| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | Should “native language” claims be verified? Thread poster: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 09:49
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Exceptions? I wonder if even a quarter of them are exceptions... | Jul 6, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
If you insist on concentrating on exceptions we will never get anywhere.
It seems that you believe that most multi-native translators are "exceptions", so your statement basically means "we will never get anywhere until it is acknowledged that multi-native translators are exceptions".
Several people in this thread and elsewhere have offered numbers calculated in various ways in an attempt to shed some light on that question, but you seem satisfied with simply saying "I can't believe that there would be that many, therefore there can't be that many".
How many of these “multi-native” translators do you think there actually are on ProZ? I might be mistaken as there have now been a number of contributors to this thread but I do not recall a single one who is genuinely “multi-native”, in the languages I can judge.
I don't think we should base our calculation (on the likely number or percentage of multi-native translators) on the people who contributed here. Firstly, because the sample is way too small. Secondly, because we can't repeat the calculation with other data to see if we get similar results.
Instead, let's do some number gynmastics with sources of random candidates:
http://tinyurl.com/6n23uhd (most claim to be English/Portuguese multi-native)
http://tinyurl.com/825e2q5 (most claim to be English/French multi-native)
http://tinyurl.com/7ly629g (most claim to be English/Spanish multi-native)
Many of these translators have sample translations on their profiles, or have "About me" sections written by themselves, or have résumés that contain language written by themselves. Some of them have web sites written mostly by themselves. So here you have an awful lot of sources for potential data to show what percentage of those who claim to be multi-native are in fact not.
But I suspect that you would not be willing to examine these lists and search for evidence, since you already believe what you believe, namely that most of these translators are not truthful about their native status. And if you do examine the data but find too little evidence, no doubt you'll be unfased since "lack of evidence that they misrepresent themselves does not mean that they are not misrepresenting themselves", right?
I apologise for my tone (if indeed there is a tone). But if it is true that non-native errors jump out from the text so that they are visible from a hundred yards, then it should not take you long to find such errors and identify such translators... if they exist in the abundance that you believe.
Unfortunately my language combination is rather small, and English is not my native language, so it would be very difficult for me to do a sufficiently comprehensive trial myself.
Samuel
[Edited to remove "liar" and "fraudster".]
[Edited at 2012-07-06 11:57 GMT]
| | | | | Misunderstanding | Jul 6, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
One of the most recent suggestions is that “unconfirmed languages” (black and grey N icons) be excluded from directory searches and filtering criteria on jobs. ... This change might encourage a few to reconsider their position and select one native language, which would then be displayed as “confirmed”. ... I believe we urgently need an interim solution.
I don´t know if someone suggested that before me, but I definitely suggested that several pages ago, that´s why I want to try to clear this misunderstanding with Samuel.
Samuel Murray wrote:
Let me see if I understand that problem correctly:
You believe that translators with multiple native languages have an unfair advantage over those with only one native language, because they are matched in more searches, which means they get more jobs.
I will speak for myself although I believe that Lisa thinks pretty much the same as me. The answer is no. I don´t believe that translators with multiple native languages have an unfair advantage over those with only one native language. If they really have 2 native languages then their advantage is fair and deserved. The problem is that there are many translators claiming to be native speakers of a language when in fact they are not. And to take advantage over translators with only 1 native language by lying is not professional at all.
Samuel Murray wrote:You don't think it is unfair that translators who don't have that native language are excluded from directory searches even if they are perfectly capable of doing the job.
Again the answer is no. I absolutely don´t think that it is unfair to exclude translators who don't have that native language from the directory search and the possibility to quote for jobs that require a real native translator because that´s what the client is looking for. At that point it is not important whether they think to be able to perform that job or not, first of all it is the clients' decision. But, apart from that, how many translators are there (or *here*) that are convinced to be as good as native speakers and it turns out that they really are not? Should we let them continue to claim to have a native language that they actually don´t have? Should we let them continue to take advantage of others that way? What is more unfair, to exclude liers from the directory search/quoting, or to knowingly disrespect and ignore clients' requirements??
*Edited to add the following:
The language pair issue is not an issue for me. I don´t mind if German native speakers offer translations from German to Spanish the same as me. But if the client wants a Spanish native speaker, than that´s what he should get from the directory. Just for your information, so far I have not had any problems with that, but I am also discussing this issue with you all because it is a matter of principles and I think that bogus native language claimers (no matter which language) are damaging the credibility of Proz and, in addition, of all of us that use Proz for business, fair business.
If there were no native speakers for that language pair and direction, the client could then decide on his own if he wants to extend the search for that language pair to also find non-native speakers. Where is there the problem?
