Sheryl A. McCoy
16/06/2009

Matthew, I found the questions you included on your post quite appropriate. While I am not a professional translator, I am a professional teacher. I find we are also asked to add free content, corrections or other information that only professionals can provide.

I would recommend the advice provided by one of my professors who worked in public and entrepreneurial placements. He told us that our work would be more highly valued and students would be more successful, if we provided our services for pay. Our professor provided a variety of research statistics to support this position. Student achievement was higher when parents had a monetary interest in the educational service you provide. I have personally found this to be true and valuable advice.

I could accept some sort of remuneration or trade of services that was comparable in value, yet I am not sure a badge is enough. Often, I receive valuable services in return for my professional support for interactive media. My reasoning is based on the value of services effect on achievement or value by the audience, which affects my value as a professional teacher.

MatthewBennett
16/06/2009

Thanks for your great comments. I know quite a few teachers who seem to be snowed under with extras and who would agree with you on that score.

I would be interesting in reading some of the studies you mention, I have also found that the more I charge my clients (up to a point!!), the more motivated I am to offer better service and the happier they are all round.

I was talking to someone at The Economist about translation a few weeks ago and the subject of shiny badges came up as a possibly useful part of the equation, but certainly not as the only bit or without payment as in this case!

I think companies would do well to court professional tribes – or that part of their existing tribes who have professional skills which could indeed help them – but they must not treat them as random unprofessional hordes.

blaine flynn garrett
16/06/2009

I bet, however, they find plenty of translators (good, professional, or otherwise) to line up to do it. As a professional developer, I know last year I started considering some of the “sweat shop” type gigs like Amazon's MTurk. I think in my “old age” that thing called pride got the best of me. Then again, I am not on anyone's contributor list as a form of promotional compensation. eh.

murciamarketing
16/06/2009

We´ve all seen atrocious translations out there, but this cutting corner tendency is by no means limited to the wordsmith trade. This clip will strike a cord:
http://is.gd/13P6v

Durf
17/06/2009

Having just viewed the Japanese subtitles on the “introduction to LinkedIn” video available on the “About Us” page there, it's pretty clear to me that the outfit is already using inept amateurs, if not outright unedited machine translation.

MatthewBennett
17/06/2009

That's a great clip!

Amanda Cropper
17/06/2009

As someone who works for a language services company, I could only laugh at LinkedIn's attempt to get translation for free.

Frank
17/06/2009

Ask Facebook the same 10 questions since the “crowdsourcing” hype all started from them. Guess what? Your questions would miss the target, because they ARE using professional linguists behind the scene and paying for their service. LinkedIn just needs to learn the other half of the story.

Burford
18/06/2009

It was the wording of the LinkedIn request email, more than anything else, I think, that so infuriated would-be translators. LinkedIn is a social-network, and had they based the request on that fact – that translators would be contributing to a community in which they are a vital part – I doubt this would have so infuriated translators. By assisting in the localization, translators could have felt that they shared an ownership and pride in the results. Instead, they felt like they were be exploited – all because of the wording. It is not the approach that is misuided, just the pitch.

Jill
18/06/2009

@Ruben, That was my response. I deleted the e-mail to the survey. It wasn't worth my energy. I've got too much work as it is at the moment. I understand the need for this kind of site though. Only by our complaining will companies realize that we aren't pushovers. And that is why I am a member of this group. I will let the others complain (Matthew is doing a great job publicizing this problem, BTW), but I will support them however I can.

Melissa Gillespie
19/06/2009

Common Sense Advisory has carried out extensive independent research into the emerging practices of what it calls “CT3″ — community, crowdsourced, and collaborative translation. The firm's most recent report on this topic, “Translation Of, For, and By the People” (Dec08), discussed these efforts in depth, and profiled the efforts of four pioneering companies in this arena: Facebook, Microsoft, Plaxo, and Sun Microsystems.

