tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post7251605192209633685..comments2024-03-06T02:46:19.929+00:00Comments on Translation Tribulations: Just for fun: 8 MT engines for DE>EN comparedKevin Lossnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14727800526216764023noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-14020126896157478402012-05-03T12:54:15.327+01:002012-05-03T12:54:15.327+01:00I really enjoyed your post, thank you! :)I really enjoyed your post, thank you! :)Veritashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05372642039935210515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-19085175713899550942012-03-13T22:07:13.556+00:002012-03-13T22:07:13.556+00:00Kevin
This is fun, but while you may prove to you...Kevin<br /><br />This is fun, but while you may prove to yourself that generic MT sucks, I don't think you succeed in proving that MT in general is pointless. (Well to me anyway)<br /><br />Business and professionally focused MT will tune the MT engine for the specific purpose. When this is done it is possible to get better output from the MT engine. The end effect is not much different from working with fuzzy matches in TM. Good MT systems produce high level "TM matches" on average. <br /><br />I have just worked with an EN>PT system that produces "on average" 85% level matches on all new segments. (This also means that 20% of the segments can be characterized as 100% matches). This kind of a system does help to get work done faster. 3X faster in this case even though it is necessary to make sure the translation is good and accurate.<br /><br />MT is just another computer tool that can be useful, or not, depending on the specifics. <br /><br />For those willing to walk beyond the free generic engines there can be a payoff even for professional use and even for serious business product user documentation.<br /><br />This approach is particularly useful for highly repetitive business content like user documentation and as Ruben points out it works best when it not only domain focused but also client focused.Kirti Vasheehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795076802721564830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-29634773686115616612012-03-13T08:58:17.328+00:002012-03-13T08:58:17.328+00:00Hi Kevin
It's an interesting exercise that yo...Hi Kevin<br /><br />It's an interesting exercise that you do here, but there's a flow: you are using either not customizable generic engines (Google, Bing) or commercial software out-of-the-box without customization. That'd be similar to testing a general bilingual dictionary against a domain-specific web site: of course there are going to be plenty of terms missing.<br /><br />The current trend in MT these days is to customize engines not on domain basis, but on client basis (e.g. a medical equipment company X wouldn't use an MT engine for medical domain, but a specific one for that company, customized with its preferred terminology). It's only when testing customized engines that you can tell what the opportunities and threats are. I heard of a translator that combined a customized Systran engine with Trados and Dragon. Now that was light speed. Of course, he had to invest some time in customizing Systran dictionaries (and training Dragon as well, by the same token) but for long-term clients it pays off.Rubénhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14687860007052499787noreply@blogger.com