Review Vs Proofreading Vs Editing Thread poster: hindi_linguist
|
|---|
Hello Prozians,
I would like o know the difference between the terms
Review
Editing
Proofreading
LSO
In the above job types, who's more responsible for either success or failure of a project? I would also like to know how and on what parameters the rates are offered for these jobs.
| | | | Sheila Wilson 
Spain
Local time: 19:30
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
This topic has been discussed repeatedly over the years, here and elsewhere, although LSO isn't something I've heard anything much about. There was a discussion on LinkedIn a while back, which I can't find now (I don't really get on with LinkedIn). But here are some links to threads here that best match your question. They are rather old, but still relevant. I'm sure there have been some relevant ones recently, but I haven't found them yet.
... See more This topic has been discussed repeatedly over the years, here and elsewhere, although LSO isn't something I've heard anything much about. There was a discussion on LinkedIn a while back, which I can't find now (I don't really get on with LinkedIn). But here are some links to threads here that best match your question. They are rather old, but still relevant. I'm sure there have been some relevant ones recently, but I haven't found them yet.
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_job_systems/57004-proofreading_vs_translation_editing_retranslation:_sharpening_the_distinction.html
http://www.proz.com/forum/translation_theory_and_practice/64768-révision_proof_reading_copywriting.html
http://www.proz.com/forum/proofreading_editing_reviewing/85819-proofreading:_monolingual.html
If you're still confused when you've read through that lot, come back with more specific questions. Believe me, there are as many definitions as there are translators, and our clients have some VERY weird ideas, so we're all confused!
The only thing that can be said about rates is that your hourly rate is the only one that's possibly valid until you've seen the quality of the text and found out exactly what your client expects you to do with it. As for responsibility, we're all responsible for our own work, aren't we? To the limit of our fee, IMO.
Edited to add some more recent links, including one that's clearly talking about LSO, though not using the acronym:
http://www.proz.com/forum/translation_theory_and_practice/238603-proofreading_task_and_rate.html
http://www.proz.com/forum/proofreading_editing_reviewing/241910-differences_between_proofreading_and_linguistic_review.html
http://www.proz.com/forum/proofreading_editing_reviewing/228286-how_much_responsibility_do_you_accept_for_a_proofread_text.html
[Edited at 2013-04-28 11:42 GMT]
[Edited at 2013-04-28 11:43 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | hindi_linguist
India
Local time: 00:00
English to Hindi
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | A great thanks, but | Apr 28, 2013 |
A great thanks but a stupid would only post it again before checking the previous posts. Fortunately, i have already checked all the previous posts. Moreover, i am more interested to know about who owes the failure of a project. Most of the time, editors ( incl. reviewers and proofreaders) refuse to accept that the translation is accepted because of them.
Wat is it when the review is done without referring to the source text?
LSO is linguistic sign off and it ensures ... See more A great thanks but a stupid would only post it again before checking the previous posts. Fortunately, i have already checked all the previous posts. Moreover, i am more interested to know about who owes the failure of a project. Most of the time, editors ( incl. reviewers and proofreaders) refuse to accept that the translation is accepted because of them.
Wat is it when the review is done without referring to the source text?
LSO is linguistic sign off and it ensures that the translated content is ready to be published. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 20:30
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Sheila Wilson wrote:
This topic has been discussed repeatedly over the years, here and elsewhere, although LSO isn't something I've heard anything much about.
Is it possible that LSO (linguistic sign-off) is simply a fancy term for what others know as QM or as 2nd proofreading?
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 00:00
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | My understanding of these terms | Apr 28, 2013 |
Review
While reviewing, you only mark the errors or discrepencies and not actually correct them. It is a quality control measure to ascertain the quality of the translation. Often if the translated text is large, review may be done of only of a small sample of it.
Editing
This is a rigorous exercise done after translation and it involves comparing source and target text and aims to correct all errors. In addition, it may also make stylistic adjustments to the translated ... See more Review
While reviewing, you only mark the errors or discrepencies and not actually correct them. It is a quality control measure to ascertain the quality of the translation. Often if the translated text is large, review may be done of only of a small sample of it.
Editing
This is a rigorous exercise done after translation and it involves comparing source and target text and aims to correct all errors. In addition, it may also make stylistic adjustments to the translated text to make it read more naturally.
Proofreading
This usually involves only checking the target text and checking for such issues as spelling errors, formatting issues, etc., but no editorial changes are made, nor are grammar errors, or inelegant translations, missing parts in the translation, etc. are corrected, although, a diligent proof-reader may bring these points to the notice of the client.
