Google Translator Toolkit

Google has added a toolkit to their machine translation software: "Google Translate"

How does it work?

* Choose a language to translate your document into
* Upload a document, webpage or a Wikipedia article
* Google translator automatically uploads, converts and translates the content
* You can now review and improve the translation
* You can view translations that were earlier translated by other users
* You can share your translation with your friends and invite them to view or help edit your translation
* When finished, you can download the translation to your desktop
* For Wikipedia articles, you can even publish it back to the source

Now, the system works well as a crowdsourcing effort where revisions are constantly made to the translations. Thus, improving quality over time. The intellectual prowess of the translator is another questions.

The Toolkit represents another step in the advancement of machine translation. However, it still does not replace a qualified human translator with industry specialization.

Google Translator Toolkit is ideal for fast simple, non-conforming translations. If you want a 50 page manual, then you're better off sending it to your translation vendor.

Fanlation

I just read a post from Joel Zetzsche's newsletter, and he coined a new term:

Fanlation
Translation done by enthused users ready to donate their time for a product.

Joel uses the term: Fanlation to describe crowdsouring of sites like Facebook and Twitter. I have written a few posts on crowdsouring, and Fanlation seems to sum up crowdsouring translation efforts for social media sites pretty well, as most of the users of these sites are not only fans of the site, but they contribute translations for the sites crowdsourcing efforts. I also feel that fanlation can be expanded for technical translation.

I know translators get paid to translate technical documentation, but sometimes if they are truly immersed in the subject or are "fans" of a particular technical field, they could contribute some translations towards a crowdsourcing effort. The translator's would have to get the consent of their client before contributing their translation, or they could simply contribute terms towards a glossary.  

So, Fanlation is a neat term, and I think it could be extended beyond social media sites. After all a fan is fan is a fan. A fan of what is the question?

Facebook's Human Translation

Facebook introduced non-English languages for the first time in January 2008. Now about 70 percent of Facebook's 300 million users are outside of the United States. Many bloggers and tech writers think Facebook's method of human translation seems promising as it combines real people behind the scenes as opposed to machine translation.

Basically, users suggest translated phrases and vote on translations that others have submitted. These crowd-sourced edits, which work sort of like Wikipedia make Facebook's translation service smarter over time. Go to Facebook's translation page to check it out or to participate.

More than 65 languages function on Facebook now, according to Facebook's statistics. At least another 30 languages are in the works, meaning Facebook needs help working out the kinks on those languages before they're put to use.

What's new? Facebook announced in a blog post on September 30 that the social network has made its crowd-sourced translation technology available to other sites on the Web. The update allows sites to install a translation gadget on their sites through Facebook Connect, a service that lets Facebook users sign in on other Web pages.

Facebook also added some new languages, including Latin and "Pirate," which translates the Facebooky word "share" as "blabber t'yer mates!"

People are good at knowing idioms and slang, so Facebook tends to get these right, but there are limited numbers of multi-lingual volunteers who want to spend time helping Facebook translate things. Also, Facebook's site is available in many languages, but its human translators don't touch wall posts, photo comments and other user-submitted items, which is a big con if you want to have friends who don't share a common language with you.

Source: CNN.com

Crowdsourcing and Translation

Crowdsourcing has been a topic of hype for a number of years in the translation industry, but the reality of it will shape the future of the translation industry. So, does crowdsourcing translation really work? and how does one guarantee quality and consistency? The main concern for companies is entrusting their strong corporate brands and style to unknown volunteers, but the bigger issue is that people are less likely to offer translations for corporate materials in which they hold no stake, and have no emotional investment. For instance, it's unlikely that companies could crowdsource the translation of packaging and labeling information.

The benefits of crowdsourcing lie in in the world of social networking. Facebook's experience with crowdsourcing has shown that they can break down language barriers with the help of their users. Thus making it a stepping stone showing that for-Profit companies can leverage the enthusiasm and language skills of their user base to achieve their business goals. Start-up small businesses are increasingly venturing into social networking by creating communities that are passionate about the product, and willing to translate ads and promotional material. Thus, providing the companies with a wider audience, where they would have a real interest in feeding into the translation process.

The viability of crowdsourcing is giving rise to translation companies like myGengo that are structured to offer clients the best of both worlds: low rates by taking advantage of crowdsourced translations, and some level of quality by reviewing the translations. There are no guarantees on intellectual property protection and consistency, but it's a cheap/fast way of getting translations done. So, is crowdsourcing translations the future of our industry? Probably not. Will crowdsourcing play a role in some sectors of the translation industry? Probably.