what should be the difference between a translator and a reviewer?
  • I guess translators and reviewers both have the same outputs, but after i have tried doing both, i came to notice that they deal with different inputs! wouldn't u agree? this would mean that the tasks require different skills!
    .
    thinking about this from a quality control perspective, i'm thinking that if we raise the standards for translators' source language skills, and reviewers' destination language skills, we would have the highest quality possible.
    .
    does this sound logical to you?
  • 5 Comments sorted by
  • so many views and not a single reply!!
    i cant seem to make a feedback out of this!!
    .
    i'm not suggesting that we change how OTP works, i'm discussing the general idea.
    i'm involved in other voluntary translation projects and this quality problem keeps popping, so i wish to get some ideas.
    thanks :)
  • Dear Nartabaza,

    can you please explain a bit better your perspective? I'm not quite sure I understood it, because in my perspective, a good translator is also a good reviewer. After all, the goal is the same, so the characteristics have to be reasonably the same. The good of having a review process is that you have a fresh pair of eyes, other perspectives on some points and the "check if everything is alright".

    I understand that there should be some requirements as having the expertise on a certain subject that the talk is about so that the initial translation can be correctly done in some technical terms, for example. But as we are a volunteering project this expertise might also be beneficial at the review stage.

    Not sure if it helped, but here is some feedback:)

    Miguel
  • Besides the points that both of you mentioned, I think there could be subtle difference in their role. In some cases, the same words can be translated into two different expressions and, in another case, some differentiation may occur due to language habits of both parties. I personally think that, in such a case, the expression from the first translator needs to be retained unless reviewer's opinion is far better in understanding. Otherwise, only the "feeling" that the reviewer may have gotten simply overwhelms and the whole translation may be rewritten.
  • I think that the real challenge is trying to correct certain mistakes while at the same time respecting the style of writing of the other translator. We all speak a bit different language depending on our background, education etc. It is especially hard with stylistics mistakes.
  • I think ideally the reviewer is a skilled translator that has become more proficient at following the standards.

    Unless there was an overabundance of expert translators, it begs to reason to spend the time of the expert ones doing something that makes a difference, while the main body of the translation work is done by less polished translators.