Translation tests in today’s market
Nothing seems to rile translators more these days than the translation tests requested so frequently by agencies. There’s vitriol in abundance on almost every translator forum and blog I read. Why?
Well I’ve never been on the receiving end of one of these requests so I’m just going to guess. Translators are busy. The tests are too long to be done for free. They want to spend their time doing translations that pay. They don’t feel they have to prove anything to a new agency, especially one that doesn’t seem to understand that translation tests are essentially worthless. And worst of all, they suspect the agency might be trying to piece together a translation for nothing.
Agencies test for various reasons. Some of us try to pack our databases with good translators for every possible language pair and subject matter. And because we never know what the next project will look like, we can never have enough reliable translators. If our first-string is busy, or second or third, we have to either refuse the job or begin calling unknowns. And as far as I’m aware, most larger agencies aren’t about to refuse a job. So the first reason for testing is to have enough decent people on hand just in case. And the only way to know if they’re decent is to test ‘em.
Another reason to test is not simply to know if a translator is “acceptable” but to mesure the person’s skills against others. The reason for this may be to give them an in-house rating like A-list, B-list, etc., or to toss them out entirely if they are not stellar. This is a practice that primarily fits the boutique translation agency, i.e., one that charges higher prices, accepts jobs only in its niche and language pairs, and places a higher priority on quality than some of the one-stop shops.
The third reason to test is the most practical. The agency is trying to win a bid from a competing company by convincing the client of its quality. The client often initiates the request in this situation. The agency then calls its top translator in that pair and specialty and proceeds to have the piece edited and re-edited, proofread and re-proofread, checked and re-checked, and then submits it to the client, hoping to get the job.
Often in this whole bidding process, the agency fails to mention one very important thing to the potential client: our translators are freelancers (many believe the agency has a room full of staff translators standing by), and the person who did such a good job on the test may not be available to do the full translation. By withholding this information, the agency is trying to gloss over the fact that the translator is not, in fact, on staff, and is essentially claiming, “we can produce this level of translation.” But this is dishonest. Dishonest to the client and often dishonest to the translator, because reasons for testing in general are often not shared with the translator at all.
The right way to do this is to get the full details on the scope of the job; find a translator and editor at the top of your list, and; guarantee the client that this same translation team will work on the project if we can be somewhat flexible with their schedule. This is risky of course because for some clients, shifting their deadline constitutes a nonstarter.
As for the suspicion that agencies are trying to piece together a large translation for free, I only hope this is an urban myth. I really can’t imagine any company resorting to this tactic and surviving for too long.
9 responses so far ↓
1 Masked Translator // Jun 17, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Interesting post! Here is my take:
The plain solution to this whole problem is for all translation tests to always be *paid.* In fact, the agency needn’t necessarily even tell the translator that the job is a test if it’s paid. That way, you get a sample of what the translator’s actual work is like, and the translator won’t be bitter that (a) they had to waste time on an unpaid translation and (b) they didn’t get any work from the agency after doing the test. (In my experience, the latter is the main reason why translation tests are a waste of time, because even A-list translators don’t necessarily get any work out of the effort of doing the test.)
I’ve actually been paid by agencies in the past to *grade* translation tests, and I’ve been shocked at the range of skills out there–abysmal work from translators who obviously were under the impression they could translate, and excellent work beyond anything I could ever produce.
What’s truly sad about the excellent translations that I’ve graded, is that the agencies’ grading scales are arbitrary and useless. Many times, the rules by which I have been forced to grade tests resulted in failing an excellent translator whom, in fact, I would hire in a second to do any job. My only recourse is to add profuse praise in the “comments” section, or whatever, so that the agency knows the person is a gem despite the fail…
2 Glenn // Jun 18, 2008 at 10:02 am
Masked,
You raise some excellent points. Tests that are paid and “blind” would resolve a lot of problems. And it may be a worthwhile investment for an agency. But expensive. Imagine 300 words to 300 translators, and then to editors: 90,000 words. That’s an R&D expense most translation agencies don’t want to budget for.
But the bigger reason many agencies would not be willing to go this route is they don’t see that right now it seems to be a “translator’s market.” So they don’t fear annoying translators, not just with tests but — from what I read on translator forums — lengthy project instructions, convoluted invoicing rules, etc., etc. The belief, somehow, is that there are thousands of translators and they’re lucky to get work at all. We agencies have to realize, there are hundreds of us, and we want the really good translators to like us.