[Edited at 2012-07-06 12:26 GMT]
| | | | | Why the obsession with counting the liars? | Jul 6, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
I apologise for my tone (if indeed there is a tone).
Oh, there is (and you know there is), but it's not directed at me, so meh.
But if it is true that non-native errors jump out from the text so that they are visible from a hundred yards, then it should not take you long to find such errors and identify such translators... if they exist in the abundance that you believe.
Why do we need to demonstrate an absolute or relative threshold to satisfy you? One person lying about native ability is one too many.
Perception is the only truth when it comes to reputation, and you may remember that the piss-poor reputation of the honesty of profiles on this website is (part of) the reason some of us would like to clean it up. I don't give a toss if you can demonstrate there are 10 or 10,000, 0.75% or 75%, of profiles with untrue "N" claims. I do know that if we can remove as many of them as possible, the atrocious reputation "enjoyed" by proz might slowly start to rise from the stinking mire it is currently in, and that both of us, and every other poor sap in this thread, might benefit from that. Why are you perpetually putting pointless obstacles in the way of that process?
[Edited at 2012-07-06 12:45 GMT]
| | | | | This is absurd | Jul 6, 2012 |
Nani Delgado wrote:
If there were no native speakers for that language pair and direction, the client could then decide on his own if he wants to extend the search for that language pair to also find non-native speakers. Where is there the problem?
[Edited at 2012-07-06 12:26 GMT]
Yeah, adding an extra burden to outsourcers/clients who quite often find it complicated to search the directory is just what Proz needs for more professionalism...
(Besides: why subject true bilinguals to being excluded unfairly from the first round of searches just to satisfy the demands of one-language native speakers who are upset? Is there an academy or an entity with real authority to confirm that indeed one cannot have two native languages read, spoken, and written at the same high quality level?)
Edited to add: sorry if I misquoted you, Nani. I was speaking about the scenario where the first round of searches would only include translators with one native language only.
Why not add "these native claims have not been verified" next to the translators who claim more than one native language (instead of just marking those languages with a grey N), in the search results? It's up to the client to choose someone who claims unverified native languages or someone with one native language which counts as verified automatically. Of course, translators with one native language should NOT be listed first, that would be unfair to the true bilinguals.
This discussion is leading nowhether (other than to establishing a ProZ police...). You cannot filter out liars without actually injuring the non-liars.
[Edited at 2012-07-06 13:12 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 09:49
Italian to English
| misunderstanding, indeed | Jul 6, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
2. You don't want people with multiple native languages to benefit from both native languages
That is not what this thread is about. This thread is about dealing with the fact that a disturbing proportion of proz.com users falsely claim native language status in two or more languages.
These claims are clearly false based on such users' lack of command of, for example, English (which I use as an example as I can only really judge English, it being my own native language, but also because it is the language most often claimed as native by non-natives).
This lack of command is demonstrated in the users' forum posts, profile pages, CVs, etc. No need to go hunting for it, the false claims that are the subject of this thread are plain for all to see. The cases this thread is about are the blatently false ones.
This thread is not about proz.com users who really do have two or more native languages.
Nor is it about people who produce professional translations into non-native languages.
This thread is about exploring ways of handling the problem of blatently false claims of more than one native language and, I would add, doing so without penalizing people who have legitimate claims to more than one native language.
(I should add, it is has also been repeatedly said throughout this thread that the point is not to prevent people from applying for jobs to translate into a non-native language, provided that the client has not specified otherwise.)
| | | | | One or more, unfortunately | Jul 6, 2012 |
Sarah Elizabeth Cree wrote:
That is not what this thread is about. This thread is about dealing with the fact that a disturbing proportion of proz.com users falsely claim native language status in two or more languages.
Sadly it's about the the fact that a disturbing proportion of proz.com users falsely claim native language status in one or more languages.
There are some who have no qualms about eliminating their native language altogether and in its place claim their favourite source language as their native language.
This includes all sorts of members, paying, non-paying, badged and non-badged. It's simple enough to do, as we see every day.
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 09:49
French to English
| Input from an upset one-language native speaker | Jul 6, 2012 |
Annamaria Amik wrote: Nani Delgado wrote:
If there were no native speakers for that language pair and direction, the client could then decide on his own if he wants to extend the search for that language pair to also find non-native speakers. Where is there the problem?
