Talk:Postediting

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Translation studies This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Translation Studies, a collaborative effort to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Translation Studies. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.Translation studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Translation studiesTemplate:WikiProject Translation studiesTranslation studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Post-editing (hyphenated) is used most often and was my first choice. Then I noticed TAUS (which is somehow an authoritative source) hyphenated it in its 2008 report, but didn’t in its 2010 one. The guideline I’ve applied is: the most widespread a compound is, the least likely to be hyphenated (before it was e-mail, now it’s email). Since the expectation behind the entry, and the reason behind making the entry, is that postediting is becoming just another way of translating, and since the word is likely to be more used in the future that has been in the past, it made sense to me to write it as one word. I left pre-editing hyphenated, though. If someone feel strongly about hyphenating it, that would be fine with me too.Garcia-fm (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The hyphenated version is used in the official ISO specifications. In my opinion, we should go with “post-editing”.

I agree. I've changed it throughout the text, but I don't know how to change it in the actual title. Garcia-fm —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

This article just considers the point of view of those promoting the use of machine translation and post-editing, namely promoting TAUS. Other organizations like "International Association of Professional Translators and Interpreters" (IAPTI, http://www.aipti.org) have published articles against the use of post-editing, but these views are not considered here.

I've added a sentence on this in the final section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garcia-fm (talk • contribs) 05:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

"At the top end of full post-editing there is the expectation of a level of quality which is indistinguishable from that of human translation. The assumption, however, has been that it takes less effort for translators to work directly from the source text than to post-edit the machine generated version. With advances in machine translation, this may be changing."

This assumption is indeed just an assumption. Anecdotal evidence from myself and 4 other translators I work with in a daily basis: translating a video game (relatively simple User Interface) takes me 70% MORE time when Post-editing than normal translating using Translation Memories (not "from scratch"). The comparison between "From scratch" and "post-editing MT" is arbitrary and unrealistic: a vast majority of translators use CAT tools and translation memories which enhance speed AND quality (due to terminological and stylistic consistency). For the time being, post-editing might help a very slow (non professional) translator or a translation student increase their speed, but that's because the quality of their work is so low that they benefit from seeing suggestions, even if they are mostly inaccurate or not optimal. A professional translator with full familiarity with the project matter gets muddled and cognitively distracted by unnatural and/or inaccurate translations and removing them costs more effort than simply tapping on Autocomplete Termbases/glossaries and TM fuzzy matches. 94.66.223.252 (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

The following book might be relevant for this article: Problem solving activities in post-editing and translation from scratch: A multi-method study by Jean Nitzke http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/196 Jasy jatere (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

This section is full of weasel words. Suggest removal or else editing to conform to Wikipedia's standards. ~2026-21345-96 (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply