It is not uncommon for translation buyers to review the translations internally. Such review may be completed by an employee at a local affiliate (“in-country review”), or by the company’s content manager, etc. Typically, they use a PDF file or another common format file and leave notes for the vendor who then implements them to the underlying files and produces a final document. For example, with an InDesign file, a customer may initially review a preliminary PDF file and return it to a vendor who will then implement the suggestions to the InDesign file and deliver a final document. While implementing such corrections, we take the below considerations into account:
- With ongoing projects, the customer’s corrections are very important for the translator. They must review and understand the corrections, as well as update the translation memory and/or glossary. Otherwise, there is a risk of making the same mistakes again, resulting in lower customer’s satisfaction, as the latter will be forced to fix the same issues repeatedly. For this reason, I believe that providing the translator with the reviewed files is critical to success in ongoing projects.
- The corrections are also valuable for the translator per se, because they are typically made by a subject matter expert with direct hands-on experience in a specific domain. For instance, a user manual for a grinding device can be reviewed by an engineer who installs this device and trains the end users. The resulting corrections constitute a useful training tool for the translator. Say, a translator had especially hard time with a certain part of translation, but then finds out that the reviewer came up with a better translation. In such situation, the translator is very likely to remember this better version and use it in future for the benefit of this and other customers. This type of “on-the-job” training is one of the most effective development tools for any translator. Keeping this in mind, we sometimes do not charge for implementing the corrections (depending on their amount and nature), including preferential changes, and always go through them thoroughly.
- Another consideration to take into account is whether the customer’s reviewer found any critical mistakes. If they did find any, charging for fixing your own errors doesn’t make any sense.
- When asked to implement the corrections, the translator is typically expected to also proofread them for any new errors that the reviewer could have erroneously introduced. Such new errors are the rule rather than the exception, because a reviewer is often a technical person, with a limited linguistic knowledge or translation background. Sometimes, depending on correction amount and nature, we can provide proofreading free-of-charge, even when the customer doesn’t specifically ask for this.
To conclude, I want to stress that we charge for processing the corrections based on their amount and nature. There also have been exceptional situations when the two customer’s editors reviewed the same translation, creating two different versions and therefore making us charge for the second set of corrections.
It will be our pleasure to take a look at your Russian translation editing project and see what we can do. Contact us today!