| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | How much responsibility do you accept for a proofread text? Thread poster: Phil Hand
|
|---|
| The original translator should retain the entire responsibility | Jul 5, 2012 |
[quote]Phil Hand wrote:
Mario Cerutti wrote:
In other words, the original translator should chose whether to accept or reject the reviewer on his entire responsibility.
Sorry, in my previous reply I omitted one word which changes the whole meaning of my statement. It should be "In other words, the original translator should chose whether to accept or reject the reviewer *corrections* on his entire responsibility.
Phil Hand wrote:
but there would have to be contact and trust between the translator and the proofreader, and many outsourcers don't seem to want that to happen.
I usually refuse to work directly with the original translator, particularly because it often leads to inconclusive situations and also because this is all unpaid time, which might be really considerable. I understand that such situation might be critical for the translation company that doesn't understand the source or the target language, but at the end of the day it's their problem since they accepted the job from the end client.
Kind regards
| | | | | Proofreading a translation is not quite the same as monolingual proofreading | Jul 5, 2012 |
Gerard de Noord wrote:
When the chips are down, proofreading is a skill that requires only the target text.
Nowadays, proofreading is many things to many people, so it is necesssary to agree with the client each time about what is expected, and what the editor/proofreader is going to do.
But in translation there is an extra dimension because there are two languages. The proofreader is normally expected to check how accurately the translation renders the meaning of the source. That does necessitate checking against the source.
_____________________
In another life and another world, or so it seems, I actually worked at a printer's in the days when printing was still done on linotypes....
Even then, we compared with the original copy. The proofreader was my senior colleague, who marked up the galley proofs and later checked the final layout proofs.
I was strictly the copyholder, the person who read up from the manuscript or typescript. These had already been proofread for content, style, spelling mistakes etc. and it could be quite a sport deciphering cramped handwriting where changes had been made. We had to check that the linotype operators had read everything correctly.
Even with these monolingual texts, there were two types of proofreading involved: firstly whether the manuscript was correct and as intended. That was the author's job.
My colleague and I were responsible for checking the mechanics of printing: whether it was set up properly, format, layout, house style and whatever.
_____________________
Back to the present: when most clients send a translated text for proofreading, they are expecting something like those two processes to be carried out. Here there are two 'authors' - the writer of the source text and the translator.
Both should do both kinds of check on their own work, but it is often easier to find other people's mistakes than your own. The proofreader can read the translation a first time without looking at the source - which is impossible for the translator.
If I am to be responsible for this extra dimension as a proofreader, then I have to have a source text to check against.
It is impossible to find omissions without checking against the source. Using a CAT is no guarantee against them, since with fuzzy matches, a few words may still be missing or included when they should not be.
There may be other inaccuracies which can never be detected by looking at the target text alone, and that rather defeats the purpose of proofreading a translation at all. Without a source text, the proofreader cannot be held responsible for that kind of thing.
______________________________
I do occasionally proofread without a source text, either because the text was written directly in English, or because a trusted colleague is pressed for time, and simply wants the 'second pair of eyes' and comments.
In either of these situations, I send the tracked changes back to the author or translator, who has the final say in whether to accept them or reject them.
But if my changes are simply accepted all the way through, then I accept responsibility for them.
I always keep files with tracked changes that show what I have done and what I accept responsibility for - any later changes are not my problem!
| | | |
I don't usually like analogies much.
And living as I do in a country where finance is basically organised crime with a branch on every high street, I hesitate to draw an analogy with such disreputable undesirables.
But I see parallels between a review/proofing job and an audit. In this glorious nation, it is in fact technically possible, because of joint and several liability, for the auditor to carry the whole can in the event of disaster. Naturally, they have lawyers ... See more I don't usually like analogies much.
And living as I do in a country where finance is basically organised crime with a branch on every high street, I hesitate to draw an analogy with such disreputable undesirables.
But I see parallels between a review/proofing job and an audit. In this glorious nation, it is in fact technically possible, because of joint and several liability, for the auditor to carry the whole can in the event of disaster. Naturally, they have lawyers to make sure that rarely happens, but it could (if the firm they audited has meanwhile gone belly up, say). And equally naturally, they are now trying to undermine that principle by introducing caps on liability... anyhow, the parallel is there, in my view, and it was interesting to note that there is no definitive position (given the scale and clout of the sector here). It seems to be very much case-by-case.
It may be different in other countries (by God, I hope so) and it would be interesting to hear.
Just a thought. ▲ Collapse
| | | | macimovic
Netherlands
Local time: 17:28
English to Serbian
+ ...
| proofreading vs copy editing | Jul 6, 2012 |
As a proofreader, I believe you'd be responsible for the punctuation, typos and all kinds of grammar mistakes, but not for the translation itself.
While proofreading is more of a "technical" checkup of a text, copy editing goes further: you have to watch for the style, semantics, how well a translation fits within a target language, etc... It always looked to me like re-writing a book and that's where the huge responsibility lies.
