| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | Working under rush condtions Thread poster: R. Alex Jenkins
|
|---|
Jeff Whittaker 
United States
Local time: 13:17
Member (2002)
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Working under rush conditions | Nov 20, 2014 |
As soon as I read that they got back to you with the "revision" the next morning, I suspected this is what happened.
Unfortunately, this happens all too often.
1) You spend hours researching terminology.
2) Editor returns the work in a few hours with no suggestions about terminology (were all of my choices correct?) (how did they read the source and target documents and check terminology and meaning so quickly?). The editor has just found several phrases that can... See more As soon as I read that they got back to you with the "revision" the next morning, I suspected this is what happened.
Unfortunately, this happens all too often.
1) You spend hours researching terminology.
2) Editor returns the work in a few hours with no suggestions about terminology (were all of my choices correct?) (how did they read the source and target documents and check terminology and meaning so quickly?). The editor has just found several phrases that can easily be changed with copy and replace for no apparent reason other than to create the false impression that the document was read ("in accordance with" to "according to", "on the basis of" to "based on", "many" to "a lot of" and so on and so forth) and PERHAPS an unfortunate typo or two, resulting in a document that is now full of track changes in demonstration that the editor did a lot of work, when in reality they probably spent less than ten minutes on it.
3) Project manager sees all the "red marks" and doesn't take the time to look deeper and see what is really going on.
4) Translator gets blamed or has to take the time to point out this fact to the PM by citing examples.
5) No value was added to the project and a lot of time was wasted that the translator could have spent working on the document.
This is why I rarely except rush work (in fact, I now require 48 hours for even the smallest job) because no leeway is ever granted for the lack of time and they still expect perfection.
R-i-c-h-a-r-d wrote:
My sentence:
"in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 14.3"
revised to:
"pursuant to Article 14.3".
Have I am been too wordy? Possibly. But is my translation wrong?
[Edited at 2014-11-20 20:44 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | even US Patent Office prefers Richard's "in accordance with the provisions"! | Nov 21, 2014 |
All right, everyone, since it seems like we're debating on the basis of mere opinions (me included), I decided to see what the best authority on patent language has to say on the matter: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. I searched its database of patents for the phrase Richard used, "in accordance with the provisions" (which the agency claimed was an "error") and the phrase that the agency asserts is the correct one, "pursuant." Here are the stats:
"in accordance ... See more All right, everyone, since it seems like we're debating on the basis of mere opinions (me included), I decided to see what the best authority on patent language has to say on the matter: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. I searched its database of patents for the phrase Richard used, "in accordance with the provisions" (which the agency claimed was an "error") and the phrase that the agency asserts is the correct one, "pursuant." Here are the stats:
"in accordance with the provision" (or "provisions"): 559,148 patents use this phrase
"pursuant": 103,484 patents use this one
"in accordance with the provision" (or "provisions") AND "pursuant": 18,980 patents use both
Conclusion: both phrasings are acceptable, with almost a 6:1 preference for "in accordance with the provisions"; since both phrases are used by a respectable proportion of the patents, sometimes even in the same patent, we can conclude that they are most likely matters of style or personal preference, not a matter of substance.
Encouraged by this finding, I thought it'd be fun to check out Richard's other phrase, "in this instance" (which the agency also considered "wrong"), and the agency's so-called correction, "in this case." The stats:
"in this instance": 984,079 patents use this phrase
"in this case": 3,016,978 patents use this one
"in this instance" AND "in this case": 698,980 patents use both phrases
Conclusion: both phrasings are acceptable, with roughly a 3:1 preference for "in this case"; since both phrases are used by a respectable proportion of the patents, sometimes even in the same patent, we can yet again conclude that they are most likely matters of style or personal preference, not a matter of substance.
While I make no claims that this quick overview is scientific, it's a step in the direction of resolving this problem. If my deductions are reasonable, then the agency has no factual grounds whatsoever for accusing Richard of making "atrocious" errors in these cases. From the tenor of Richard's posts, I have no reason to believe that he is lying about the rest of the text or somehow covering up errors of substance. My assessment, therefore, is this: the agency must pay Richard in full, as contractually agreed, and it should furthermore issue him an apology for the outrageous way it treated a quality translator. An extra payment would be honorable as well, to compensate Richard for all the time he's had to waste dealing with its unfounded and trumped-up accusations -- but I doubt this agency has the class for that.
