| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | Change in payments for MT work: repeats are now free Thread poster: Robert Haslach
|
|---|
| Delivering a piece of sh... | Apr 2, 2011 |
Andrej wrote:
As far as I have understood from the information you provided you do not pay for 100% matches and repetitions. Therefore please send me an official letter stating that you agree to the following terms and conditions:
1. I will not be held responsible for the correctness of 100% matches and repetitions.
2. I am entitled to consider the terminology, style, etc. of 100% matches and repetitions as absolutely correct and use them in my translation without any restrictions.
3. I do not have the obligation to inform you of any mistakes, inconsistencies, deviations, etc. that I might find in 100% matches and repetitions in the process of translation.
4. I do not have the obligation to correct the mistakes, inconsistencies, deviations, etc. found in 100% matches and repetitions.
Also I kindly ask you to confirm in this letter that regardless of the editing or checking results I will not be fined and/or required to improve or correct my translation if such mistakes and/or inconsistencies are found within 100% matches and repetitions and/or resulted from the terminology, style, etc. used in 100% matches and repetitions and, therefore, used by me throughout the document.
For the sake of the exercise, let's suppose they accept it (I think they won't). Will you be happy with the resulting piece of crap? I don't mean your newly translated part, but the inconsistent, unacceptable, low-quality result of mixing who-know-what translations in the memory with your translations?
Personally if the final result is not adequate for the end customer, I prefer not to work for the firm.
| | | | Andrej 
Local time: 05:52
Member (2005)
German to Russian
+ ...
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
For the sake of the exercise, let's suppose they accept it (I think they won't).
Yes, the most agencies won't. As after such a mail they finally understand what risk they run.
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
Will you be happy with the resulting piece of crap?
No, I won't be happy, you are right. But it would be the only problem I would have, my dissatisfaction. The other problems would not be mine. I do not like the "shit in - shit out" rule, but if an agency insist on it, they would get from me exactly the stuff they insist on.
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
Personally if the final result is not adequate for the end customer, I prefer not to work for the firm.
Same here.
A little disclaimer: The text was written by me in Russian for Russian agencies. One day I received such a request from a German agency I worked with, so I translated it in German. Then I posted this text in German and Russian in the RU forum here on Proz.com and one of my colleagues kindly translated it in English (English is my "second" language and I am not sure I could do the translation better than this colleague did).
[Edited at 2011-04-02 06:47 GMT]
| | | | Krzysztof Kajetanowicz (X)
Poland
Local time: 01:52
English to Polish
+ ...
| all eyes on the reviewer | Apr 2, 2011 |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
For the sake of the exercise, let's suppose they accept it (I think they won't). Will you be happy with the resulting piece of crap? I don't mean your newly translated part, but the inconsistent, unacceptable, low-quality result of mixing who-know-what translations in the memory with your translations?
Personally if the final result is not adequate for the end customer, I prefer not to work for the firm.
Yeah but they'll probably have the reviewer do the work for you. This means that the quality of text submitted for review declines, and the reviewer has a problem - unless paid by the hour.
| | | |
Don't know the agency and have never heard about such terms either!
Sounds more like an April Fool's Day joke:P
I would neither never agree to such terms.
Have a great weekend all of you
[Edited at 2011-04-02 12:13 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
And here's my reply to them:
To whom it may concern
Dear AGENCY Team,
thank you very much for your message in which you have summarised the latest developments in the translation industry and your response to them.
I am not going to question whether this response is adequate or not; your Sales and HR Departments will know better in a few months. However, I must response to the fact that you are no longer going to pay for exact matches or repetitions.
The problem at hand is that if exact matches or repetitions are not paid, there is no time for the translator to check if these match types fit into the context. As you may know, Czech is a highly inflective language and context may be vital to ensure proper noun declension and verb conjugation. A change in a single word in the segment preceding or following a full match may, and it often does, require re-wording of the entire full match.