[Edited at 2012-07-06 12:26 GMT] Yeah, adding an extra burden to outsourcers/clients who quite often find it complicated to search the directory is just what Proz needs for more professionalism... (Besides: why subject true bilinguals to being excluded unfairly from the first round of searches just to satisfy the demands of one-language native speakers who are upset? Is there an academy or an entity with real authority to confirm that indeed one cannot have two native languages read, spoken, and written at the same high quality level?) Edited to add: sorry if I misquoted you, Nani. I was speaking about the scenario where the first round of searches would only include translators with one native language only. Why not add "these native claims have not been verified" next to the translators who claim more than one native language (instead of just marking those languages with a grey N), in the search results? It's up to the client to choose someone who claims unverified native languages or someone with one native language which counts as verified automatically. Of course, translators with one native language should NOT be listed first, that would be unfair to the true bilinguals. This discussion is leading nowhether (other than to establishing a ProZ police...). You cannot filter out liars without actually injuring the non-liars. [Edited at 2012-07-06 13:12 GMT]
Well yes, just like you cannot filter out the terrorists from the tourists at the airport without making flying a total hassle for senior citizens off to enjoy a week in the Algarve.
We put up with taking our shoes off at the airport, why can true native speakers not put up with proving themselves?
A WYSIWYG approach is indeed the only way the website can claim to be professional.
I would like to add that I was considering taking out membership to Proz and as this thread progresses, I am increasingly thinking that I might as well not. I only have one language pair and only one native language, even if I can write much better than the vast majority of French people. I work in fields where the creative use of language is essential (fashion, arts, architecture...) and the ability to produce a turn of phrase that sounds fresh and original without sounding plain weird definitely hinges on an instinctive feel for language. Which to my mind needs a highly competent native speaking translator. So if there is no way for me to stand out from the crowd without acquiring hundreds of Kudoz (where I fear to tread, perhaps because I have spent too much time reading gripes about them here, but also because I need time to feel my way into context and find it hard to find a suitable term just out of the blue), I don't see much point staying around.
| | | | S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 09:49
Italian to English
| @ writeaway: point taken ... | Jul 6, 2012 |
although from a pragmatic perspective I wonder if it would be possible to verify every native language claim, even in cases where it is the only one declared? I confess to not remembering whether a feasible solution has been suggestion for said problem. I suppose all native language claims could be subject to verification, single ones included, in the meantime having 'unverified' (grey) status. 'Unverified until determined otherwise'.
| | |
|
|
|
DavidMTucker (X)
United States
Local time: 00:49
Spanish to English
| Is there actually any numbers, or is this just... | Jul 6, 2012 |
Just curious, but are there actually any numbers to substantiate the claims that members are falsely claiming native languages? I would say that given probability statistics there are false claims simply due to the number of members within Proz. This would be true in almost any open enrollment organization of this type, and even in some closed enrollment organizations. Falsehoods do happen in almost all professions. Is it right? Of course not, and eventually the ones claiming such falsehoods do ... See more Just curious, but are there actually any numbers to substantiate the claims that members are falsely claiming native languages? I would say that given probability statistics there are false claims simply due to the number of members within Proz. This would be true in almost any open enrollment organization of this type, and even in some closed enrollment organizations. Falsehoods do happen in almost all professions. Is it right? Of course not, and eventually the ones claiming such falsehoods do get caught.
I can certainly understand and see the need to prevent, as is reasonably possible, the ability for anyone to make false claims as to their professional qualifications, be it native language, experience, or anything else for that matter. There, however, is the question of reasonableness? If we don't know how many are making the purported false claims, and are only taking a guess that there are many, that is not a reasonable argument to change the current system. Are we talking 1% of all members or 80%? Do we know, or have any idea?
There have been some good ideas that has come out of this thread, and many could be implemented fairly easily. And, I can see the want to implement something (anything?) immediately, but do not agree with this way of thinking. The long-term consequences (good and bad) of any change should be more important than a temporary quick fix.
Overall, just in reading this thread, it appears that some believe there are false claims being made and this is causing an unfair advantage. I agree that this indeed may be the case, however, unless there are numbers to back up such claims, it is nothing more than jumping up and down screaming --Not fair! Not fair!
Further, I have read where no one (including me) wants a site such as this to turn into a policing site where people are turning on their colleagues. On that note, if someone knows or suspects that a colleague has made a false claim and doesn't report it, why would they then have the right to complain about it? I don't see the logic in that. If you found out your doctor really didn't have a medical degree, would you also remain silent? I seriously doubt it. So... speaking up might be the easiest and most effective way to eliminate false claims.
Best Regards,
David Martin Tucker (Spanish Interpreter)
...edited to remove website/contact information from signature line.
Note: My apologies to all that my signature line included my website/contact information. Standard habit. Good though that someone reported it, and now that it has been brought to my attention that I shouldn't be doing it, I have corrected it. Couldn't the same be done whenever something is being done (such as indicating a native language incorrectly)?