If, on the other hand, the agency wants to stick to its guns and continue to be oafish, then it should file a complaint with the US government that the Patent and Trademark Office needs to review 1,543,227 patents because they contain "atrocious" errors of language that the patent owners never should have had to pay their lawyers for...
Catherine
[Edited at 2014-11-21 18:20 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Part of the package | Nov 21, 2014 |
Jeff Whittaker wrote:
2) Editor returns the work in a few hours with no suggestions about terminology (were all of my choices correct?) (how did they read the source and target documents and check terminology and meaning so quickly?).
I am no expert on patents, but as far as the writing style goes, this happens time to time, indeed. Picking on things like: "violate rules" in English is not the same as "infringir las normas" in Spanish. It should have been "violar" or "incumplir", etc.
Another similar "picking" is blaming the translator for being too "verbose". I personally prefer “la información que haya sido objeto de intercambio” than, say, “información intercambiada”. I too prefer "in accordance with" than "pursuant to" (which is Spanish would be "de conformidad con", as opposed to "según").
Whats's wrong about rendering an elegant text that sounds natural in the target language and yet is precise in terminology and meaning? Isn't this the goal?
Most of my customers like my writing style in Spanish, but occasionally I get "stung" by a "senior editor" who suddenly empties their Kalashnikov, with 7.62 mm rounds, at my translation. Waite a minute, how come that 95% of one particular translator's work is regarded as "excellent" and the remainder of the 5% is "atrocious" and "unnecessarily verbose"?
I guess this is "part of the package". If you are an established translator, with solid customer base, an occasional "picking" should have no effect on your work whatsoever. Now, if you "let slip" too many typos, created inconsistency in terminology (happens under unrealistic deadlines) or conveyed different meaning (extreme case), be honest with yourself, take a note and move on.
I am being subjective here and perhaps I should have more "open mind", but succeeding in a patent translation, for the first time and under tight deadline would indeed be utterly exceptional. Correct me if I am wrong, but that would mean that any good translator might in fact venture into any subject matter field, which sounds very unlikely. If I take on a medical translation project, no matter if I have 10 days for a 1k words text, I know I will not be able to produce anything even close to a decent work.
| | | | Jeff Whittaker
United States
Local time: 13:17
Member (2002)
Spanish to English
+ ...
| I don't think that this is a case about | Nov 21, 2014 |
actual usage vs. non usage in patents. I don't think that much thought or time was put into it. I think this is more about - oh my god the text is full of red tracked changes - bad translator!
[Edited at 2014-11-21 13:44 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| indeed, red ink was likely the trigger... in a toxic workplace | Nov 21, 2014 |
Jeff -- I heartily concur with your read on the situation. Just the mere sight of a lot of red ink (how much is "a lot"? I wonder), without so much as a skim reading of *what* that red ink was about or whether it was warranted, probably triggered this PM's response. When I was a heavy-handed reviser of my students' term papers, they'd go ballistic just glancing at the visual appearance of their papers when I handed them back. I learned I had to explain ahead of time to expect a lot of red ink... See more Jeff -- I heartily concur with your read on the situation. Just the mere sight of a lot of red ink (how much is "a lot"? I wonder), without so much as a skim reading of *what* that red ink was about or whether it was warranted, probably triggered this PM's response. When I was a heavy-handed reviser of my students' term papers, they'd go ballistic just glancing at the visual appearance of their papers when I handed them back. I learned I had to explain ahead of time to expect a lot of red ink, that I was teaching them through example how to revise their own papers, and that it meant I respected their work enough to improve it. But they were students, not business partners, and the purpose and scale of revisions requested in a classroom setting are utterly different than those appropriate to the workflow used by a translation agency. In the latter, revisions are, at a minimum, intended to reduce the agency's risk exposure, and, ideally, supposed to be a value-added feature for end clients that improves the quality of the product delivered. The revisions imposed on Richard's text fulfilled neither purpose.
