| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] | Why don't I get work? Thread poster: Paul Dixon
|
|---|
Dan Lucas wrote:
I did one project last year that had a value of thousands of euro. The first 20% was hard work, the remainder was small variations.
Regards,
Dan
You've been quite lucky no heavy discounts were imposed on you.
| | | | Sheila Wilson 
Spain
Local time: 18:47
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| Totally different from my experience | Jul 29, 2018 |
David GAY wrote:
-Do CAT tools improve your speed? In some cases, but
if it does, you'll soon be deprived of your gains and forced
to apply discounts.
I've never let a client force me to do anything, and never will.
Do you get paid for learning how to use a CAT? No.
Neither do they pay - directly - for my ProZ.com subscription, my purchase of MS-Office, PerfectIt, Abbyy FineReader, AVAST, etc, etc. But they pay indirectly, of course, as I take it all into account in my hourly rate. So they paid for my 2-day Wordfast training course back in 2007 and the CAT tool purchase - even if I don't use it on their jobs! I see you're a graduate - are your clients paying towards your ROI for the fees, expenses and lost opportunity costs of the programme(s)?
Do CAT turn a translator into a modern day Charlie Chaplin?
The answer is yes. Have a look at the fora here on PROZ.
Not only is that totally incorrect, it's downright insulting!
Mechanization shall have the same effects in the translation
industry as in other industries. One good example is agriculture.
What's the percentage of the population employed in agriculture nowadays in countries like the UK or France? Less than 5% whereas it
used to be 70% 50 years ago. We'll soon see the same effects in the translation industry. That's the trend.
And how much of a problem is it for farmers to find labour among the local pool for all the non-mechanised jobs that still exist, such as picking strawberries? It's one of the many flaws of Brexit - the locals don't want those jobs so they're being done (or were being done) by cheap immigrant labour. The Brits want to cherry-pick the jobs and keep their hands clean. In fact, they prefer to operate those machines!
| | | | | It depends which CAT you use | Jul 29, 2018 |
Sheila Wilson wrote: David GAY wrote:
-Do CAT tools improve your speed? In some cases, but
if it does, you'll soon be deprived of your gains and forced
to apply discounts. I've never let a client force me to do anything, and never will. Do you get paid for learning how to use a CAT? No. Neither do they pay - directly - for my ProZ.com subscription, my purchase of MS-Office, PerfectIt, Abbyy FineReader, AVAST, etc, etc. But they pay indirectly, of course, as I take it all into account in my hourly rate. So they paid for my 2-day Wordfast training course back in 2007 and the CAT tool purchase - even if I don't use it on their jobs! I see you're a graduate - are your clients paying towards your ROI for the fees, expenses and lost opportunity costs of the programme(s)? Do CAT turn a translator into a modern day Charlie Chaplin?
The answer is yes. Have a look at the fora here on PROZ. Not only is that totally incorrect, it's downright insulting! Mechanization shall have the same effects in the translation
industry as in other industries. One good example is agriculture.
What's the percentage of the population employed in agriculture nowadays in countries like the UK or France? Less than 5% whereas it
used to be 70% 50 years ago. We'll soon see the same effects in the translation industry. That's the trend. And how much of a problem is it for farmers to find labour among the local pool for all the non-mechanised jobs that still exist, such as picking strawberries? It's one of the many flaws of Brexit - the locals don't want those jobs so they're being done (or were being done) by cheap immigrant labour. The Brits want to cherry-pick the jobs and keep their hands clean. In fact, they prefer to operate those machines!
It obviously depends which CAT you use. I would love to see you working with Trados (which most of the posters here were refering to)
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 18:47
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
David GAY wrote:
It obviously depends which CAT you use.
What does? I barely mentioned the "brand" of CAT tool.
I would love to see you working with Trados (which most of the posters here were refering to)
Please explain, David.
| | |
|
|
|
Dan Lucas
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:47
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
| Again, the subject of agency | Jul 29, 2018 |
David GAY wrote:
You've been quite lucky no heavy discounts were imposed on you.