Here are a few highlights of the findings from this report, written by Donald A. DePalma and Nataly Kelly, that are relevant to the posted discussion:

- Cost savings are not a motivation of CT3. The firm's research found that the companies engaging in this practice do so for three reasons: speed (faster time to market), quality improvement (end-user involvement boosts quality), and reach (a collaborative approach extends global reach through word-of-mouth marketing and community-building).
- Subject-matter experts and actual end users (“customers”) help boost quality. The companies that used CT3 approaches had a vested interested in ensuring quality. For this reason, many had not only translated into a given language, but created regional variations of a language. Thus, Facebook in Spanish (Colombia) uses phrases that are more appropriate for the local users, while Facebook in Spanish (Spain) and Spanish (Mexico) are also localized.
- CT3 is used primarily for short pieces of information. Phrases such as “update my status,” or “add as a connection” are typical examples of phrases that CT3 is well-suited to, since users can “vote” in real-time on which translation they like best. Thus, rather than resort to the typical translation process, in which a single person (editor) has the ability to veto or alter the translation, this gives more people the opportunity to weigh in and participate, giving them a say in what the final translation will be.

Common Sense Advisory has also dispelled the myth of CT3 as a means of “getting something for nothing” in its industry blog, the Global Watchtower. To quote senior analyst Benjamin Sargent,

“When casual observers comment about how getting the users to translate sounds like good business, they are alluding to the bit about it being wink-wink-nudge-nudge “free.” Actually, it costs money to manage work, whether your workers are volunteer or paid. Not to mention, in Facebook’s case, investment in building a collaborative translation capability into the product itself. Free was not the point. Time was. Translations started appearing in days, rather than in the months it otherwise would have taken a vendor to manage, test, and deliver a localized user interface of more than 100,000 words.”

You can read the full entry here: http://www.globalwatchtower.com/2008/08/14/comm…

Individuals interested in learning more can also view an early article on this topic written by Renato S. Beninatto and Donald A. DePalma, as published in Multilingual Computing, at this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4069269/Structuring-C…

Common Sense Advisory's research also shows that the companies that engage in CT3 often employ full-time translators in-house, and they typically also contract with language service providers (LSPs) to perform translations that lend themselves more to the “traditional” translate-edit-proof (TEP) process, such as texts of a legal nature, privacy policies, marketing collateral, and corporate communications. CT3 is usually reserved for the short phrases that are highly unique to a given community – and are usually an important part of its online flavor and culture.

Steve Wallace
19/06/2009

I think professional translators come out looking really bad here. By aligning against an effort to better connect with customers and offer something (smaller market languages) they look like a whining bunch. Comparing this to crowdsourcing your legal documents is ridiculous. It makes it even worse when these professionals have taken advantage of a free service that allows them to network and build a support system for traditional translation and then bite the hand that has given them so much.

No one is forcing professional translators to do anything. In the end its an opportunity to give back IF THEY SO CHOOSE.

I predict this movement will backfire.

Vox Appeal
22/06/2009

True, social networking sites like LinkedIn are not charging us for their services.

However, it would be naïve to think that we are somehow benefiting for “free” at their expense. Without all those free subscriptions, the sites themselves would be worth nothing to advertisers (as anyone in marketing communication is no doubt aware), and we don't charge them for that added value. I have not earned a penny myself directly out of my subscription to any social networking site (I see the purpose in it as a vague and incremental increase in visibility).

As for those who wish to work in exchange for a “badge”, I receive dozens of CVs every week (often through contacts on these sites) from people listing various jobs done for free, which I admire, but these in themselves do not give me any reliable measure of their professional aptitude.

I am quite sure CT3 has its uses in a balanced provider/client market, if payment structures can be sorted out, although it appears that CT3 is used mainly for translation of short phrases. Maybe that's what was responsible for this:
http://voxappeal.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/reset…

J C
10/11/2009

I quit LinkedIn anyway as it did nothing for me professionally, and seemed like a way for already successful people to plump up their credentials even further. I think it is designed as a way for people to register a presence on google / search engines. Thanks for the excellent blog

Nico van de Water
01/09/2011

Dear Matthew,

Excellent piece of (web) journalism! And yes, in spite of Mr. Posner’s response, I am still furious.

With best regards, Nico van de Water - Consultant for Dutch and English (30+ years of translation experience)