TechGist05

This is an unsolicited guest post that provides a view of translation technology that is typical of what is believed by many in the translation industry.   These initial preamble comments in italics are mine.   It provides an interesting contrast to the previous post ( Ending the Globalization Smoke Screen) on the need for LSPs to ask more fundamental questions and climb up higher in the value chain and contribute higher value advice on globalization initiatives. This is a view that sees the primary business of LSPs, and thus the role of technology, as being the management and performance of human translation work as efficiently as possible.  I think we have already begun to see that the most sophisticated LSPs now solve more complex and comprehensive translation problems for their largest customers, which often extends much beyond human translation work. In December 2016, the new SDL management reported that they translate 100 million words a month using traditional TEP human translat

We often hear translation industry players, both on the vendor and buyer side, complain about inadequate budgets, increasing work volume, and commoditization in general. Technology, that damned MT, and the content explosion are often blamed, and many in the industry resign themselves to this inevitability of automation and generic product delivery. Commoditization happens when you deliver very low value, especially with a service offering. However, could it be that most of us in the industry approach the core industry mission of raising organization globalization readiness, with a tunnel vision that can only lead to commoditization?  This guest post by Aaron Schliem raises fundamental questions about our larger mission and while it does not offer complete answers, I hope that it will trigger new kinds of dialogue, focusing on how we as an industry can increase our value-add and up our game. To go beyond being high volume translation word-mongers and be part of enabling true globalizati

I had a chat with Spence Green earlier this week to discuss the critique I wrote of their comparative MT evaluation, where I might have been a tad harsh, but anyway I think we were both able to see each other's viewpoints a little bit better, and I summarize the conversation below.  This is followed by an MT Evaluation Addendum that Lilt has added to the published study to provide further detail on the specific procedures they followed in their comparative evaluation tests. These details should be helpful to those who want to replicate or modify and replicate, the test for themselves. While I do largely stand by what I said , I think it is fair to allow Lilt to respond to the criticism to the degree that they wish to.  I think some of my characterization may have been overly harsh (like the sheep-wolf image for example). My preference would have been that Lilt wrote this response directly rather than having me summarize the conversation, but I hope that I have captured the gist