tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post830537769506542085..comments2024-03-06T02:46:19.929+00:00Comments on Translation Tribulations: OmegaT’s Growing Place in the Language Services IndustryKevin Lossnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14727800526216764023noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-69414277612038889972014-06-18T17:58:40.558+01:002014-06-18T17:58:40.558+01:00Hi Gillian - there is nothing wrong with word base...Hi Gillian - there is nothing wrong with word based rates. I don't see them going away. The point behind CAT tool instrumentation is to be able to accurately assess the impact of various technologies on translator productivity. For example, imagine predictive typing turning itself on and off at random for segments and then being able to see a report that tells you the impact it had on your seconds per word translation speed after a few days working on a regular account. If you see you are faster maybe you will invest more time in adding words and phrases.<br /><br />The point is that as translators we are too busy translating to see exactly how fast we are working under different circumstances and there is not enough visibility on how features like autosuggest aid us in our work. Many people just switch it off because it annoys them. Others report 1000+ word per day improvements but these are guesses.<br /><br />The second point I want to make (and apologies for hijacking your question) is that productivity data will likely be used by certain types of LSPs to negotiate lower rates on material that can be translated fast. For that reason, as a buyer of the CAT tool it is important that it is at your discretion with whom that data is shared.<br /><br />My motivation for wanting to see this kind of data in CAT tools is that I know it could be used by researchers but I would also find it useful as a translator (e.g. to select an MpT engine that saves me the most time). John Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08124963526256319044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-69801942202473719562014-06-14T21:40:00.373+01:002014-06-14T21:40:00.373+01:00Hi John,
I'm fascinated by your final paragrap...Hi John,<br />I'm fascinated by your final paragraph in the last comment:<br />"What I am trying to do with this instrumentation initiative is make it easier for translators to see how technologies like EMBT, SMT, predictive typing and ASR impact on their hourly earnings. I think if more people could see this more would be done by researchers in centres like CNGL to improve them."<br /><br />I'm wondering why you are focusing so much on hourly earnings? When I translate I don't focus on how much I earn per hour. It's a matter of getting the job done by the deadline and the LSP does not know how many hours I spend on a particular job. In fact, as you say in the main text, they have no interest in that. So two jobs of equal word count may take different amounts of time. The freedom of freelancing means I may work 15 hours on one day and not at all on the following 3.<br /><br />What's wrong with word-based rates? They provide easy calculations and the linguist sets the limits for how much they want to earn and/or how much they want to work.<br />Gill Searlhttp://www.linguagloss.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-69877230880995766152014-06-09T14:34:07.932+01:002014-06-09T14:34:07.932+01:00Paul - First off allow me to apologise for my fact...Paul - First off allow me to apologise for my factual error. The announcement was to mothball WorldServer when SDL bought it. I'll touch base with Kevin to have that corrected as soon as possible. This was a genuine error and I am suitably embarrassed.<br /><br />The reason I mentioned it is that GlobalSight now works well with GlobalSight and the work we have done on instrumentation works in a version of OmegaT we call iOmegaT. I mentioned it to highlight the fact that an open-source CAT tool now has the potential to gain traction in corporate environments. It was a salvo aimed squarely at Across but also to highlight the fact that OmegaT is not just a toy for language geeks or a solution for cash-strapped translators who have to use a CAT tool. It is stable and well-liked by a growing proportion of the translator community.<br /><br />In fact the $10 bet was based on a private conversation you and I had at the last ELIA conference on Malta. You told me SDL would never make it possible to measure translation speed in Trados so I was betting that SDL would be the last offline CAT tool to implement instrumentation. It was in no way meant to suggest that translators who use Trados are unproductive (when they can work!).<br /><br />Just to be clear, I have no religious bias against any piece of software. I am not an open-source fanboy. Though I can translate IT texts from German to English, I am mainly a developer. I have programmed both offline and web-based applications so I have no bias in that regard either. I think web-based tools are fine for short marketing type jobs but longer complex work over days or weeks requires the sophistication and ergonomic comfort of tools like OmegaT, Trados, MemoQ or DejaVu.<br /><br />Overall, my feeling is that in general translators are most productive in the CAT tool they are most used to working with (assuming predictive typing and ASR are well supported).<br /><br />What I am trying to do with this instrumentation initiative is make it easier for translators to see how technologies like EMBT, SMT, predictive typing and ASR impact on their hourly earnings. I think if more people could see this more would be done by researchers in centres like CNGL to improve them.<br /><br />John Moran<br />www.cngl.ieJohn Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08124963526256319044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-29798304220472023772014-06-08T20:01:45.466+01:002014-06-08T20:01:45.466+01:00Just a quick comment, on a personal level rather t...Just a quick comment, on a personal level rather than officially from SDL. When SDL purchased WorldServer I don't believe there was ever any intention to mothball SDL TMS. Anyone with any insight to these customers would know this is complete nonsense, as they would also know there was no migration en-masse... probably no migration full stop! Goodness knows where the author of this article got that from... maybe it's wishful thinking on his part!<br />I also think there is a complete lack of recognition over the APIs available with Studio which is of course the reason why many organisations use this product in the first place; especially as they can do the work themselves without requiring any additional support from SDL. I think the sort of things being discussed here around MT post editing, predictive typing and speech recognition would be handled at desktop level anyway, so I'm not sure what SDL TMS or SDL WorldServer has to do with this? We're already seeing applications being written that can measure productivity, identify changes and record the work being carried out. Some of them are in the public domain already such as Post-Edit Compare and Studio Time Tracker for example. Imagine the possibilities when you put these two things together... and as the developer of these two publicly available applications is actually the same person you can imagine where it's going next.