| Pages sur ce sujet: [1 2] > | How to deal with over-ambitious proofreaders? Auteur du fil: LilianNekipelov
|
|---|
It is really a very serious problem. Some proofreaders, or even editors, think that the more "mistakes" they find, the cooler they are, and the more they can charge, sometimes making unnecessary corrections and destroying the original text.
What to do? I have a feeling that some may think that the more "mistakes" they find, the better. Also, many don't understand that creative writing is governed by different rules than any type of formal letter writing, or even article or essay wr... See more It is really a very serious problem. Some proofreaders, or even editors, think that the more "mistakes" they find, the cooler they are, and the more they can charge, sometimes making unnecessary corrections and destroying the original text.
What to do? I have a feeling that some may think that the more "mistakes" they find, the better. Also, many don't understand that creative writing is governed by different rules than any type of formal letter writing, or even article or essay writing. The rules about run-ons, and many other things, don't apply--any corrections may totally destroy an artistic effect, like the stream of consciousness. Some proofreading is really necessary--by a third part, before the text is published. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Well, Lilian, I would first of all make sure that those proofreaders (and revisers, editors etc.) actually are wrong, as opposed to simply injecting a myriad of minuscule justified corrections into a decent but not flawless text (flawless text doesn't exist anyway).
Next, it needs to be noted that there is a difference between changing and grading. Introducing a beneficial change in the interest of the final product to be delivered by the agency to the client is team effort, much to... See more Well, Lilian, I would first of all make sure that those proofreaders (and revisers, editors etc.) actually are wrong, as opposed to simply injecting a myriad of minuscule justified corrections into a decent but not flawless text (flawless text doesn't exist anyway).
Next, it needs to be noted that there is a difference between changing and grading. Introducing a beneficial change in the interest of the final product to be delivered by the agency to the client is team effort, much to be praised. On the other hand, marking down decent texts (average or slightly above average for an educated native writer) on account of minor issues which mostly only pedants are even aware of and not even the same pedants can keep track of (e.g. in their own writing), now that's a whole different kettle of fish.
In the former case, when you're asked to review a whole batch of non-critical corrections, your work time is at issue. A couple of hours processing a streamlined list or manageable tracked changes for a job that gave you several days or weeks of work is one thing. Spending several hours polishing an electricity bill or marriage certificate until it shines*, is another.
(* Nothing wrong polishing a marriage certificate until it shines and incorporating all sorts of client and reviewer input, except then it should be officially classified and billed as a separate custom type of service, not the usual business that sells at ~0.05-0.12 per word.)
What you need is basically the (re)assurance that the agency or savvy client will be working with qualified proofreaders, editors and reviewers who are familiar with and willing to comply with the generally accepted standard of good practice in those roles. You need to make this an official condition of your services, preferably one on which your rates are predicated, even to the point that without this condition, your rates would need to be higher. (Your T&C or individual contract may need a little more voluminous drafting for that kind of effect, or perhaps a preamble.)
Finally, as long as they're on Proz.com, I believe that giving them a poor mark on the BB for unprofessional proofreading is well within the rules. ▲ Collapse
| | | | LilianNekipelov 
États-Unis
Local time: 06:19
russe vers anglais
+ ...
AUTEUR DU FIL | Thank you--it is not about grading, though, or giving anyone bad marks | Jun 29, 2014 |
How to convince a proofreader to make ONLY the absolutely necessary changes? Set some kind of a budget according to which they will be paid X regardless whether they find 500 or 2 mistakes, as long as the text is polished to its best potential?
[Edited at 2014-06-29 14:05 GMT]
| | | | | Set rules like not making style changing remarks, not using similar words, unnecessary changes | Jun 29, 2014 |
This is how the agencies I worked with set their rules, or when I made a change, the translator can ask why for each change they disagree on and I have to explain for each change I made.
| | |
|
|
|
Lincoln Hui
Hong Kong
Local time: 19:19
Membre
chinois vers anglais
+ ...
