A new kind of spam comment? March 20, 2012Posted by Jill (@bonnjill) in Random musings.
This is a question for all my fellow bloggers. I was going through my “spam” comments today and found a couple that I would normally deem to be spam since they follow a pattern of deliberately misspelling a word in the first sentence. However, in reading the comment I found someone took the time to actually write about translation. Here are some examples:
Comment on my “Wie gut ist dein Deutsch” TGIF video:
Great idea. Start with a simple situloon and work from there. As a client I don’t want heaven I just want what you offered in your newsletter. My biggest problem is that translators translate the same glossary word across different texts and come up with different translations for the same terms and words. This gets worse if multiple translators are involved. Especially when creating software and help files and FAQs this is a huge problem: Menu items always have to have the same translation for example, as users can otherwise not understand how the text ralates to their software.There is no grading involved. There simply is only ONE translation and that’s it. I don’t know why an early version or any version would need a grading system. If I as a client want a translation of a word or term in the glossary fixed, so that it always is translated in the same way, then that’s what I want. That’s why I place it in the glossary. I do this to take away ANY options from the translators to get the translation wrong.If you can deliver what you are suggesting in the newsletter, you would provide a great situloon. From the comments I can see above it appears you have translators responding who want a grat Glossry for entirely different reasons than suggested by you. Stick with what you suggested, and you will make many of your clients happy who want to get better quality and more consistent translations across multiple documents.I do NOT want a glossary such as trainer -> (sport) istruttore, allenatore, trainer, mister That already exists in translation software. There is no need to reinvent this.I want a glossary that takes away options from translators and forces them to always translateX with Y.This is what I understand you are planning and this would be a great situloon.
Second comment in reply to Lisa Davey’s comment:
I don’t think there are all that many comments out there dnaparsgiig MT across the board, if you take a closer look. I’m a professional translator but I certainly see the value in having MT tools available for people to get the quick gist of a web page, for instance. Most of the my god, look at this terrible MT output commentary you see (at least the stuff that’s worth reading at all) will be criticizing inappropriate uses of MT, not MT per se—cases where it’s used to produce absurd signs at the Beijing Olympics, or gibberish on a website that’s actually meant to market services or products to readers of another language. Google Translate is a fine and helpful tool, and I turn to it myself when I want to get a dim idea of what some Russian or Korean just wrote. I don’t write a snarky blog post about Google Translate unless there’s a company using its output, unedited, to try to sell web services to the Japanese market or the like. And then the focus of my post is going to be This company hasn’t got a clue, not Google Translate sucks, ha ha.
Comment on my “Translators do it better” post:
Very early on, the members of Vox Clara agered to something they eventually called the Moroney Principle. The principle maintains that wherever possible the current ICEL translations spoken by the people should be retained provided they are not too distant from what LA proposes. Yet, if the literal route was chosen it would have given parishes all the more reason to either sing the readings, or if they were unable to sing the readings perhaps they could sing the acclamations. When the Latin text is employed the way the different responses to Verbum Domini are registered most effectively in the mind depends upon how Verbum Domini is sung. The sung text cues the different response. Thus, not only could you have the literal translation, but in order for there to be a proper pastoral cue it would necessitate singing the acclamations. How they are sung of course would not have to be what the latin chants propose, but could be adapted for the English Language context. Fr. Joncas might at least agree with that goal. Maybe for the sake of singing they should be translated literally. I am sure that Fr. Joncas would agree that singing an acclamation heightens the effect of it.
They appear to be coming from some Facebook profiles. What say you, fellow bloggers? Spam or not spam? This is hard to determine!