The explosion directed at Richard did not take place in a vacuum. I suspect that there was a pre-existing context for the PM's knee-jerk reaction: a workplace culture where nitpicking and bullying are accepted, if not widespread. Take a look at employee reviews of the big translation agencies at Glassdoor.com and you'll read innumerable descriptions of the toxic conditions inside some of these agencies (they'll make you appreciate the good agencies even more).
Richard said he's done many translations for this agency in the past that were always accompanied by very tight deadlines. Can you imagine what it must be like inside the agency working day in and day out with the high stress that comes with always dealing with insufficient deadlines? Where PMs have to constantly make unrealistic promises to end clients ("immediate turnaround at the lowest price with the highest quality in any language!"), badger translators who can't meet the deadlines, come up with ways to mollify impatient clients, and deal with inexperienced revisers? On top of all that, these PMs are probably given way too many projects to manage and have to stay OT to just keep up with them. I bet everyone there is over-stressed and taking it out on anybody below them or outside the agency. I personally know some PMs who are jumping ship from this sort of poisonous agency faster than rats from a burning barge.
The language used by Richard's PM is the kind of abuse typical of such toxic environments: PMs at agencies with good workplace conditions don't blow up like this. At the dysfunctional agencies, bullying, criticism over picayune details, abusive interaction, and ridicule become rife. The blame for this kind of work environment lies with the owners/executives of the company, who are the ones responsible for establishing a workplace culture. More and more LSPs are run by business school grads who have no idea what translation involves, but see the industry merely as a place to make a bunch of money by exploiting lower-level employees and independent contractors. In the midst of this kind of environment, Richard's text became a lightning rod for some abused employees who turned around and abused the outsider freelance translator.
Is this speculation? Absolutely. But are these conditions unheard-of in big agencies? Absolutely not. Check out the reviews at Glassdoor.com and see for yourself. They are eye-opening revelations of what goes on in some corners of our industry -- thankfully, not all.
[Edited at 2014-11-21 20:51 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | The overall picture | Nov 22, 2014 |
My impressions are probably similar to Catherine's. The company always sends you work which must be done last minute, and this last time they applied those kinds of standards to a patent, of all things. Translation companies compete on different bases - quality, or being cheap, or fast and cheap, or fast. This one seems to be pushing the "fast" part. They can promise the end client that they can deliver the work faster than other companies, but it's the translator who actually has to do the ... See more My impressions are probably similar to Catherine's. The company always sends you work which must be done last minute, and this last time they applied those kinds of standards to a patent, of all things. Translation companies compete on different bases - quality, or being cheap, or fast and cheap, or fast. This one seems to be pushing the "fast" part. They can promise the end client that they can deliver the work faster than other companies, but it's the translator who actually has to do the work. A fair number of entities do that. Imho, it's an unprofessional attitude, since quality is at risk when the needed time cannot be taken. The rest of it goes like what Catherine wrote - the toxic environment because of the rushed PM and the rest.
I have done a few patent translations and basically stopped doing them because to do them properly is time consuming. Back then I conversed with a few engineers and physicists who specialized in patents. It took them less time since this was their field, and their background made them well-suited to this kind of work. So why is an agency asking a translator who does not have that background to do that kind of work, and on top of it, to do it on a rush basis? It suggests that they don't know what they are doing. Therefore, how solid is the review process, and their understanding of any review they get? Is it, as has been suggested, a question of "seeing all the red among the black"?
Not paying a translator is out of the question, unless you have a policy of waiving your fees. What I would find acceptable is that if someone else gets paid to fix genuine mistakes, that this amount be deducted, or per some mutual arrangement. Customers don't get to choose how much of an invoice they will pay. Can you do that at your grocery store, or when billed by your dentist or accountant?
That said, as translator you should not have accepted those conditions, and it is up to you as a professional to determine what you can handle, and how much time it will take. I wish that translators in general would take the stance of determining their time frame, rather than having it dictated. I'm curious how many of our colleagues here do that. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | some of us do our homework before taking sides | Nov 22, 2014 |
I'd like to address the comment by someone posting as "polyglot45" (whoever that is), who said the following in an earlier post:
... one of the things that irritates me profoundly on forums such as this is the way that, as soon as a translator complains about how he or she has been treated by a client (direct/indirect), the whole community seems to want to weigh in immediately to defend the translator.