LSO
I have not heard of this term, so I don't know what it is. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 00:00
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | There is scope for further discussion of these terms | Apr 28, 2013 |
After going through the excellent links posted by Sheila, I would say there is still scope for further discussing these terms. There wasn't much agreement on what these terms mean in those discussions, and several related terms were thrown up in addition:
- monolingual proof-reading
- galley proofing
- linguistic review
- copy-editing
Also different respondents define these as well as the earlier terms differently.
Clearly there is a lot o... See more After going through the excellent links posted by Sheila, I would say there is still scope for further discussing these terms. There wasn't much agreement on what these terms mean in those discussions, and several related terms were thrown up in addition:
- monolingual proof-reading
- galley proofing
- linguistic review
- copy-editing
Also different respondents define these as well as the earlier terms differently.
Clearly there is a lot of overlap in the functions of all these terms and in many situations they can be synonymous. The problem starts with the remuneration the industry accepts for these tasks which is only a fraction of the effort involved with proof-reading paying little more than a pittance.
Due to this fuzziness in the meaning of these terms, often badly translated texts are posted as proofing jobs when they are actually retranslation/extensive-editing jobs.
There is a great need to precisely define these terms, and I am glad the Hindilinguist has raised this issue. I do hope the discussion here would serve to clarify many points and reduce the fuzziness in the meaning of these terms. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Scope for further discussion | Apr 28, 2013 |
While I thank both the topic starter and Sheila for providing all those links, I found Balasubramaniam's contribution very concise, clear and agree with all he said with regards to editing, and proofreading especially. Many thanks. It is also good that the topic comes up again.
| | | | | Revision, review and proofreading | Apr 29, 2013 |
Checking someone else's or your own translation is revision, in my view.
The former is often referred to as proofreading in the business, though proofreading in some circles connotes with physical layout.
Reviewing is sometimes used for checking that entails the monitoring of compliance with in-house language, glossaries, register, usage, consistency, etc.
Editing is a general word, I believe, and can mean almost anything. For that reason, it is not used so... See more Checking someone else's or your own translation is revision, in my view.
The former is often referred to as proofreading in the business, though proofreading in some circles connotes with physical layout.
Reviewing is sometimes used for checking that entails the monitoring of compliance with in-house language, glossaries, register, usage, consistency, etc.
Editing is a general word, I believe, and can mean almost anything. For that reason, it is not used so often in the translation business, except perhaps in the phrase 'post-editing', which may or may not have to do with machine translation.
I wrote my MA dissertation on the subject. It incudes the notion of hierarchy of expertise and who takes ultimate resppnsibility. Email me if you want a copy.
Best
S ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
hindi_linguist
India
Local time: 00:00
English to Hindi
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Review without source | Apr 30, 2013 |
I have recently received a translated copy from one of my very regular client. They asked me review the translated file without referring its source file. I would like to know what task is it called? Is there any specific name for this kind of review-without-source?
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 19:30
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| Monolingual review | May 1, 2013 |
Hindi Linguist wrote:
I have recently received a translated copy from one of my very regular client. They asked me review the translated file without referring its source file. I would like to know what task is it called? Is there any specific name for this kind of review-without-source?
I do a lot of monolingual work. More and more often, copy is written in English by non-native speakers: there is no "original" in another language. And translation agencies are encouraged by the latest standards to introduce a final monolingual review step to ensure that only top-quality target texts are delivered.
The first problem, as with all editing job, is determining the client's requirements: do they just want you to correct obvious errors, or do they want you to improve style and register as well?
But the main problem often is the inability of the reviewer to read the writer's mind, or know what the source text said. Unfortunately, some translation agencies see this "final review" as the one-and-only proofreading step i.e. the text can contain typos (not spell-checked), poor grammar, translation errors (negatives become positives etc), omissions, etc, etc. Without the source, who knows what it should say? With a source text at hand, one can determine whether "I will play tennis last Saturday" contains an error of tense or adjective. It can be impossible for a monolingual reviewer to do anything other than query it.
| | | | | Just some comments | May 1, 2013 |
Whenever you take a proofreading, editing or review assignment, you should always ask for a detailed specification, especially if you sense a cultural difference between you and your client. The terms are ambiguous enough on their own, but they are also understood differently by different professionals. You need to know how far you're supposed to go in changing the text, what kind of result you'll be responsible for achieving, and what kind of imperfections you're supposed to leave alone (althou... See more Whenever you take a proofreading, editing or review assignment, you should always ask for a detailed specification, especially if you sense a cultural difference between you and your client. The terms are ambiguous enough on their own, but they are also understood differently by different professionals. You need to know how far you're supposed to go in changing the text, what kind of result you'll be responsible for achieving, and what kind of imperfections you're supposed to leave alone (although I'd want the latter in writing, especially if the client is not the end client).