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand 
China
Local time: 23:28
Chinese to English
TOPIC STARTER | Reviewer, copyeditor and proofreader rolled into one | Jul 7, 2012 |
As I understand it, what most agencies are looking for when they ask for proofreading/editing/reviewing is all these editorial functions rolled into one. That's what made me concerned in the first place. If it were just proofreading, the responsibility is defined. But with reviewing, you could have responsibility for every aspect of the text. There's the problem of overlap with the original translator, as noted above. And also the problem of a mismatch between time/compensation and liability.
| | | | | Fully responsible | Jul 7, 2012 |
I could not tell about law, but when I proofread something I feel entirely responsible. This is precisely why I very very rarely proofread other people's work, since --as expressed by other colleagues--, much too often it means that the translator feels less responsible and therefore less inclined to do proper research and pay attention, or the outsourcer feels less worried about who they choose as the translator.
May I also add that no matter how many proofreaders and editors you a... See more I could not tell about law, but when I proofread something I feel entirely responsible. This is precisely why I very very rarely proofread other people's work, since --as expressed by other colleagues--, much too often it means that the translator feels less responsible and therefore less inclined to do proper research and pay attention, or the outsourcer feels less worried about who they choose as the translator.
May I also add that no matter how many proofreaders and editors you add, a bad translation will always be risky business. Outsourcers should worry much more about who they choose as a translator than about adding editing/proofreading steps to the process. ▲ Collapse
| | | | heikeb
Ireland
Local time: 16:28
Member (2003)
English to German
+ ...
IMO opinion, this is yet again one of those "it depends"-situations.
If a translation is really good and only contains one or the other minor stylistic error or typos, I can make sure to deliver as much a "perfect" translation as possible. (Sadly enough, this scenario tends to be the exception in my experience.)
If the translation is rather poor, I have too much to do just fixing the really bad mistranslations, misunderstandings, major stylistic problems throughout, gib... See more IMO opinion, this is yet again one of those "it depends"-situations.
If a translation is really good and only contains one or the other minor stylistic error or typos, I can make sure to deliver as much a "perfect" translation as possible. (Sadly enough, this scenario tends to be the exception in my experience.)
If the translation is rather poor, I have too much to do just fixing the really bad mistranslations, misunderstandings, major stylistic problems throughout, gibberish sentences, etc. etc. With such a flood of errors, particularly in longer texts, it is absolutely possible to miss something minor or, since the task is basically transformed into a more or less complete re-write, some minor errors of my own might slip in. In such a case, the final product should ideally be proofread by a third person because the second stage doesn't actually qualify as proofreading.
Since this is usually completely out of the question due to money and time constraints, I make sure the client is aware of it. The final result is still much, much better than the original translation. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | As with any job | Jul 8, 2012 |
You have to be clear, contractually, about what you are being asked to do, what you are going to do and where the buck stops.
If you are being asked to compare the original and the tanslated version, you are checking for possible translation errors and ambiguities. The responsibility is high.
If you are reading the final version to see that it hangs together independently, that it makes sense as is, then that should be made clear too. In these sorts of situations, the l... See more You have to be clear, contractually, about what you are being asked to do, what you are going to do and where the buck stops.
If you are being asked to compare the original and the tanslated version, you are checking for possible translation errors and ambiguities. The responsibility is high.
If you are reading the final version to see that it hangs together independently, that it makes sense as is, then that should be made clear too. In these sorts of situations, the limitation to your liability must be clear : it starts and stops with a coherent piece of target language.
Grey areas : imagine you are doing the second type of proof-reading and you spot an ambiguity. You probably ask to see the original? Sounds like common sense. But what about instances where there is no apparent ambiguity, but you ought to have had asked as there was a glaring mistake in there? I don't know.
In any event, it always comes down to agreeing with the client what is to be involved and establishing that you can only be responsible for what has been agreed.
I don't do it as I am too scared about overlooking something that seemed perfectly fine in the circumstacnes. I'd be tempted to ask for the original and I'd spend as much, if not more time than I would if I were translating it - and be paid less for the pleasure? Forget it! ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Rolf Kern
Switzerland
Local time: 17:28
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | Theory and practice | Jul 8, 2012 |
Theoretically, proofread texts should go back to the original translator, who accepts it or not and remains responsible for what he/she finally does with ist.