I am not saying it is Richard's case but, believe it or ... See more I'd like to address the comment by someone posting as "polyglot45" (whoever that is), who said the following in an earlier post:
... one of the things that irritates me profoundly on forums such as this is the way that, as soon as a translator complains about how he or she has been treated by a client (direct/indirect), the whole community seems to want to weigh in immediately to defend the translator.
I am not saying it is Richard's case but, believe it or not guys, not all so-called translators are good at their job, some bite off things they cannot chew, others are just a lost cause from Day 1.
We will lose credibility if we assume the translator is always right!
As Phil Hand perceptively observed, these forums serve as our virtual "watercooler" where we can gather to discuss our personal reactions to things that happen to us in our day-to-day translating business. I value the solidarity that sometimes shows up in these discussions, as well as the healthy debates and respectful disagreements. I should also point out that sometimes a streak of competitiveness and one-ups-manship can appear, unfortunately, but that's not surprising. Your assertion that the moment a translator complains about a client, "the whole community seems to want to weigh in immediately to defend the translator" is factually untrue, as any perusal of these discussion threads can attest.
I for one was certainly not blindly supporting Richard merely because he's another translator -- far from it! Unlike you, polyglot45, Richard has a rich and fully developed Proz.com profile, which I consulted before writing my posts and taking a stance. Not only does he provide ample information about his specialties, his extensive experience, and even a pleasant glimpse at who he is as a person behind the translation professional, but he also published several samples of his work, providing both the source and the target texts. Since, like Richard, I translate from Portuguese to English and have lots of editing experience, I am in a pretty good position to evaluate the quality of his translations. Others who may not be fluent in Portuguese can at least read and evaluate the quality of his English versions.
On the basis of those sample translations and other information he provided, my assessment was that Richard is a superb PT>EN translator, better than most, even in highly technical fields. Indeed, his technical translating experience suggests that it may not have been a huge leap to try his hand at a patent translation. From what I read before he removed the excerpt, it looked like a good translation (with the proviso that I am not a patent translator).
Given this background information, I decided to lend my support to Richard. My support was further bolstered by the contrast between the measured tenor of his posts and the explosive, unprofessional language of the PM. I do not randomly "assume the translator is always right," and I've seen that many other translators participating in these forum discussions don't either.
All we know about you from your profile is that you are an editor/proofreader. Perhaps you identified with the proofreader in the agency that Richard dealt with (a proofreader who made all sorts of unwarranted changes, as we saw). Maybe that is why you assumed we translators blindly weigh in to defend fellow translators. Please give us more credit as professionals than that.
[Edited at 2014-11-23 16:00 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Erik Freitag
Germany
Local time: 19:17
Member (2006)
Dutch to German
+ ...
| Patent translation is not just a particularly complicated technical translation | Nov 22, 2014 |
Catherine V. Howard wrote:
On the basis of those sample translations and other information he provided, my assessment was that Richard is a superb PT>EN translator, better than most, even in highly technical fields. Indeed, his technical translating experience suggests that it may not have been a huge leap to try his hand at a patent translation. From what I read before he removed the excerpt, it looked like a damn good translation (with the proviso that I am not a patent translator).
Many translators who don't work in this field seem to think of patent translation as some kind of particularly complicated technical translation. While this in many cases is indeed true, it is only part of the story. In patent translation, many of the principles and methods excellent translators are used to apply are absolute no-goes. Producing a well-readable text, for example, is not a priority in patent translation. In fact, this will often be counterproductive. Changing sentence structure or punctuation, using synonyms etc. are something an experienced patent translator may now and then do if he knows all the ins and outs, but usually, it is not a good idea.
That's why I expressed doubts about the quality of Richards translation - it may be written in flawless English, and it may convey the technical content absolutely correctly, but it still may be completely useless in a patent context. The chances to adhere to the peculiar conventions of patent translation just by applying common sense, by skills acquired in general technical translation, or even by research (given the short deadline) are nil. In other words: There is no way to make assumptions about the quality of the translation (i.e. its usability or economical viability in a patent context) from the sample translations Richard provides. This doesn't mean he can't be an excellent translator, (though, of course, neither does it mean he can't be the exception that confirms the rule).