When exact matches or repetitions cannot be paid, the translator has no time to check the context. This would inevitably result in serious drop in quality of the final product. As you probably know, it is extremely difficult these days to win one’s reputation as a renowned provider of high-quality language services and nobody, myself included, can afford losing hard-earned reputation.
Therefore, I am sorry to inform you that I will have to interrupt any co-operation as AGENCY vendor until conditions change.
Thank you very much for your understanding.
To me, this is absolute degradation of my work as a translator and this is not where I want to play my part in.
[Upraveno: 2011-04-02 16:06 GMT]
| | | | | Just a suspiciously creative shrinking of other people's money! | Apr 2, 2011 |
This is the reply I sent to that company. (Although I have a feeling that the ''e-mail address'' used for sending the message to a multitude of translators is a no-reply one.)
========
Dear Sirs, at (_company_name_),
I appreciate your message sent and your information about the decision to quit paying for amounts related to 100% matches in sentences.
I would like to say that none of my translation agencies clients has reque... See more This is the reply I sent to that company. (Although I have a feeling that the ''e-mail address'' used for sending the message to a multitude of translators is a no-reply one.)
========
Dear Sirs, at (_company_name_),
I appreciate your message sent and your information about the decision to quit paying for amounts related to 100% matches in sentences.
I would like to say that none of my translation agencies clients has requested me similar action. Also I have not been asked or inquired by (_company_name_) about it.
That part (100% matches) of a translation service is also an integral piece within the whole context and, irrespective of the perfect matches that the computer / CAT tool inserts in the material, that action per se and the fact that the final output will be a finally formatted file does indicate that there is work being performed. And as such, it is my opinion that some payment must derive from it for (_company_name_) and for the translation services suppliers. All of the parts of a text comprise building blocks that, lacking any whatsoever, do not build a complete text.
So I would kindly like to state I do not agree with the new grid created that will not generate some, even minor, payment for the services and/or for the presence of the 100% matching sentences within a service.
The only option could be acceptable would be whether it would be possible to generate files totally without the 100% sentences when the translator would receive them, or whether it would be accepted that the translators would return files without those parts translated, which would be, of course, a strange "solution".
I will be available for any further detail.
Many thanks in advance for your kind attention.
Best regards,
Dorival Santos Scaliante
========
For example: Renting an industrial or a building crane cost a lot. The rental company does charge for a) the action of lifting 30 ton of bricks to the top of the building + b) the very same act of possessing the crane. It does not make sense to ask the crane company to charge only one (or none!) and make, for free, other 99 operations of bricks lifting just for the sake that "all bricks are equal" or "all operations are just the same" as the first sample of each. Like cranes, our software and our studies all cost a lot. (OK, not as much as a crane, thanks God! but a lot!)
Any outsourced CNC machinery machining company also makes 1 CNC program for a given part once, manufactures 1 of the parts, measures it carefully, quality-controls it even more carefully, and then WILL CHARGE for all of the next identical one hundred million of the parts it will manufacture and supply to, say, a kitchen mixer manufacturer. The mixer brand does not even considers of "not paying for those boringly repetitive parts".
I shiver just to think of what the next "creative excuse for paying you less money" will be... But this is becoming tedious.
--Dorival Santos Scaliante
Brazil ▲ Collapse
| | | | | But of course | Apr 3, 2011 |
GerSi wrote:
If we agree to these terms and say "ok, I accept these terms of yours but don't expect me to read any 100% matches"
That goes without saying. 0% payment for the 100% matches only makes sense if you're not expected to touch them at all. Even then it's a bit iffy... They always take up a little bit of your time even if you don't deal with them directly.
This practice (no payment, no reviewing) can work with technical texts if the prior translations in the TM are blindly trusted by the client. It's obviously a horrible idea as a company-wide policy on all texts.
| | | | | What about.... | Apr 4, 2011 |
Andrej wrote:
1. I will not be held responsible for the correctness of 100% matches and repetitions.
...those 100% matches of segments from translations that you previously supplied? Are you now rejecting liability for your own previous work?