Sheila Wilson wrote: Hindi Linguist wrote:
I have recently received a translated copy from one of my very regular client. They asked me review the translated file without referring its source file. I would like to know what task is it called? Is there any specific name for this kind of review-without-source? I do a lot of monolingual work. More and more often, copy is written in English by non-native speakers: there is no "original" in another language. And translation agencies are encouraged by the latest standards to introduce a final monolingual review step to ensure that only top-quality target texts are delivered. The first problem, as with all editing job, is determining the client's requirements: do they just want you to correct obvious errors, or do they want you to improve style and register as well? But the main problem often is the inability of the reviewer to read the writer's mind, or know what the source text said. Unfortunately, some translation agencies see this "final review" as the one-and-only proofreading step i.e. the text can contain typos (not spell-checked), poor grammar, translation errors (negatives become positives etc), omissions, etc, etc. Without the source, who knows what it should say? With a source text at hand, one can determine whether "I will play tennis last Saturday" contains an error of tense or adjective. It can be impossible for a monolingual reviewer to do anything other than query it.
From a non-native speaker's experience the problem largely involves the presumption of error or non-standard usage by the non-native speaker. Perfectly correct and viable grammatical or syntactical structures or vocabulary choices can be marked wrong or changed simply because the native speaker who is proofreading the text associates them with a more frequently used structure that's similar but has a different meaning. Then, the native speaker assumes the non-native speaker intended to use the more frequently used, more standard structure and goes on to change it. Example: You use a correct subjunctive or double will/shall and the native proofreader thinks you just can't handle conditionals.
Another problem is the tedious bickering about the style of legal documents such as marriage certificates, where the style doesn't actually matter and where the time consumed by such a discussion is longer than the time spent translating. The translator's home state talks about nupturients, entering intro matrimony and all that jazz, which he faithfully puts in English. Comes now the proofreader and wants a "bride and groom", "were married" and so on. I suppose different approaches to translation between the Anglo-Saxon world and the other parts of the world may be responsible for some of the problems and misunderstandings. (Not talking about generalist proofreaders who are simply not familiar with certain registers, contexts or styles.) ▲ Collapse
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 19:30
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| Actual example please | May 2, 2013 |
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
From a non-native speaker's experience the problem largely involves the presumption of error or non-standard usage by the non-native speaker. Perfectly correct and viable grammatical or syntactical structures or vocabulary choices can be marked wrong or changed simply because the native speaker who is proofreading the text associates them with a more frequently used structure that's similar but has a different meaning. Then, the native speaker assumes the non-native speaker intended to use the more frequently used, more standard structure and goes on to change it. Example: You use a correct subjunctive or double will/shall and the native proofreader thinks you just can't handle conditionals.
I'd love to see an example of each, Łukasz. I'm having trouble thinking what you might be referring to.
I wasn't actually restricting my comments to non-native writers, although I may not have made that clear. Native writers also suffer from lapses of concentration while writing, and I'm sure we all know what can happen when copy-paste self-editing is not done carefully enough. If we submit texts without reading them through carefully, we're all capable of howlers in our native language.
| | |
|
|
|
| Cultural divide again... or the fall of "TEP" | May 16, 2013 |
In my experience,
Here in the USA, most agencies used to rely on the same model, called TEP:
T --> translation. One translator's best shot
E --> editing. Still looking at the source, an editor reviews, corrects and improves the target text
P --> proofing. Monolingual. Makes sure there are no residual errors, missing elements, and possibly retouching the target text for style (this is obviously limited in a monolingual step since you're not allowed to change the ex... See more In my experience,
Here in the USA, most agencies used to rely on the same model, called TEP:
T --> translation. One translator's best shot
E --> editing. Still looking at the source, an editor reviews, corrects and improves the target text
P --> proofing. Monolingual. Makes sure there are no residual errors, missing elements, and possibly retouching the target text for style (this is obviously limited in a monolingual step since you're not allowed to change the expressed meaning)
The system relied on good faith and translator professionalism. The E step cost about 1/3 of the T step. "E" was work, and a target text with interventions every other line was quite the norm, nothing to be shocked at, the job you were paid for. The P step was very variable from agency to agency, but by and large the client got two real pros in succession.
What things are now is much more complicated, so let's not open THAT can of worms.
But I think there is a tendency to do things differently in Europe, first off with a tradition of single-step translation which means that the "proofing" or "reviewing" is made expecting a really high quality work to start from. And proofing seems to involve the source text as well. ▲ Collapse
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Review Vs Proofreading Vs Editing | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
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
