Monitoring profreading

ioloo

Posts: 132

Date of registration: Mar 21st 2012

Language Team: Spanish

Focus Group: Translation Proofreader

Thanks: 4065 / 45

Sunday, July 22nd 2012, 6:57pm

Monitoring profreading

I'm working with a tool similar to Pootle a platform called Transifex to practise with PO files and I saw features that would be useful in profreading or other issues.

I saw that in the Coordination Project Tracker there isn't progress indication about proofreading resources. It makes me think it would be a cause of lag in some profreading projects, I remember the scarcity of proofreaders, too.

So, I purpose use a platform like Pootle to develop a proofreading traking system, If it isn't possible to use Pootle, Transifex can be useful for this task. The Transifex developers talk to me with the possibility of donate free a private translations licence (That's not closed).

If monitoring seems to be useful, and if Pootle admins don't consider that I need also any proofreader to practise permissions in Transifex.
https://www.transifex.com/projects/p/TVPActivism/

Go to the top of the page

Click here to thank the author for this post.

1 registered user and 44 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

nomada

lizardman

Posts: 568

Date of registration: Jun 3rd 2011

Language Team: Bulgarian

Focus Group: Translation Proofreader
LTI Administration Group

Location: Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Thanks: 21607 / 483

Monday, July 23rd 2012, 6:10pm

Hi ioloo,

Thanks for the suggestions.

I don't know if it would be easy to really keep track of every project. It seems that an entire custom Project Management System would give us this ability.

Like you say, Pootle shows you the progress of each project. But that actually can be quite misleading since different language teams use the tool in different ways. You can see something showing as 100% all green, but it doesn't mean that it is completed or even proofread. Not every language uses the Fuzzy and Suggest options to indicate the state of a project.

So I think we would need something like a custom PMS that allows every language team to use their own translation methods but that will also allow universal project tracking. The system now is pretty primitive.

Go to the top of the page

Click here to thank the author for this post.

43 guests thanked already.

ioloo

Posts: 132

Date of registration: Mar 21st 2012

Language Team: Spanish

Focus Group: Translation Proofreader

Thanks: 4065 / 45

Monday, July 23rd 2012, 9:17pm

Thanks Lizzard for your post,

I saw that, for example, Russian translator use a different platform. Whereas I don't have that Universal PMS we can't monitoring all languajes. I don't understand why Pootle isn't universal translation platform for this team. In Transifex, there is no problem on languajes with different characters, I saw russian and greek projects. I think Pootle has no trouble, too. It is possible an solvable human methods problem?

About reviews, if people don't want to learn working with fuzzy, in Transifex appears a checkbox on the right of each sentence to mark as reviewed, also it helps to manage the review and in general board you can see the sentences reviewed of each project without click in projects.
In Pootle I don't know if all of this is available.

Go to the top of the page

Click here to thank the author for this post.

41 guests thanked already.

lizardman

Posts: 568

Date of registration: Jun 3rd 2011

Language Team: Bulgarian

Focus Group: Translation Proofreader
LTI Administration Group

Location: Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Thanks: 21607 / 483

Tuesday, July 24th 2012, 11:50am

Yeah, I see what you mean, but this is a problem with the approach, I think. Our approach, when designing any system, should be translator-centered, or language team-centered. That means that we have to provide the best tools and means we can and let everyone use them in the best way they see fit. We can't impose on people to use the tools in a certain way. You see?

If a certain team chooses to use another tool, that's perfectly OK. Pootle handles all alphabets, so that's not the reason to not use it. But if the Russian team has another tool that allows them to produce good quality translations, then great!

Do you agree that this approach I'm talking about should be the way we design a given system?

Go to the top of the page

Click here to thank the author for this post.

41 guests thanked already.

ioloo

Posts: 132

Date of registration: Mar 21st 2012

Language Team: Spanish

Focus Group: Translation Proofreader

Thanks: 4065 / 45

Tuesday, July 24th 2012, 5:16pm

Of course,

My approach is in the same line. I wouldn't allow this suggestion will be an obligation. Nevertheless, as same as we suggest to use only Subdot for transcriptions and translations, and not universal subtitles (f.e.), in order to organize it. I'm suggesting for a "general tool" used to organize reviews/proofreadings that actually aren't be traked or monitoring.

Do you understand the benefits of monitoring to the LTI Coordinators?
Do we have another plan, tool or PMS projected to solve this shortage?

Go to the top of the page

Click here to thank the author for this post.

45 guests thanked already.

lizardman

Posts: 568

Date of registration: Jun 3rd 2011

Language Team: Bulgarian

Focus Group: Translation Proofreader
LTI Administration Group

Location: Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Thanks: 21607 / 483

Wednesday, July 25th 2012, 4:38pm

Yes, there is a plan. We are very well into developing a site that will serve as a portal for all members. It will serve many different functions. Once it is released, we hope that everyone will participate in improving it.