Luck has nothing to do with it, David, and the fact that you believe it is a factor speaks volumes. Nobody "imposes" discounts on me. I may agree to use a fuzzy matrix, or not, depending on the situation. For a good, regular client, I would often agree to it. Why not? I know I can make good money even with a fuzzy matrix, and it benefits the client as well.
In this specific case, the documents were non-public minutes of board meetings dating back nearly 20 years. They were highly sensitive, and I had to destroy all copies after submission. So it was confidential content for which pressure on prices was not going to be an issue, although I charged my standard rate. I did not fully realise beforehand just how much repetition there was, so it was a pleasant surprise. But it was a pleasant surprise of which the CAT tool allowed me to take full advantage, with just a few keystrokes for each file.
To summarise, I use CAT tools all day, every working day, at the core of my business, because they enable me to work more efficiently. Far from suffering for my wrong-headed adherence to CAT software, my bank balance has never been as healthy. I am increasingly turning away work, nearly all of it repeat work from existing clients, and it is not as if my rates are particularly low. My income has grown significantly every year since I began freelancing. I have had two record months already in fiscal 2018, so it looks likely to rise again sharply this year. All achieved with CAT tools, and, for me at least, impossible without them.
If this is the "exploitation" of which you speak, I must admit that I'm rather enjoying it. Is that wrong?
Budding translators: reject doom and gloom conspiracy theories; try CAT tools; find good clients; earn lots of money or earn more money in less time. Fin.
Regards,
Dan
| | | | | Same for me withou CAT tool | Jul 30, 2018 |
Dan Lucas wrote: David GAY wrote:
You've been quite lucky no heavy discounts were imposed on you. Luck has nothing to do with it, David, and the fact that you believe it is a factor speaks volumes. Nobody "imposes" discounts on me. I may agree to use a fuzzy matrix, or not, depending on the situation. For a good, regular client, I would often agree to it. Why not? I know I can make good money even with a fuzzy matrix, and it benefits the client as well. In this specific case, the documents were non-public minutes of board meetings dating back nearly 20 years. They were highly sensitive, and I had to destroy all copies after submission. So it was confidential content for which pressure on prices was not going to be an issue, although I charged my standard rate. I did not fully realise beforehand just how much repetition there was, so it was a pleasant surprise. But it was a pleasant surprise of which the CAT tool allowed me to take full advantage, with just a few keystrokes for each file. To summarise, I use CAT tools all day, every working day, at the core of my business, because they enable me to work more efficiently. Far from suffering for my wrong-headed adherence to CAT software, my bank balance has never been as healthy. I am increasingly turning away work, nearly all of it repeat work from existing clients, and it is not as if my rates are particularly low. My income has grown significantly every year since I began freelancing. I have had two record months already in fiscal 2018, so it looks likely to rise again sharply this year. All achieved with CAT tools, and, for me at least, impossible without them. If this is the "exploitation" of which you speak, I must admit that I'm rather enjoying it. Is that wrong? Budding translators: reject doom and gloom conspiracy theories; try CAT tools; find good clients; earn lots of money or earn more money in less time. Fin. Regards, Dan
What you wrote applies to my present situation except that I don't
use any CAT except for one client (XTM). But I avoid if I have an alternative to work for this client, because it's more profitable for me to work without XTM. I don't use CATs and don't feel exploited as I have found a very good client. So it's possible to find very good clients even without using any CAT tool. Direct clients don't impose to use CAT tool either (they even don't know what it is)
[Modifié le 2018-07-30 02:22 GMT]
| | | |
Dan Lucas wrote: David GAY wrote:
You've been quite lucky no heavy discounts were imposed on you. Luck has nothing to do with it, David, and the fact that you believe it is a factor speaks volumes. Nobody "imposes" discounts on me. I may agree to use a fuzzy matrix, or not, depending on the situation. For a good, regular client, I would often agree to it. Why not? I know I can make good money even with a fuzzy matrix, and it benefits the client as well. In this specific case, the documents were non-public minutes of board meetings dating back nearly 20 years. They were highly sensitive, and I had to destroy all copies after submission. So it was confidential content for which pressure on prices was not going to be an issue, although I charged my standard rate. I did not fully realise beforehand just how much repetition there was, so it was a pleasant surprise. But it was a pleasant surprise of which the CAT tool allowed me to take full advantage, with just a few keystrokes for each file. To summarise, I use CAT tools all day, every working day, at the core of my business, because they enable me to work more efficiently. Far from suffering for my wrong-headed adherence to CAT software, my bank balance has never been as healthy. I am increasingly turning away work, nearly all of it repeat work from existing clients, and it is not as if my rates are particularly low. My income has grown significantly every year since I began freelancing. I have had two record months already in fiscal 2018, so it looks likely to rise again sharply this year. All achieved with CAT tools, and, for me at least, impossible without them. If this is the "exploitation" of which you speak, I must admit that I'm rather enjoying it. Is that wrong? Budding translators: reject doom and gloom conspiracy theories; try CAT tools; find good clients; earn lots of money or earn more money in less time. Fin. Regards, Dan
According to what you're saying, it seems you have translated a PDF file because you didn't have the fuzzy match analysis, which prevented the PM from applying the discount. It happens sometimes but the translation of a PDF file in itself takes 40% more time.
Otherwise, it's quite strange that you renegotiate each time with agencies whether you're going to accept fuzzy matches. As a rule,
fuzzy matches are "offered" (not imposed obviously) by agencies
right from the start of the collaboration just after you signed the NDA..
[Modifié le 2018-07-30 02:17 GMT]
[Modifié le 2018-07-30 02:39 GMT]
| | | | Dan Lucas
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:47
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
| So CAT tool users and non-CAT tool users can both prosper... | Jul 30, 2018 |
David GAY wrote:
What you wrote applies to my present situation except that I don't
use any CAT except for one client (XTM). But I avoid if I have an alternative to work for this client, because it's more profitable for me to work without XTM. I don't use CATs and don't feel exploited as I have found a very good client. So it's possible to find very good clients even without using any CAT tool. Direct clients don't impose to use CAT tool either (they even don't know what it is)
I am pleased to hear that. I would not be anything like as productive and efficient without my CAT tool as I like the concordance and segmentation even when repetitions do not come into play, but this is a personal thing. Also, my client base is probably significantly different to yours, in that I have avoided direct clients thus far.
However, my post was not an argument that non-CAT tool users cannot be efficient or successful. My post was an attempt to correct the idea being propagated in this thread that CAT tools are inevitably exploitative and therefore a bad deal for the translator.
As my example shows - and I use it only because I cannot speak definitively for other CAT tool users - that is not necessarily the case. The gains in my efficiency, and this addresses the point made by Mirko earlier, which I have not got round to answering (apologies Mirko) more than offset any lower prices from fuzzy matches. I would use my CAT tool even if no agency demanded it. I simply find it a better way to work. And that is before the marketing benefits of being able to say to clients that I use their favourite CAT tool.
Now, I am only one person, but that is enough to disprove the argument. If you have a hypothesis that all swans are white, the first black swan you see destroys that hyphothesis, however many white swans you have seen up to that point. I am a black swan. No doubt there are other successful CAT tool-using freelancers out there, and far more numerous that the incidence of black swans in the general population of swans.
On fuzzy matches and renegotiation, if I don't like the look of a text, I decline it and tell the client why. It doesn't happen very often, because, as previously noted, I don't believe the combination of fuzzy matches and CAT tool has a negative impact on my business.
On PDFs - yes, a simple batch OCR job (it's not often you see those words in that sequence). The documents were very regular and simple in layout, otherwise I would have not taken on the job. As far as I can recall, the whole job took significantly less than a day, including the OCR.