In practice, this does not work because of the time factor.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 23:28
Chinese to English
TOPIC STARTER | Well, this is making me feel better | Jul 9, 2012 |
I'm not sure we've got any easy solutions, but at least I see I'm not the only one wrestling with this problem.
| | | | Elsa Figueroa
United States
Local time: 08:28
English to Spanish
+ ...
| It's up to the client | Jul 9, 2012 |
In my experience as a proofreader, it depends on the amount of leeway the client gives you. If you're in the LQA phase, which usually involves proofreading a pdf document, some clients don't like it when they see a lot of comments for the DTP team to include. Many clients specify that we're "only looking for typos, spelling errors and formatting issues." When that is the case, they cannot turn around and say, "hey, someone in my department who speaks [insert language] says this word is wrong bec... See more In my experience as a proofreader, it depends on the amount of leeway the client gives you. If you're in the LQA phase, which usually involves proofreading a pdf document, some clients don't like it when they see a lot of comments for the DTP team to include. Many clients specify that we're "only looking for typos, spelling errors and formatting issues." When that is the case, they cannot turn around and say, "hey, someone in my department who speaks [insert language] says this word is wrong because people don't say it that way." If it's not a typo, a spelling or a grammar error, and the word they are pointing to is fine but could be improved, gently tell the client that that is not what they asked for.
My experience with proofreading in the LQA phase is that clients get really intransigent with what they're willing to change at that stage. To avoid any issues whatsoever, I make all the comments I am going to make, even stylistic or "preferential changes", and they can take what they like. I specify in the comments very clearly why I think my choice is better.
As for mistakes, I think the proofreader is responsible, for better or worse. Editors and proofreaders I think should be knowledgeable enough to be able to see errors that translators didn't. At the same time, if the text is riddled with errors and has too many problems, do let the client know. I've had that happen to me a lot, and even though I am against editor-translator petty squabbles, when it's a really bad case I do sound the alarm. It's not fair either that the translator didn't do their work properly but the text ends up looking very nice anyway because the poor proofreader (who is most likely getting paid by the hour and thus much less than the translator) killed herself trying to fix it. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Something is wrong if the translators are that bad! | Dec 3, 2012 |
Your job as a proofreader is not to improve style ... you need to check for errors such as misspelled words, missing text and incorrect translations.
The client cannot come back to you complaining about style, because you did not write it. However, if you failed to notice a sentence was missing, you are to blame.
You say that 9 out of 10 translators whose work you proofread are incompetent. I wonder why this could possibly be the case - why do they get any work in the ... See more Your job as a proofreader is not to improve style ... you need to check for errors such as misspelled words, missing text and incorrect translations.
The client cannot come back to you complaining about style, because you did not write it. However, if you failed to notice a sentence was missing, you are to blame.
You say that 9 out of 10 translators whose work you proofread are incompetent. I wonder why this could possibly be the case - why do they get any work in the first place?
If you receive work to proofread which you consider to be unacceptable, you should send it right back to the client, telling them the translation is of unacceptably poor quality and needs to be re-translated from scratch. Then they will know not to hire this individual in the future. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Egils Grikis
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:28
Russian to Latvian
+ ...
| One example: Pneimonologs is translated to Pneumatologist | Dec 3, 2012 |
I was doing proofreading for medical text and found following:
Pneimonologs is translated to Pneumatologist
Pneimonologs is translated to Pneumatologist: The definition of this word is someone trained or skilled in pneumatology; specif : one esp. prepared by training and experience to interpret the theological doctrine of the Holy Spirit) — prescribed therapy in the form of inhalation.
Pneimonologs (Latvian word) is correctly translated to either ... See more I was doing proofreading for medical text and found following:
Pneimonologs is translated to Pneumatologist
Pneimonologs is translated to Pneumatologist: The definition of this word is someone trained or skilled in pneumatology; specif : one esp. prepared by training and experience to interpret the theological doctrine of the Holy Spirit) — prescribed therapy in the form of inhalation.
Pneimonologs (Latvian word) is correctly translated to either Pneumologist or Pulmonologist.
Above is my comment comment to the client. Client did not ask for comparing and checking correct terms…
Client did not wrote back, just paid for the proofreading.
Egils
Christine Andersen wrote:
There are a couple of agencies I translate for, but do not have time to proofread for.
I literally do not have time to do what they ask in the time they will pay for, and it is as simple as that. The quality of the translation calls for revision and correction rather than simple proofreading, and then I find myself checking everything just to be really sure... and like Phil, I feel I would rather translate from scratch myself.
A couple of others send the text with tracked changes back to the translator, who has the final say. I like translating for them too, because the feedback is useful, and sometimes there are helpful improvements, even if my version was not actually wrong.
At the agency where I worked in house, the policy was that the translator was responsible for terminology, and proofreading was proofreading, not extensive editing. We were encouraged to call the translator and explain the changes after proofreading.
I learnt a great deal from that!
It does depend what the agreement with the client is - with one or two it varies from job to job, depending on who wrote or translated the text, and how much editing it needs. But I do normally take the responsibility for seeing that the text is error free and fit for purpose, or else I refuse to take on the job at all.
▲ Collapse
| | | | | How much responsibility do you accept for proofread text? | Dec 5, 2012 |
I agree completely with Thayenga; proofreading should only involve correcting spelling mistakes or small things left out but if something has not been translated properly, it should be pointed out; prefer starting from scratch than editing
| | | | | 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 » How much responsibility do you accept for a proofread text? | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