[Bearbeitet am 2014-11-22 18:29 GMT]
[Bearbeitet am 2014-11-22 18:30 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| | | Incompetence rather than malevolence? | Nov 23, 2014 |
@polyglot45: I can't disagree with you when you say too many translators commit the sin of biting off more than they can chew, even competent people of course, thus leading to somewhat substandard quality, which they sometimes find hard to recognize/admit. But it doesn't seem to be what happpened in this particular case as Richie said he delivered amply before the deadline with a sense of accomplishment. I, for one, just thought it was not fair to say translators exchanging online are dishonest ... See more @polyglot45: I can't disagree with you when you say too many translators commit the sin of biting off more than they can chew, even competent people of course, thus leading to somewhat substandard quality, which they sometimes find hard to recognize/admit. But it doesn't seem to be what happpened in this particular case as Richie said he delivered amply before the deadline with a sense of accomplishment. I, for one, just thought it was not fair to say translators exchanging online are dishonest corporatists who invariably side with fellow translators, against agencies...
@Catherine: (last post above): I followed more or less the same path as you to make up my mind and give my credit to Richie, i.e. cross-checked all pieces of information available.
@Erik: I fully concur with what you say regarding patent translation! It's actually what I meant when I said that:
(The only situation I know of where a retranslation is needed while the style is good, is when it's been so unrestrictedly embellished that eventually the translation has become too approximate and misses the original point, but I'm sure you know that).
I didn't dare to say it the first time because I'm not cognizant of this field, but I thought that contributers to this thread were greatly overstating the difficulty of patent translation...
--
Finally, I wish to add that in those cases, i.e. dubious/illegitimate complaints with abusive/authoritarian behavior by the agency, it's more often than not a case of incompetence, rather than malevolence. What prompted me to suggest it could be a rogue agency are the quick threats of non-payment with no evidence...
Speaking of incompetence, a fresh article on the topic...
http://www.translationtribulations.com/2014/11/put-on-red-light-at-thebigword.html
(suffice to look at the screenshots.... and I'm sure the said company is not an exception, and that many a translator has had to deal with PMs who were obviously helpless because alien to the concepts of translation or the practices of this industry... )
[Edited at 2014-11-23 00:41 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | 564354352 (X)
Denmark
Local time: 19:17
Danish to English
+ ...
| Always a risk | Nov 23, 2014 |
Rush jobs will always be stress factors, I think, and to be given careful consideration.
Personally, I would never accept a rush job in a new field. I know my strengths and I know my weaknesses. Legal language is my absolute weakness. Anything that comes near legal language brings up a RED ALERT sign in my mind, not because I cannot translate the WORDS, but because I cannot replicate the STYLE. And besides, I find it utterly boring and stuffy and am not sufficiently interested to bo... See more Rush jobs will always be stress factors, I think, and to be given careful consideration.
Personally, I would never accept a rush job in a new field. I know my strengths and I know my weaknesses. Legal language is my absolute weakness. Anything that comes near legal language brings up a RED ALERT sign in my mind, not because I cannot translate the WORDS, but because I cannot replicate the STYLE. And besides, I find it utterly boring and stuffy and am not sufficiently interested to bother to research it properly, regardless of the topic.
That's just little old me. I wouldn't DREAM of taking on a patent translation, despite the fact that I have a background as a full-time technical translator, because it is not a question of researching content and terminology, but a question of meeting the requirements of the weird world of patents and its peculiar language.
To the OP, I would say, as others have said: It makes no scrap of difference whatsoever that you have put in a brave and concentrated effort, if you have not managed to deliver what the client wanted. It does not matter that you may have got every single word in the translation right, if the intended recipients will be puzzled as to what kind of document they are presented with, sort of, "Huh? What's this then? Doesn't look as it's supposed to. What am I supposed to do with this?"
So, yes, you put in 12 hours of hard graft, but in the end, did you send the client a plum crumble when what he asked for was an apple pie?
If you have delivered a wrong product, then you have no right to claim payment for it, regardless of the blood, sweat and tears that went into it.
We live and learn...
[Edited at 2014-11-23 09:06 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | reviser was incompetent, not translator | Nov 23, 2014 |
Gitte -- I believe it's already been demonstrated that the reviser was the incompetent one, not Richard. A review of earlier posts demonstrates that clearly.
Look, the purpose of Richard's post was to communicate his honest feelings about an experience of being rudely treated by an agency that refused to pay for his work based on the work of an incompetent reviser. He described the sense of being betrayed by an agency that has long profited from his translations. All we have to d... See more Gitte -- I believe it's already been demonstrated that the reviser was the incompetent one, not Richard. A review of earlier posts demonstrates that clearly.
Look, the purpose of Richard's post was to communicate his honest feelings about an experience of being rudely treated by an agency that refused to pay for his work based on the work of an incompetent reviser. He described the sense of being betrayed by an agency that has long profited from his translations. All we have to do is put ourselves in his shoes and imagine going through the same experience. If you delivered a quality product but received that response, wouldn't you be stunned as well? Wouldn't it be helpful to express those feelings and share that story with other translators? Who else is going to understand the sense of shock?
If we can't feel safe in these discussion forums expressing our emotions -- which I dare say many of us go through but few describe as eloquently as Richard -- then I am disappointed with what happened to the sense of community that used to prevail in Proz.com forums. We can certainly point out aspects of the situation he confronted that he may not have considered before, but we shouldn't be kicking someone who was already bruised at the hands of an abusive PM.
[Edited at 2014-11-23 20:23 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
564354352 (X)
Denmark
Local time: 19:17
Danish to English
+ ...
| Just responding to the question... | Nov 23, 2014 |
Catherine, what use would it be to Richard if we all rallied around him and said the same thing, especially if we didn't all agree? That would be completely fake and unhelpful. This forum, as I understand it, is not intended to be one big pat on the back for translators and a constant nagging about agencies. It is an open forum where we are alle entitled to express our views in response to questions raised.
I had no intention of making Richard feel even worse, but nor can I just si... See more Catherine, what use would it be to Richard if we all rallied around him and said the same thing, especially if we didn't all agree? That would be completely fake and unhelpful. This forum, as I understand it, is not intended to be one big pat on the back for translators and a constant nagging about agencies. It is an open forum where we are alle entitled to express our views in response to questions raised.
I had no intention of making Richard feel even worse, but nor can I just sit back and pretend that taking on a rush job outside one's specialist fields (other patent specialists have already stated that the writing style for patents is completely peculiar), however clever one is, is admirable simply because the translator worked hard. It is not...
To Richard: If I have in any way offended you, I sincerely apologise, that was never my intention. I just aired my views as another professional translator, which just happened to differ from, say, Catherine's... ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Agree with Gitte | Nov 23, 2014 |
It's quite a few days I follow this discussion and entirely agree with what Gitte wrote.
| | | | Natasha Ziada (X)
Australia
Local time: 03:17
English to Dutch
+ ...
| One side of the story | Nov 24, 2014 |
First of all, we've only heard Richard's side of the story and while I have no reason whatsoever to doubt him, we simply do not know the exact circumstances behind the agency's reasoning - no matter how much 'research' we put in. All we can do is offer our opinions and these might be different for everyone - which is exactly what happens around a real watercooler.
While we may feel bad for Richard for finding himself in this situation, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to offer... See more First of all, we've only heard Richard's side of the story and while I have no reason whatsoever to doubt him, we simply do not know the exact circumstances behind the agency's reasoning - no matter how much 'research' we put in. All we can do is offer our opinions and these might be different for everyone - which is exactly what happens around a real watercooler.
While we may feel bad for Richard for finding himself in this situation, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to offer different views that might be helpful should he (or anyone else) find themselves in a similar situation. Mollycoddling is not going to help anyone develop useful skills in dealing with rude business partners.
I don't know about Richard but I personally wouldn't feel in any way unsafe or bruised by what has been said in this thread so far, quite respectfully I would say. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Working under rush condtions | 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 » |
| | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