Again, I am not here to "force" CAT tools on people. I am here to counter the "establishment" view - yes, in this case the traditional translators are the empire, not the rebels - that CAT does not work for freelancers. There is a constant drip-drip-drip of one-sided negativity in these forums regarding the use of these tools that is highly misleading and potentially damaging.
In particular I want translators coming into the profession, or those reassessing their position, like the original poster of this thread, to have the courage and confidence to try CAT. It may work for them, it may not work for them; certainly, they must understand that it is no panacea. Still, if they write off CAT tools from the start, they will undeniably be cutting down their options, and they may be denying themselves a lucrative business.
Regards,
Dan
| | |
|
|
|
| I was talking... | Jul 30, 2018 |
Mirko Mainardi wrote:
As well as slavery, dictatorships, globalization, etc. You name it. The secret is not letting others exploit you and you're golden.
about the world of translation... 
| | | |
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote: Mirko Mainardi wrote:
As well as slavery, dictatorships, globalization, etc. You name it. The secret is not letting others exploit you and you're golden. about the world of translation...
Me too
| | | |
Dan Lucas wrote:
I am here to counter the "establishment" view - yes, in this case the traditional translators are the empire, not the rebels - that CAT does not work for freelancers. There is a constant drip-drip-drip of one-sided negativity in these forums regarding the use of these tools that is highly misleading and potentially damaging.
I have used CAT tools for most of my work for many years now and they have saved me a lot of time and money.
But that's on my terms. That's using only my own memories. That's without fuzzy discounts.
Those tools and memories are my investment and I rightly get the return, not my customers (although they still benefit from quicker, better translations.)
So far, so good.
But most translators are not in my position. The agencies have the power.
I have seen how agencies use CAT tools. And for the most part it really is exploitative, Dan. It is bad for translators and bad for translation and bad for end-customers.
I have never come across a memory that isn't full of contradictions and inconsistencies and mistranslations and typos. They make the translator's life harder, not easier. Yet the translator is expected to give discounts for fuzzy matches with these flawed memories. In other words, charge less for more time.
The conscientious translator has to beg special permission to correct mistranslations in 100% matches and gets nothing in return, certainly not gratitude. These agencies don't want to know that their memories are flawed. Then they might have to put time into sorting them out. These days, quality management seems to be about finding the lowest possible standard they can get away with.
And don't get me started on software glitches and online systems and tags and unprintable files and all the other time-wasting nonsense that goes with so many CAT jobs.
For most agencies, CAT tools are just a carrot to pull the wool over end-customers' eyes and a stick with which to fleece their translators.
How's that for mixed metaphors?
| | | | | Why membership makes such a big difference for job finding, just top search result listing ? | Jul 31, 2018 |
Sarah Lewis-Morgan wrote: Paul Dixon wrote:
I am talking about general jobseeking, not specifically through ProZ. It seems that you only have a realistic chance of getting jobs through ProZ if you pay for an expensive membership. I was a paying member for some years, but results were poor, so gave up.
Do you really think that membership of Proz is expensive? I don't get that many jobs through Proz relatively speaking, but those I have have made the cost of membership more than worthwhile. I get regular and semi-regular work from several sources that came directly through Proz and the work I get in one month from those is worth far more than a year's membership fee. Seems a good investment to me.
| | |
|
|
|
Chris S wrote: Dan Lucas wrote:
I am here to counter the "establishment" view - yes, in this case the traditional translators are the empire, not the rebels - that CAT does not work for freelancers. There is a constant drip-drip-drip of one-sided negativity in these forums regarding the use of these tools that is highly misleading and potentially damaging.
