Over this weekend, I received two documents to compare again, one the original translation, which is good, and the reviewed document with full of changes with the evaluation of the translation commented by him as 'poor translation, too many mistakes', the agency suspected if the translation was really so bad or to see what was wrong in it. After several pages only, I found out that this reviewer was fraudster by changing tautological changes (therefore, the reviewer is ALWAYS correct, has no ri... See more Over this weekend, I received two documents to compare again, one the original translation, which is good, and the reviewed document with full of changes with the evaluation of the translation commented by him as 'poor translation, too many mistakes', the agency suspected if the translation was really so bad or to see what was wrong in it. After several pages only, I found out that this reviewer was fraudster by changing tautological changes (therefore, the reviewer is ALWAYS correct, has no risk of making any mistakes) and by not reading the source but changing the good translation by whatever way he wanted. As this was automotive text terms such as sun roof was changed by the fraudster, even wrongly, to 'ceiling', passive mode was changed to active mode (another example of tautological change by only syntactial change), showing general lack of industry knowledge by even changing correct word logistics, which is transliterated in Japanese, into wrong word, distribution. Then for basic terms, the trick went on to change selection to choice, and many other trivial particle changes which require syntax changes to mean the same. The fraudster knows that any changes he makes will generate a correct target document after all. To exclude this kind of too frequent fraud by layman Japanese, who claim to be reviewers, some tactics would include:
1. scatter mistakes on purpose in the translation especially for long senteces, or about 2% of the total, which will be statistically significant to see if reviewer reads the source or not. Without reading the source, the mistakes on purpose can not be fixed.
2. oblige to sign an agreement in reviewing by clauses such as no payment if no reading the source is proven, obligation to state reason why his change is necessary and no reason such as unnatural target sentences is not accepted, especially because the Japanese is tribal language and how it can be natural or unnatural depends largely on subjective perception. The perception gap may not be justified in this case. For example, letting justify a change by statistical frequency of occurrence by search engine results to prove a legitimacy of the changed wording.
But in this case I took over this weekend, the fraud is proven with even worse changes. The entire document looks like a hard work by the fraudster.
This is shame and unfair for ordinary reviewers. ▲ Collapse
|
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
