Poll: Do you run any Quality Assurance (QA) checks outside of the tool in which you are translating? Inițiatorul discuției: ProZ.com Staff
|
|---|
This forum topic is for the discussion of the poll question "Do you run any Quality Assurance (QA) checks outside of the tool in which you are translating?".
View the poll results »
| | | | Edith van der Have
Ţările de Jos
Local time: 09:35
Membru (2016)
din engleză în olandeză
+ ...
... spelling control in Word is a bit different than in my CAT, so I usually also export to a bilingual Word file to proofread. This has an added advantage: different formatting, so my brain sees it as a completely different text and it is much easier to spot mistakes. Sometimes I have Dragon read it aloud to me, so I can hear issues I could glance over when only looking at the translation.
| | | |
I would never call my trusted proofreaders and editors a tool. All my quality assurance checks are done by humans.
| | | | neilmac
Spania
Local time: 09:35
din spaniolă în engleză
+ ...
After cleaning up the translated draft, I go over it again, usually once, twice or three times, depending on the type of text and other things. Sometimes I'll send the translated documents to a colleague to check as well, but that's usually only when the texts are being submitted for publication in a scientific, technical or professional journal.
| | |
|
|
|
Daniel Gebauer 
Spania
Local time: 09:35
Utilizator
din spaniolă în germană
+ ...
I always use Xbench from ApSIC. Very helpful for detecting inconsistencies etc. Also a target Word version for spellchecking.
[Bearbeitet am 2019-10-09 10:33 GMT]
| | | |
If I relied only on QA checks from CAT tools, half of the things I pick up during thorough rereading (using grey matter components) wouldn't be caught.
Philippe
| | | | Vera Schoen
Suedia
Local time: 09:35
Membru (2008)
din germană în suedeză
+ ...
After having checked the finished translation with the CAT, I always run it through an external QA-tool, then read and, if necessary, edit the finished translation in a bilingual Word-file.
| | | | | This generatrion is digital mad | Oct 9, 2019 |
Old-fashioned simple, eyes, brain and red pen. On paper.
That way I catch practically all the real errors, and there are no false ones. Checking on screen is less reliable!
The electronic methods cannot tell the difference between form and from, or when I mean an or and.
The do not catch a lot of my typos, but they pick up a lot of false errors. So-called consistency is not always good English, and there are differences in capitalization and punctuation that come... See more Old-fashioned simple, eyes, brain and red pen. On paper.
That way I catch practically all the real errors, and there are no false ones. Checking on screen is less reliable!
The electronic methods cannot tell the difference between form and from, or when I mean an or and.
The do not catch a lot of my typos, but they pick up a lot of false errors. So-called consistency is not always good English, and there are differences in capitalization and punctuation that come up, time after time, as false errors.
I run the electronic routines, but cannot trust them alone. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Timothy Wood
Statele Unite
Local time: 01:35
Membru (2005)
din germană în engleză
+ ...
| I always run QA checks after my first draft is done. | Oct 9, 2019 |
My QA workflow includes
1. spell checks from an outside source (not CAT tool);
2. checks for accuracy of numbers, bold/italics, formatting correctness, omissions;
3. read through the file for readability; this is my second or third draft, which becomes the deliverable.
[Edited at 2019-10-09 16:48 GMT]
| | | | Mario Freitas
Brazilia
Local time: 04:35
Membru (2014)
din engleză în portugheză
+ ...
| Not QA, but other checks | Oct 11, 2019 |
MemoQ's QA is good enough. It's the only one I use.
However, I run additiona grammar/spelling checks in Word, then I do the revision without the original, then another check. I rarely get any complaints, so I suppose this method is good enough.
| | | | | In-built CAT-tools are enough | Oct 23, 2019 |
MemoQ offers a powerful and customizable QA tool. When carefully tuned, it can check almost everything and provide few false positives - especially when compared to Xbench (which mostly wastes your time rather than really checks for mistakes).
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Poll: Do you run any Quality Assurance (QA) checks outside of the tool in which you are translating? | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
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 