I merely ask the question(s). I'm not even sure to what extent we can discuss it here, but I added another post to my blog about this over the w/e (link given previous page; I don't want to get accused of spamming!)
| | |
|
|
|
Charlie Bavington wrote: Andrej wrote:
1. I will not be held responsible for the correctness of 100% matches and repetitions.
...those 100% matches of segments from translations that you previously supplied? Are you now rejecting liability for your own previous work? I merely ask the question(s). I'm not even sure to what extent we can discuss it here, but I added another post to my blog about this over the w/e (link given previous page; I don't want to get accused of spamming!)
Hi Charlie, here's a quote from my e-mail I sent to them:
"The problem at hand is that if exact matches or repetitions are not paid, there is no time for the translator to check if these match types fit into the context. As you may know, Czech is a highly inflective language and context may be vital to ensure proper noun declension and verb conjugation. A change in a single word in the segment preceding or following a full match may, and it often does, require re-wording of the entire full match."
I hope this answers your question.
| | | | Andrej
Local time: 05:52
Member (2005)
German to Russian
+ ...
Charlie Bavington wrote:
...those 100% matches of segments from translations that you previously supplied? Are you now rejecting liability for your own previous work?
Sure. I will check and be responsible only for the first occurence of the given repetition in the file, but not for other ones.
Thank you, Stanislav for the good description of the problem.
PS Updated to correct spelling mistakes, my netbook is convinient but its kyebord is not.
[Edited at 2011-04-04 11:34 GMT]
| | | | | Tio play devil's advocate... | Apr 4, 2011 |
Stanislav Pokorny wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote: Andrej wrote:
1. I will not be held responsible for the correctness of 100% matches and repetitions.
...those 100% matches of segments from translations that you previously supplied? Are you now rejecting liability for your own previous work? I merely ask the question(s). I'm not even sure to what extent we can discuss it here, but I added another post to my blog about this over the w/e (link given previous page; I don't want to get accused of spamming!) Hi Charlie, here's a quote from my e-mail I sent to them: "The problem at hand is that if exact matches or repetitions are not paid, there is no time for the translator to check if these match types fit into the context. As you may know, Czech.... (etc.) I hope this answers your question.
.... this is what worries me. "No time" is merely your response to an ultra-low pricing policy. That is not the same as a valid legal position. If you have "no time", don't accept the job, they would reply!
My suggestion is that no pay for identifiable components of the work = no consideration for those components = no contractual obligation for those components. Simply that.
The counter position is that you've accepted the job as a whole, you are responsible for the job as a whole, and liable for the job as a whole (no matter how that price was arrived at), and furthermore that, even if we accept that there is no contractual obligation for components for which there is no consideration, you nonetheless owe a duty of care.
I dunno, which is why, although I'm happy to toss ideas around here and on my blog about it, I wouldn't actually want to test it in real life, and I'd run very fast in the opposite direction.
Edit: Actually, since you're in email contact, perhaps you'd like to run that "no consideration" angle past them, if they continue correspondance. I'd be interested in their response. Feel free to contact me off-proz if need be.
[Edited at 2011-04-04 11:54 GMT]
| | | | | Afterthought.... | Apr 4, 2011 |
Of course, come to think of it, they could pretty much negate my point of view by paying a penny for all 100% matches combined, since that would suffice as consideration.
Or indeed, by stating their viewpoint on translators’ responsibility/liability for the stuff they are not paying for.
Although I suspect that in adopting either approach, the clarification would work to their disadvantage, in that it would only serve to highlight that translators are, in fact, expect... See more Of course, come to think of it, they could pretty much negate my point of view by paying a penny for all 100% matches combined, since that would suffice as consideration.
Or indeed, by stating their viewpoint on translators’ responsibility/liability for the stuff they are not paying for.
Although I suspect that in adopting either approach, the clarification would work to their disadvantage, in that it would only serve to highlight that translators are, in fact, expected to treat such segments in the same way they would if they were paid at full rate. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
.... this is what worries me. "No time" is merely your response to an ultra-low pricing policy. That is not the same as a valid legal position. If you have "no time", don't accept the job, they would reply!