LilianNekipelov wrote:
How to convince a proofreader to make ONLY the absolutely necessary changes? Set some kind of a budget according to which they will be paid X regardless whether they find 500 or 2 mistakes, as long as the text is polished to its best potential?
[Edited at 2014-06-29 14:05 GMT]
I have never heard of any proofreading jobs being paid according to number of mistakes found.
| | | | EvaVer (X)
Local time: 12:19
tchèque vers français
+ ...
| Not a problem if they are competent, | Jun 29, 2014 |
which is not always the case. When I saw some changes made to my translations by proofreaders (chosen by an agency), I was simply sick - they introduced serious mistakes!
On the other hand, I employ my own proofreaders (to do something that most of you wouldn't consider - translating into a non-native language), and I am always happy to learn from them, even if some changes might be qualified "unnecessary" - they improve my style, adjust the register (which is something I cannot always do ... See more which is not always the case. When I saw some changes made to my translations by proofreaders (chosen by an agency), I was simply sick - they introduced serious mistakes!
On the other hand, I employ my own proofreaders (to do something that most of you wouldn't consider - translating into a non-native language), and I am always happy to learn from them, even if some changes might be qualified "unnecessary" - they improve my style, adjust the register (which is something I cannot always do in English), and I learn, e.g., the difference between "according to", "in accordance with", and "in line with". ▲ Collapse
| | | | LilianNekipelov
États-Unis
Local time: 06:19
russe vers anglais
+ ...
AUTEUR DU FIL | Some may also make up those differences-- | Jun 29, 2014 |
to sound more competent, or professional. Some terms are interchangeable in many contexts.
| | | | finnword1
États-Unis
Local time: 06:19
anglais vers finnois
+ ...
| don't waste your time | Jun 29, 2014 |
accept all the corrections, let the editor take the responsibility
| | |
|
|
|
| It really depends... | Jun 29, 2014 |
It really depends.
Sometimes, it happens that you are asked to do proofreading of something which you cannot say is "completely wrong", however, if the person does not know "business speak" or legalese you simply have to make changes in the target so that it matches its purpose... you cannot leave an informal style wording in a Chairman's business message where it is inappropriate...
On the other hand, I agree some proofreaders make changes for the sake of making them due to various... See more It really depends.
Sometimes, it happens that you are asked to do proofreading of something which you cannot say is "completely wrong", however, if the person does not know "business speak" or legalese you simply have to make changes in the target so that it matches its purpose... you cannot leave an informal style wording in a Chairman's business message where it is inappropriate...
On the other hand, I agree some proofreaders make changes for the sake of making them due to various reasons.
Some more background on this can be found in my previous forum posts related to the topic:
http://www.proz.com/forum/proofreading_editing_reviewing/263330-how_to_know_if_a_translation_is_good.html#2256457
http://www.proz.com/forum/translation_project_vendor_management/265502-in_the_pursuit_of_cheap_rates.html
I wish we all had rightful proofreaders to learn from ▲ Collapse
| | | | LilianNekipelov
États-Unis
Local time: 06:19
russe vers anglais
+ ...
AUTEUR DU FIL | Its not about responsibility--it's about the Art | Jun 29, 2014 |
finnword1 wrote:
accept all the corrections, let the editor take the responsibility
Sometimes these might be your own things--not necessarily translations--it's is harder and harder to find reasonable proofreaders who know the manuals of style very well, yet do not meddle with your style.
[Edited at 2014-06-29 18:01 GMT]
| | | | B D Finch
France
Local time: 12:19
français vers anglais
+ ...
| Take it up with the agency | Jun 29, 2014 |
All you can do is to inform the agency of your view about how the proofreading has been done. Ideally, you should be given the option of accepting or rejecting changes suggested by the proofreader. Some proofreaders are excellent and their corrections and suggestions are extremely helpful. However, I have come across proofreaders who have been unskilled and arrogant (two traits that generally go together) and who are trying to impress the agency with their own skill by rubbishing the tran... See more All you can do is to inform the agency of your view about how the proofreading has been done. Ideally, you should be given the option of accepting or rejecting changes suggested by the proofreader. Some proofreaders are excellent and their corrections and suggestions are extremely helpful. However, I have come across proofreaders who have been unskilled and arrogant (two traits that generally go together) and who are trying to impress the agency with their own skill by rubbishing the translator. If the agency does not support you in that situation, you would be better off not working for them. It is annoying to spend time documenting why you believe a proofreader has introduced errors or made changes that adversely affect the style. However, doing that can be crucial for your ongoing relationship with that agency and whether or not there will be any ongoing relationship. In two cases, I have ended a relationship with an agency because I was dissatisfied with how they dealt with this sort of situation.