I’ve also graded translator tests, from within an agency — some excellent, some very poor. At the time, we were looking for more translators for our database, and probably kept what we considered to be the top 25%. But the test was really too short to really indicate much.
I thought the most important tests I conducted were a few times when I allowed the client to give a short test and then offered two or three different un-edited translators, so essentially the client was able to hand-pick the translator for the project. We had a bit of additional time on the project so it ended up working out well.
Traditionally, translators have been tested on paying projects. Meaning, when a very short project comes up, and you have enough time built in, you send the project to a person who’s resume looks good but is otherwise untested. Worst-case scenario, it’s abysmal and you send it to one of your best people to repair before the deadline.
Thanks again for reading.
3 Frederick // Jun 18, 2008 at 10:07 am
I’m almost 100% sure one agency used my translation test on one of their paying jobs.
4 Chris // Jun 18, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I’ve been on both ends here - both having done numerous tests and having graded numerous tests. My thoughts:
1. If you want to work for an agency, you should be prepared to do a test translation. First off, if you’re any good as a translator, they’re going to be impressed and you’ll end up getting more work than if you just wrote to them saying ‘hey, I’m a translator, give me work.’ Secondly, how else are they going to know you’re even capable of what you claim to be capable of doing otherwise? I’ve seen tons of résumés from people who have been translating for 10+ years for various (even big) agencies, who are completely incapable of producing a quality translation. Having seen this first hand, I know better than to trust someone who says ‘I’ve been translating for 25 years! Why should I have to prove myself to you?’ Why? Because you might totally suck.
2. The only translators that bitch and whine about the translation tests (or demand to be paid for it) are the ones who do badly. (I guess it’s the fear of being exposed as a fraud?) There are a handful of divas out there who can actually translate that complain, but most of them come around sooner or later and realize that although they may have proven themselves to 5 agencies over the past 20 years, they haven’t proven themselves to your agency. Also, they tend to be smart enough to realize that writing e-mails back and forth takes longer than actually doing the test translation.
3. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a translator to set a limit of 300 words on a test translation. Many want to put limits of 100 words on TT’s, but you can’t tell anything from that.
4. The tests should be made up of general field-specific documents and should always be taken from the beginning of documents so that it wouldn’t be possible to cobble a translation together from testing a group of translators. Also, detailed feedback should always be supplied to the translator within 30 days.
5. Finally, although I find it hard to believe that it happens, it might not be the worst thing in the world if an agency does “steal” your “test translation” and use it for a client. First off, it should have been short to begin with - I’ve done favors for people and agencies before and haven even done 450 words not expecting to get paid (the PO was ambiguous and I thought I’d better play it safe - I ended up doing the right thing) - and therefore it shouldn’t have taken very much of your time. Secondly, if they and their client were happy with that translation, who would they go to for the next assignment (and the next one and the next one)? Probably you - and therefore, it was kind of a test. Surely, it wouldn’t be the most ethical thing to do, but you’d probably still get future work out of it that will eventually make up for a measly 300 word job. But I do find it hard to believe that that happens.
5 Glenn // Jun 18, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Chris,
Great to get another point of view here! And you don’t hold back much: “The only translators that bitch and whine about the translation tests (or demand to be paid for it) are the ones who do badly.” Wow.
I agree with your overall point, which is something like, if you want to work for us, you gotta show me more than a resume.
Still I feel like 300 words might as well be 25 for what you’re able to tell. I’ve definitely eliminated people who make 5 serious errors and 25 sloppy ones in 300 words but more often you have people who are either decent or are able to hide it well enough in a short piece. And so you label them acceptable and they prove themselves (or don’t) later on.
But moreover, I think this issue just highlights some of the distrust between freelancers and agencies. Translators think people in agencies know nothing about how to translate (sometimes they’re right); agencies think because they studied a foreign language translators think they can make a buck (and the agency sometimes has a point here).
From what I read on some forums, translators want to draw the line in the sand and not do any more unpaid tests, because no other professional would stand for it. You’re response seems to be, “prove to me that you’re a professional first!”
Thanks a lot for adding some great food for thought here!