<br />I found this an interesting article, but thought it was spoiled by the inaccuracy and infantile comments about SDL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-35805300465008698342014-06-07T07:02:23.393+01:002014-06-07T07:02:23.393+01:00If I remember well, Benten was an attempt by a Jap...If I remember well, Benten was an attempt by a Japanese government agency to fund a "local" CAT tool. Benten used a number of OmegaT libraries and as such is not a fork of OmegaT. In fact it is the only project out of the 4 listed on Wikipedia that is not a fork. And besides for Autshumato, all the projects are not under development anymore (as far as one can see from their latest release dates).suzumehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04461530003126147499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-13730222251662351872014-06-06T12:18:01.293+01:002014-06-06T12:18:01.293+01:00Thank you for a very interesting post.It is going ...Thank you for a very interesting post.It is going to be interesting to see how logging features for CAT Tools develop, whether as a standard or plug-in feature. Shai Navé..... Studio Time Tracker, released yesterday, is a (free) plug-in for SDL Trados 2014 to log time spent on projects and then use this with other input (hourly rates, task - translating, proofreading, client info) for invoicing purposes. A more commercially than academically oriented logging feature, but certainly providing a feature to log time spent and enable users to invoice in terms of time rather than text. More info at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNtVpqwfRlU&feature=youtu.be and http://www.translationzone.com/openexchange/app/studiotimetracker-591.html?action=Download English@8https://www.blogger.com/profile/01771381682658208576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-3518707108330010332014-06-04T12:34:48.586+01:002014-06-04T12:34:48.586+01:00Our student Miquel Esplà-Gomis has recently releas...Our student Miquel Esplà-Gomis has recently released an alternative, free/open-source session logging plugin that works with any OmegaT 3.0 and higher: https://github.com/mespla/OmegaT-SessionLog/releases (see also https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/omegat/conversations/messages/31522) . We are currently working on mining the enormous amount of data each session produces to actually look for productivity indicators as part of a project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity. Mikel L. Forcadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06414807379481256000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-8315641640566052532014-06-04T07:02:01.588+01:002014-06-04T07:02:01.588+01:00This post should really be seriously discussed, al...This post should really be seriously discussed, although as reality for many translators might look different (see also Kevin's point on across). And just a small note on Benten: this tool (development seems to have stopped in 2010) is (according to Wikipedia) a fork of OmegaT.Torstenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11115731755158723704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-74785976825381259182014-06-04T06:06:33.652+01:002014-06-04T06:06:33.652+01:00I had this conversation with John before so I will...I had this conversation with John before so I will allow myself to repeat my doubt about MT and productivity gains, at least as a universal determination. I think that there are many variables to factor in in order to make sure that one compares apples with apples and not with something else. But this is besides the point at the moment.<br /><br />I agree that implementing a standardized logging protocol that will produce reliable, comparable results is very important. First, for the translators using the tools as it will allow them to better quantify their hourly productivity and earning (an area that is sorely lacking at the moment); Second, it is important to have some kind of standardized benchmark to assess how technology really affects productivity, but I can also imagine how this type of benchmark or comparative tool can be abused in the commercial market. Furthermore, the same issue of data diversity probably applies here as well because not all users are equal in terms of experience, expertise, workflow, work efficient, quality standards, etc., and while it is relatively easy to measure the effect on productivity, it is more difficult to measure how a specific technology affects quality. For example, there are already orders of magnitude more poor human translation/PEMT being produced each day - quick and on the cheap - compared to high quality human translation, but this doesn't mean that this workflow and business model are better just because they might seem more "productive".<br /><br />Still, I'm all in support for a logging protocol/mechanism.<br /><br />As for SDL Trados Studio, I'm not sure which version you have referred to in the article, but I think that the APIs of Studio 2014 should allow some access to the editor, albeit it might be indeed too limited. I'm curious to know.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282909295316996770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-16158325588914533492014-06-04T04:26:15.143+01:002014-06-04T04:26:15.143+01:00John, I heartily agree that implementing a logging...John, I heartily agree that implementing a logging protocol such as you describe would provide valuable hard data to facilitate the evaluation of tools and features for real productivity. However, I think that you're mistaken that SDL Trados would come in last in an earnings per hour comparison. That honor will more likely be had by that virtual concentration camp of translation - Across. It was interesting to see the comments from consultants in a Facebook discussion that mentioned Across. None could refute the points about how Across damages the translator's productivity compared to other tools - indeed there was strong agreement - but they felt the need to pander to that cursed technology for the sake of corporate client interests and the chance of a few euros in their pockets. Even the fact that Across damages corporate adopters' interests makes no difference if they can pocket a little money today. <br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by Kilgray's "terminal server web application". Do you mean <a href="https://www.languageterminal.com/" rel="nofollow">Language Terminal</a>? That has nothing to do with a terminal server, but it would be a good venue for the reporting for any tool's results I think.<br /><br />It's interesting how quick various people who have little or no direct experience with translation are to praise web-based CAT tools as the "future" of translation despite their miserable ergonomics. These tools exist for the convenience of the project managers, and I don't believe that in a single case the work output of the translator is increased by comparison with respectable desktop-based tools. Translators would be idiots to waste their time with any tool which will slash their effective hourly earnings as drastically as a browser-based tool can for significant volumes of work. So for a piece rate economy they are definitely a losing proposition, and instrumentation such as you describe could document that clearly enough. For translation buyers with tight deadlines and high volume needs, data logging such as you describe could steer them away from technologies which would lead to harmful production bottlenecks. Altogether a fine thing.Kevin Lossnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14727800526216764023noreply@blogger.com