If you receive really unprofessional feedback from a purported professional editor, then it's perhaps not necessary to mince your words much (I've told a couple of them to go learn some grammar etc.). Again, as long as the reviewer claimed to be a professional, as opposed to a PM with Ixian who stepped in because it was considered necessary in order to put down the fire, who cannot really be held to the same standards. On the other hand, you aren't really in a position to complain a... See more If you receive really unprofessional feedback from a purported professional editor, then it's perhaps not necessary to mince your words much (I've told a couple of them to go learn some grammar etc.). Again, as long as the reviewer claimed to be a professional, as opposed to a PM with Ixian who stepped in because it was considered necessary in order to put down the fire, who cannot really be held to the same standards. On the other hand, you aren't really in a position to complain about the reviewer's competence much if you've made some bad errors yourself and the reviewer (reviser, more like), didn't introduce any new ones. Things being as they are, it was a good idea to admit the real errors and point out any misrepresentation of preferential changes as actual errors. For the record, it's quite natural for a reviewer to stop holding back from introducing preferential and unexplained changes once the translation comes to be believed to be really bad. This is because reviewers aren't necessarily paid for the time they spend explaining every little detail, and it's frustrating to be spending more time than normal translation requires while being paid 20-50% of the rate. As for any markedly rude comments, well, what's rude depends also on how bad the errors were. If they are some really bad errors, then the revising translator may be somewhat justified in becoming rather upset. The comments hurt, I know, but the reviser is only human, and the resentment is caused by errors rather than by you as a person. Or by some unresolved psychic issues (e.g. burnout, frustration, personality disorder). I've made a couple of ugly errors myself, so I can relate to a chastized translator, but I'm also upset to see what passes for professional work sometimes (and claims like 2/3 of my own rates) — here it's crucial to make sure that the proofreader/editor/reviser/reviewer/whoever knows whether he's supposed to help or to educate or to evaluate the translator, which makes a big difference. Essentially, if you're a rookie or non-specialist (or tired or feeling unwell but forced to work) and the reviser's intervention is basically supposed to be necessary, then it'd be best for the reviser to know that's the case. On the other hand, like I said, if your work was supposed to be flawless or close, then the reviser had a right to become upset when it wasn't. Different thing that the PM or whoever it was should perhaps have mitigated any abusive comments. BUT, do try to see the silver lining here. You got a strong, memorable lesson practically free of charge. Your rate was discounted, you werent' denied payment. And you certainly weren't sued for damages. There was a big shock, but it (hopefully) mostly only hurt your pride. It's really much much worse when a law suit is looming or an ethics board wants to see you. Neither of which happened here, largely thanks to the reviser, as rude as he may have been. So make the lesson sink in, be happy you dodged any real damage, and try to get over the hurt. [quote]Sheila Wilson wrote: Translators get free choice of sentence structure, synonyms etc., within the limits of the required register of course. Proofreaders don't have that choice - they have to use the translator's version unless it's downright wrong or unless they consider there is substantial improvement to the text by using different wording (e.g. in the case of a marketing text where a synonym may have a very different impact).[/qoute] The problem is that everybody understands the roles and responsibilities of all sorts of QA people differently. Proofreaders, editors, revisers, reviewers, there's not even any real consensus on the nomenclature. Some companies may hold such a person responsible for the quality of the final outcome as opposed to the translator, especially if the QA guy has a closer relationship with the company or more seniority.
[Edited at 2014-05-14 01:08 GMT] ▲ Collapse | |