you can do even 3,000 words an hour. 2,000 seems more than realistic to me.
[Edited at 2016-10-25 18:57 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ramunas Kontrimas
Lithuania
Local time: 12:29
English to Lithuanian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
all for your opinion. Indeed, it is not the first client that offers the 2000 words per hour rate for such a task, and indeed, whatever they call it, most often proofreading or reviewing (very rarely editing), they want one thing -- to get a copy that is good to be sent to the client.
| | | | | Common Tactic | Oct 26, 2016 |
I think this is a tactic that some agencies and clients use when they want to limit payment. They tell you that X task should take X hours, but it is often a tight squeeze if not possible to accomplish. Provide your own estimate of the time required to do a proper job, and then let them decide if the budget is there. If they are afraid that you will "take too many hours," you can just offer a flat fee. That way, everyone is happy, and there are no unpleasant surprises.
| | |
|
|
|
| Make sure you are paid a realistic rate | Oct 26, 2016 |
Amel Abdullah wrote:
I think this is a tactic that some agencies and clients use when they want to limit payment. They tell you that X task should take X hours, but it is often a tight squeeze if not possible to accomplish. Provide your own estimate of the time required to do a proper job, and then let them decide if the budget is there. If they are afraid that you will "take too many hours," you can just offer a flat fee. That way, everyone is happy, and there are no unpleasant surprises.
(My emphasis)
I agree that a rate per word or an estimated number of words per hour can be useful for planning, but many clients do not appreciate how long it really takes to read a section, compare it with the source, check a dictionary or other reference, make a correction and move on...
Speed-reading is out of the question, because you cannot always catch the issues and errors, and certainly cannot correct them at that speed. At best, you can mark them as needing attention.
As soon as there is anything that needs real attention, not just typos and double spaces, the time needed for revision escalates.
To me at least, revision means offering alternative suggestions where the text is not ideal. Revision calls for thought, checking references, and possibly explaining why one solution is better than another, and then checking through the text for other occurrences of the same issue, ensuring consistency and cohesion ...
It is just not possible in the time some clients allow and will pay for. Unfortunately a translator has often agreed to a job and a rate, and ends up working 'for free'. This leads clients to believe that their estimate of time was correct, so if the job took longer than anticipated, you should at least point this out when you deliver the final version.
I never quote for more than 1000 words an hour, but add that this is a maximum rate, and invoice for the time actually spent. I almost always give a symbolic reduction - 15 minuts for a short text, more for a larger one. This seems to be a good tactic, but many clients still refuse to pay a realistic rate, and in that case I turn down the job.
| | | |
Amel Abdullah wrote:
I think this is a tactic that some agencies and clients use when they want to limit payment. They tell you that X task should take X hours, but it is often a tight squeeze if not possible to accomplish. Provide your own estimate of the time required to do a proper job, and then let them decide if the budget is there. If they are afraid that you will "take too many hours," you can just offer a flat fee. That way, everyone is happy, and there are no unpleasant surprises.
Yes, it appears some try anything to reduce their costs, do your own maths and make them an offer - otherwise you just get used.
Only yesterday an agency I registered with some time ago, but so far only sent very low offers, asked whether I could do post-editing MT and send a file with segments populated with Google (I think). I was told that they pay per hour and that they calculate that by estimating 700 words per hour.
I told them what I thought of post-editing and repeated my offer to translate at my usual rate - 10 minutes later the PM admitted that post-editing is a silly concept, they accepted my offer and removed the MT from the document. This is the first time this happened to me, as most agencies would just go on looking for someone who silly enough or they agreed a very low budget with the client, but it shows that their tactics are not always that sincere.
[Edited at 2016-10-26 08:40 GMT]
| | | | | What she says | Oct 26, 2016 |
Christine Andersen wrote:
I agree that a rate per word or an estimated number of words per hour can be useful for planning, but many clients do not appreciate how long it really takes to read a section, compare it with the source, check a dictionary or other reference, make a correction and move on...
Speed-reading is out of the question, because you cannot always catch the issues and errors, and certainly cannot correct them at that speed. At best, you can mark them as needing attention.
As soon as there is anything that needs real attention, not just typos and double spaces, the time needed for revision escalates.
To me at least, revision means offering alternative suggestions where the text is not ideal. Revision calls for thought, checking references, and possibly explaining why one solution is better than another, and then checking through the text for other occurrences of the same issue, ensuring consistency and cohesion ...
It is just not possible in the time some clients allow and will pay for. Unfortunately a translator has often agreed to a job and a rate, and ends up working 'for free'. This leads clients to believe that their estimate of time was correct, so if the job took longer than anticipated, you should at least point this out when you deliver the final version.
I never quote for more than 1000 words an hour, but add that this is a maximum rate, and invoice for the time actually spent. I almost always give a symbolic reduction - 15 minuts for a short text, more for a larger one. This seems to be a good tactic, but many clients still refuse to pay a realistic rate, and in that case I turn down the job.
I agree with this almost 100%. The only reason I even slightly disagree is because on rare occasions with really poor or inappropriate translations, I managed to get through only 600-700 words per hour. So unfortunately, 1000 words per hour is not a fixed "rock bottom" for me.
If/when I agree to review (edit/"fix"/polish) a translation (rarely), I never accept clients' estimates of time. Although I will give them an estimate very similar to Christine's, I also communicate that it takes as long as it takes. However, when providing this type of non-binding quote, I always offer to give them update(s) early on in the process, for example to let them know my opinion of the general quality of the translation, the types of corrections (if any) that I find myself having to make, and any revised estimate of how long the entire process will take.
| | | | | Pages in topic: [1 2] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Revision rate: 2000 words per hour - really? | 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 » |
| | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