And that's indeed what I told them: "Therefore, I am sorry to inform you that I will have to interrupt any co-operation as AGENCY vendor until conditions change."
The situation could be different with context matches (or 101% matches, or whatever the individual developers call them) which should always fit in the context. In case the agency pretranslates and locks them against editing, not paying for these would become a reasonable requirement. However, this is not the case of repetitions or 100% matches.
The counter position is that you've accepted the job as a whole, you are responsible for the job as a whole, and liable for the job as a whole (no matter how that price was arrived at), and furthermore that, even if we accept that there is no contractual obligation for components for which there is no consideration, you nonetheless owe a duty of care.
Another thing is that TMs usually store a lot more than just your own translations, so in 90% of cases, accepting these conditions would mean assuming responsibility for somebody else's work too. Not a thing I would be eager to go for.
IMVHO, they will now save a few pounds, but in the long run, they will be walking the road to hell.
| | | | Marina Aleyeva
Israel
Local time: 02:52
Member (2006)
English to Russian
+ ...
| An official agreement not to look at repetitions - valid? | Apr 4, 2011 |
I think there IS potential insecurity in making such agreements. What about professional ethics? Would I not be acting unethically by entering into an agreement like that? In a criminal world, if you do illegal work you are still a perpetrator regardless whether you have a valid agreement to do it, right? I think the same applies to professional ethics. Imagine a situation where a repetition, when inserted mechanically in a different context, results in a serious mistake. You know it does, but y... See more I think there IS potential insecurity in making such agreements. What about professional ethics? Would I not be acting unethically by entering into an agreement like that? In a criminal world, if you do illegal work you are still a perpetrator regardless whether you have a valid agreement to do it, right? I think the same applies to professional ethics. Imagine a situation where a repetition, when inserted mechanically in a different context, results in a serious mistake. You know it does, but you still don't touch it because you have your agreement and you are not paid for it. You know you act unethically and still you do it, consciously. If it’s not perpetration of a “good faith” principle, what is it then? Would such behaviour not be considered violation if legally challenged? Who knows!
In other words, whatever agreement between you and an agency may be, it may not have validity in court. And even if you are not charged in the end, you’ll still face all the joys and headaches of being sued. Think of it.
[Edited at 2011-04-04 15:44 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Krzysztof Kajetanowicz (X)
Poland
Local time: 01:52
English to Polish
+ ...
| I guess that it is well understood what your tasks are. | Apr 4, 2011 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Of course, come to think of it, they could pretty much negate my point of view by paying a penny for all 100% matches combined, since that would suffice as consideration.
Or indeed, by stating their viewpoint on translators’ responsibility/liability for the stuff they are not paying for.
A rather academic discussion, isn't it. I wouldn't take on a project with unpaid 100% matches without making sure that the client understands that I won't check them, and that in many cases the output is bound to be nonsense.
Although I suspect that in adopting either approach, the clarification would work to their disadvantage, in that it would only serve to highlight that translators are, in fact, expected to treat such segments in the same way they would if they were paid at full rate.
It would be useful to hear about other people's experience. I've been given assignments with unpaid 100% matches a couple of times and each time I was told (without even asking) not to review them.
Marina Aleyeva wrote:
I think there IS potential insecurity in making such agreements. (...) You know you act unethically and still you do it, consciously. If it’s not perpetration of a “good faith” principle, what is it then? Would such behaviour not be considered violation if legally challenged? Who knows!
In other words, whatever agreement between you and an agency may be, it may not have validity in court. And even if you are not charged in the end, you’ll still face all the joys and headaches of being sued. Think of it.
Nah... you're not selling your translations to a child. You're selling it to a business run by professionals, and language professionals to be exact. The legal/ethical considerations you mentioned could refer to an insurance company that uses illegal small print clauses to exploit consumers. Definitely not to a B2B relationship, particularly (but not necessarily) if you alert the agency (which you shouldn't have to do) that the outcome may be garbage.
[Edited at 2011-04-04 15:56 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Change in payments for MT work: repeats are now free | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