I have used CAT tools for most of my work for many years now and they have saved me a lot of time and money. But that's on my terms. That's using only my own memories. That's without fuzzy discounts. Those tools and memories are my investment and I rightly get the return, not my customers (although they still benefit from quicker, better translations.) So far, so good. But most translators are not in my position. The agencies have the power. I have seen how agencies use CAT tools. And for the most part it really is exploitative, Dan. It is bad for translators and bad for translation and bad for end-customers. I have never come across a memory that isn't full of contradictions and inconsistencies and mistranslations and typos. They make the translator's life harder, not easier. Yet the translator is expected to give discounts for fuzzy matches with these flawed memories. In other words, charge less for more time. The conscientious translator has to beg special permission to correct mistranslations in 100% matches and gets nothing in return, certainly not gratitude. These agencies don't want to know that their memories are flawed. Then they might have to put time into sorting them out. These days, quality management seems to be about finding the lowest possible standard they can get away with. And don't get me started on software glitches and online systems and tags and unprintable files and all the other time-wasting nonsense that goes with so many CAT jobs. For most agencies, CAT tools are just a carrot to pull the wool over end-customers' eyes and a stick with which to fleece their translators. How's that for mixed metaphors?
Insofar as the translator retains the productivity gains it's fine.
Otherwise, translators must bear the cost without retaining any
gain for themselves.
One big issue is also the pricing of fuzzy matches,
Let's take an example.
There are 2 segments which are almost identical, only 2% of the wordcount being different. These segments consist of 200 words. How much should a translator be paid for translating this new segment which is almost identical?2%, 5%, 10%? Is it some kind of local repair job, some kind of Charlie Chaplin blue collar job or does the translator have to read and understand the full segment and modify it accordingly?
[Modifié le 2018-07-31 13:30 GMT]
[Modifié le 2018-07-31 13:39 GMT]
[Modifié le 2018-07-31 14:02 GMT]
[Modifié le 2018-07-31 14:07 GMT]
[Modifié le 2018-07-31 14:20 GMT]
| | | | Dan Lucas
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:47
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
| It's still a client problem, not a CAT problem | Jul 31, 2018 |
Chris S wrote:
But most translators are not in my position. The agencies have the power.
I have seen how agencies use CAT tools. And for the most part it really is exploitative, Dan. It is bad for translators and bad for translation and bad for end-customers.
It's not that agencies have power, it's that freelancers cede them power.
I have never denied that the agencies you describe exist. I also agree, as you, and as somebody else said earlier, that CAT tools can be a stick to beat translators in the hands of such agencies. But what can I say? If you allow yourself to work with bad actors, you will be treated badly, CAT tools or no CAT tools.
Such agencies only exist because freelancers put up with them, and choose to work with them. CAT tools are simply one arrow (perhaps, er, "shaft" would be a more appropriate term in this case) in their freelancer-screwing quivers. Others include demanding absurdly low rates, claiming they can't pay because their client hasn't paid, delaying payment for months, and simply not paying at all.
(As a thought experiment, if we were to ban CAT tools, would there be less exploitation? It's an interesting question, but I suspect not. CAT tools do reduce overall costs per word, although hopefully the increase in productivity compensates freelancers for that. Banning CAT tools would therefore raise the overall cost per word, meaning more expensive translations, which would in turn dampen demand, resulting in lower supply i.e. fewer projects, meaning more competition among desperate freelancers, and giving agencies more power to exploit them. Or maybe the low-end clients simply dump human translation altogether and use MT. Neither look like appealing scenarios.)
I reiterate my position: it is not CAT tools that freelancers should be avoiding, but low-quality clients.
If you can't avoid low-quality clients, who exploit you, you need to change the way you approach work. If you change the way you work and still can't get the good clients who don't exploit you, the market is telling you something about your relative level of competence, and in such cases you should look for another profession. Harsh? Yes, but so is life as a freelancer working for bottom-feeder agencies. After all, if you convert the rates being advertised for some jobs to an hourly wage, it would make more economic sense for many freelancers to stack shelves in the supermarket.
Regards,
Dan
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Why don't I get work? | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