I tend to avoid proofreading other people's translations, as I prefer translating. If I do proofread, I try to restrict changes to where they are really necessary and to avoid imposing my own style by respecting the style and legitimate punctuation preferences of the translator. It is nice to be able to report that a translation is really good and a pleasure to proofread. However, I have once or twice had to proofread a translation so bad that it really needed re-translating. In those cases, I informed the agency after having proofread about half a page and sent them my tracked changes, saying that I did not think I should proceed with proofreading because the job needed to be redefined as either rewriting or retranslating and paid accordingly. In one case, the translator was extremely upset and rejected my comments completely. The agency owner was a translator in that language pair and a specialist in the particular, technical field, so he was well able to make a judgement. The translator lost a client and I was asked to retranslate the document. Even though that translator was really incompetent, I did feel bad about it.
The worst situation I have been in was when I was recently asked, by somebody I know personally, to do a pro bono translation for a cause that we are both very involved with. I was horrified when my translation was mangled by a self-styled "proofreader", a close friend of his, who is not a native speaker of English and who introduced some major errors. It seemed that she was treating the whole thing as an ego-trip. It was extremely difficult trying to explain the issues involved to non-linguists and, because of the personal relationships involved, the whole thing was very unpleasant.
[Edited at 2014-06-29 18:47 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Orrin Cummins
Japon
Local time: 20:19
japonais vers anglais
+ ...
| If the proofreader is paid the hour | Jun 29, 2014 |
Lincoln Hui wrote:
LilianNekipelov wrote:
How to convince a proofreader to make ONLY the absolutely necessary changes? Set some kind of a budget according to which they will be paid X regardless whether they find 500 or 2 mistakes, as long as the text is polished to its best potential?
[Edited at 2014-06-29 14:05 GMT]
I have never heard of any proofreading jobs being paid according to number of mistakes found.
More mistakes = more time spent = more money
That's their theory, anyway.
| | |
|
|
|
| That's what I do... | Jun 30, 2014 |
finnword1 wrote:
accept all the corrections, let the editor take the responsibility
... unless I happen to find a proofreading mistake!
| | | |
LilianNekipelov wrote:
How to convince a proofreader to make ONLY the absolutely necessary changes? Set some kind of a budget according to which they will be paid X regardless whether they find 500 or 2 mistakes, as long as the text is polished to its best potential?
[Edited at 2014-06-29 14:05 GMT]
That depends on the desired result, which is up to the client. If you don't want to have to comment on non-necessary proposals free of charge, I'd set up a fee for that and communicate its existence to the client (rather than an outright exclusion of that type of service).
| | | |
Don't charge your proofreading rate by the hour, but by the number of source words.
I believe charging by the hour is the source of evil, since a proofreader would certainly like to get paid for a 3 hour proofreading job instead for a job which could be done within 2 hours, which is the estimate of the client. This leads to over-ambition, but if you charge by the total number of source words, whether it takes you an hour or 10 hours to proofread doesn't matter, the pay you get is th... See more Don't charge your proofreading rate by the hour, but by the number of source words.
I believe charging by the hour is the source of evil, since a proofreader would certainly like to get paid for a 3 hour proofreading job instead for a job which could be done within 2 hours, which is the estimate of the client. This leads to over-ambition, but if you charge by the total number of source words, whether it takes you an hour or 10 hours to proofread doesn't matter, the pay you get is the same. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages sur ce sujet: [1 2] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » How to deal with over-ambitious proofreaders? | Pastey | Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