Glenn
6 Masked Translator // Jun 20, 2008 at 1:22 pm
When Chris says, “The only translators that bitch and whine about the translation tests (or demand to be paid for it) are the ones who do badly,” he is forgetting an important group of translators. I’m one of the whiners and bitchers and the reason is this: I already have enough work to do. I regularly have to turn down work because so much (appealing) work is offered to me. From agencies I work for all the time that I know will treat me well and pay me promptly. For jobs that pay well above my minimum rate.
So the reason I would consider taking a test is so that some month when I have a quiet week or two, I have another agency that will think of using me because I’ve passed their test and am in their database. But too be honest, in a busy week, when I can be earning $100+/hour doing work I enjoy for agencies I trust, it irks me that agencies without a proven (to me) track record are asking me to do work (test or not) for free. I’m pissy about it because not only do I have fancy degrees and lots of published translations they can go look at if they want to check out my work and plenty of references they can contact, but I’m busy! It’s nice to take a break from the business and bitch and moan for a few minutes
(thanks for the opportunity, Glenn!)
7 Glenn // Jun 21, 2008 at 8:03 am
Masked, thanks for taking the time to vent a bit.
First, it sounds like, despite Chris being unconvinced that many translators are as good as they claim, it actually sounds like he’s worked at an agency that takes tests seriously — rather than just another automatic and arbitrary hoop for translators to jump through, and which often have little connection to the translator getting work. I imagine if tests were reviewed and given fair judgment, more translators would be for them. When they’re just another piece of meaningless paperwork (which, from what I hear, seems to be increasingly the case), they do nothing but annoy. So I understand your frustation. And I also understand Chris’ point that translator resumes aren’t enough of an indication.
I think recommendations from peers are often better than a short test — and translators are often willing to give them about their colleagues. Based on a strong plug from a fellow translator who is already trusted, give the translator a short paid piece and build the relationship from there.
8 Getting Testier // Jun 23, 2008 at 10:53 am
[...] beginnings of a good discussion on a recent post, Getting Testy, made me want to dig a bit deeper into the issue. I know translation tests have already been [...]
9 Chris // Jul 7, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Well, to respond (sorry, I was away from my computer for a couple of weeks), yes - I do work for an agency that takes testing seriously. We didn’t use to, but we do now.
We have our potential resources test on samples of actual source text from real clients. Sometimes we just have trusted resources review the tests, other times - when we’re looking for something specific - we’ll send it directly to the client for review. Examples of the latter are generally marketing related. For instance, we once had significant issues finding a Turkish cosmetics translator. Although I have no doubt that the first 5 translations we sent to our client were decent, they weren’t what our client was looking for. Maybe it was style over accuracy? Who knows - but no amount of published translations or fancy degrees are going to be able to predict what a client wants.
Secondly, we definitely respect if potential translators don’t have time on a certain, day, week, etc. for a translation test and we schedule those accordingly. And as a freelancer, I have had to reschedule tests and no one has ever had an issue with it. So what’s to complain about? If you have too much work for a test, you have too much work for a test. So why bitch if you already have enough work to do? Agencies can’t force you to test and the whole point is to get you more work. To me, this argument is like complaining about the existence of a lottery. If you don’t like the idea of it, just don’t play.
I think your comment about an agency having not proven their track record to you cuts both ways. I mean, that’s the whole point of testing, right? That a track record gets proven. I think that’s all agencies are looking for - that you can do what you say you can. Translation agencies get a LOT of people telling them how great they are, but not showing it. I think you’d be surprised at the results once we force people to show it. Also, you can find my agency’s rating on Proz and Translator’s Café. On Proz, we have a rating of 4.9/5 and on TC, we have 5/5. That’s got to count for something, right?
I think there are two camps of complainers out there: the decent translator (20% of complainers) who feels like he’s proven himself decent enough over the last 5-25 years and knows he’s good and doesn’t see the point in proving himself to some no-nothing newbie. This person is forgetting who he’s proven himself to and that the newbie will likely give him work/money if he proves himself one more measly 300-word time. The second kind (80%) is the person who is a terrible translator, or not a translator at all and is afraid of getting outed.
I think the 20% really needs to be made aware that the 80% really exists. Really - they do. You’d be surprised at how many spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors can crop up in a 300 word sample.
Leave a Comment