The translation crowdsourcing debate has made several appearances on this blog. It’s back with a vengeance thanks to a seriously deficient crowdsourced translation, which — ironically — comes from an online translators’ portal.
Protecting the French linguistic heirloom (sic)…how about protecting your image for starters?
Crowdsourced web page from Proz.com - click to visit page
The quality of the copy on this page speaks for itself. Clearly, whatever crowdsourcing system was used here failed to produce a readable — or even accurate, for that matter — translation. The result is gibberish.
But what does it all mean for translation buyers?
1 – Don’t confuse anonymous, wiki-style, free crowdsourcing with controlled, managed use of collaboration-enabling tools and technologies to enhance the teamwork of a group of seasoned professionals.
2 – There’s no such thing as a free lunch: Would you consider allowing a group of non-professional writers you’ve never met and who know nothing about your business to develop the copy for your company’s website? Translation is no different. Direct contact with the translator adapting your copy for foreign markets is an absolute necessity if you are to ensure that your message and image make it through the translation process unscathed.
3 – If you can’t come up with a compelling business case for a professional translation of your copy, don’t adopt “crowdsourcing” as your default setting. If the ROI for a professional language service provider is not there, weigh the potential costs of unreadable — or worse, laughable — foreign-language copy in terms of damage to your reputation and image. It could be that no foreign-language version at all is better than a poor one.
Merci de votre fidélité ! Découvrez notre page ressources où vous trouverez tout pour réussir vos communications en anglais !
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Sara,
should I add something like a LOL or even worse? The wiki is obviously not up to par. And I won’t comment about the “French part” of this didactic pages.
Re pt. #3: have this rewritten in extenso in your own language… and please do not forget that an adaptation reads better than a word-to-word “translation”. Don’t feed the trolls… and don’t feed the fishes!
Re “linguistic heirloom”
The piece published on ProZ showed décalque, and to me, the “gem” you cited hallmarks the work of a non-EMT writer. I have also, more seldom, come across work by EMT speakers whose mother tongue has broken down through lack of maintenance – the politically incorrect term is “gone native”. Perhaps crowdsourcing has its uses, when a large volume of information needs to be disseminated rapidly to a large, non-specialist public, quality needs to be just adequate, and funds are scarce. One thinks of access to information in developing countries, and humanitarian needs. But there again, as I pointed out in a post on another forum, a minimum of decent quality control is needed. And that requires investment, otherwise the “heirloom” is liable to hang like an albatross round the industry’s neck!
With kind regards,
Adam Warren.