Eyes wide shut
TRANSLATION. A note to self: evaluating a team translation task
I just completed some work – a large translation exercise French to English, for which I was engaged as part of a three-person team. We worked well together: with bonhomie, professionalism and good humour. It was a pleasure.
The work is done and an evaluation is not out of place, so I wrote myself a note on the job and, suitably redacted, it follows for anyone with a passing interest. Translators jealously guard their trade dealings. I feel a shared experience may assist my colleagues, and I offer them this in a spirit of openness.
“A hard nut to crack”
It was a pleasure, but it was a lot of hard work. The French text was a report plus its accompanying methodology etc. concerning a matter of some controversy. It was palpably written in a style that avoided any clue as to who the parties involved had been, or even the specific roles by which they were involved, other than broad categorisations. Locations were masked and circumlocutions deployed to gloss over crucial elements of the story. As a result, much time was spent by the translators in trying to figure out something as basic as what tense to use (was the text hypothetical or an actual case?), what certain collocations were intended to convey (saying it without saying it, and with what nuances) and a methodology that in parts was tantamount to saying “our method is to have no method.”
This the translators needed to understand in order to be able to convey the content accurately and, in many cases, some interpretation, which was requested but only in part forthcoming, was in fact essential to be able to put parts of the French into coherent English (such as musical “key” allusions and input references to statements where it wasn’t clear whether they were said in the press generally or were specific to the facts). The time spent on the work was therefore disproportionate to the time that would normally be needed for a document of such length and, in fact, this seriously impinged on the hourly rate of progress.
Payment and duration
In addition to the translation, we each proofread contributions from another member, under the 4-eyes principle. The rate for each task was, as is normal, set per word in the text that is worked on, proofreading being charged at around a third of the rate for translation, even a little less, which itself is charged at an intra-sector rate allowing a margin when delivered to the ultimate client.
The job took 4 days and netted income of EUR XXX per day, which is acceptable (though the reader might fall off their perch were they to be apprised of the figure).
My tendency to offer full explanations tires people out, even if it informs them of my thinking and although I cite extensive reasoning and attested basis for what I think. People don’t want thoughts, they want answers. But answers like “Yes” – given when asked to “be brief” - then got questioned with the inevitable “Why?”
Much discussion, written and spoken, went unpaid, and in large part unthanked – at least expressly. It is a vast waste of time and this must be noted for the future.
The proofreading portion
The proofreading was billed at a rate that is standard in the market, but it’s a rate that is too low in general. The time input for the proofreading was in the region of 10 hours, and was billed at EUR XXX, an hourly rate of EUR XXX.
The proofreading rate was offered for proofreading. But nothing was offered for the verification of what was proofread by others on the team, which we were then asked to do. This renders the rate very unprofitable. It must be addressed in the future.
The charge was calculated based on the quantity of words in the original French document, and not the actual document as translated into English, and then proofread. That seems incorrect, if not vastly.
Proofreading is reading for proof: the next stage is nominally going to press. The next stage is not checking what’s been checked. For that, a further charge must be made. Sometimes there is a view that checking the checks is a result of the translator being wrong. But it can also be a product of the reviewer being wrong, and that is irksome.
Quality
The quality that was achieved by working on this project as we did is superior to that of a simple translation, but:
- the client pitches at a price commensurate with the market, which is on the low side because it does not take account of the true time input on the whole job, which is the input that would be devoted inhouse. So, the client gets inhouse quality at outsource price, with much work simply being done for free.
Payment terms
The invoice is promised to be paid when the client receives payment himself. There is no fall-back if his ultimate client simply doesn’t pay. There is too much good faith in translation.
The team’s Google sheet for circulating queries
The time expended on completing a Google sheet was fruitless. I contributed much – if not everything – and was rewarded with no helpful input from the rest of the team. It will not be repeated.
Important take-away
One take-away: you can’t use this blog as a common input online tool.