[Edited at 2012-07-06 17:01 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:49
Hebrew to English
| Outsourcers aren't that dumb | Jul 6, 2012 |
Annamaria Amik wrote:
Yeah, adding an extra burden to outsourcers/clients who quite often find it complicated to search the directory is just what Proz needs for more professionalism...
I think there's a lot of underestimating of outsourcers going on in this thread. I just don't accept that there are such fragile and clueless outsourcers running around. I concede that they aren't always linguistics graduates, but they usually have a general idea of the issues involved in working with languages. "Complicated to search the directory?" C'mon, it's not that hard. You select your criteria and you don't even have to press enter, it does it automatically. Not sure it could be easier.
To keep banging on that the outsourcers don't know this, or the outsourcers wouldn't understand how to do that is just insulting to outsourcers in my opinion.
Let's give them some credit.
You cannot filter out liars without actually injuring the non-liars
Not true. This is scaremongering to prevent any action at all.
If you've got nothing to hide, the you have nothing to fear.
[Edited at 2012-07-06 15:00 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 09:49
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Nani and @Sarah, and another suggestion for Lisa | Jul 6, 2012 |
Nani Delgado wrote:
Should we let them continue to claim to have a native language that they actually don´t have? Should we let them continue to take advantage of others that way? What is more unfair, to exclude liars from the directory search/quoting, or to...
Lisa's most recent suggestion (to which I was responding) is that all translators with grey icons will be excluded from searches for native languages that have grey icons. Is this correct?
Right now there are practically no claimed multi-native translators with any yellow icons. This means that with Lisa's latest suggestion practically all claimed multi-native translators will be excluded from all searches (except if the client does not specify any native language). Do you truly think this is fair? To me, it seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water.
And the reason tendered for doing this is that doing so would exclude liars from the searches: who cares about the truth sayers as long as we get the liars? After all, there can't be that many truth speakers (but we don't want to count, for that is an "obstacle"), right?
Lisa hopes (if I understand her post correctly) that during the temporary exclusion period many claiming multi-native translators whose income is so decimated as a result will yield to the sanctions by requesting Staff to remove one of their declared native languages, just so that they can reappear in search results where clients had specified a native language.
==
Sarah Elizabeth Cree wrote:
This thread is about dealing with the fact that a disturbing proportion of proz.com users falsely claim native language status in two or more languages.
Well, one thing that has been said before, but is an unpopular idea among people who do not investigate it, is this: the false claims seem to be concentrated on translators who translate into English. For example, less than 10% of EN-IT translators here claim to be multi-native, but over half of IT-EN translators claim to be multi-native. In fact, there is very little evidence of large-scale abuse in any other language. I wonder how many of the "exception" objectors would simply fall away if Lisa could re-issue the "temporary solution" thread with a focus on English.
==
Lisa is asking for temporary solutions, so here's yet another one: Since the abuse is mainly with English, why not simply disallow searches for "English" as a native language?
This won't hurt the client, since he would not have achieved useful results even if he had been able to select "English" as a native language in his search. It might hurt genuine English native speakers a little bit, but ultimately it will be to their advantage because the client will now have to select good translators based on other criteria.
The way it would work is that if English is the source or target language in a search, the option "English" as native language is simply not shown. For example, in an Italian-English search, the native language options would be "Any" and "Italian", but in an Italian-Spanish search, the native langauge options would be "Any", "Italian" ans "Spanish".
Your thoughts?
[Edited at 2012-07-06 16:06 GMT]
| | | | Kirsten Bodart
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:49
Dutch to English
+ ...
| How difficult can it get | Jul 6, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Why do we need to demonstrate an absolute or relative threshold to satisfy you? One person lying about native ability is one too many.
Perception is the only truth when it comes to reputation, and you may remember that the piss-poor reputation of the honesty of profiles on this website is (part of) the reason some of us would like to clean it up. I don't give a toss if you can demonstrate there are 10 or 10,000, 0.75% or 75%, of profiles with untrue "N" claims. I do know that if we can remove as many of them as possible, the atrocious reputation "enjoyed" by proz might slowly start to rise from the stinking mire it is currently in, and that both of us, and every other poor sap in this thread, might benefit from that. Why are you perpetually putting pointless obstacles in the way of that process?
Why do we need to demonstrate an absolute threshold?
It beggars belief.
It is simple, you cannot assess if you do not have a reference. Assessment works according to an example that is a reference. When Cambridge assesses someone for a certificate of proficiency they have predefined what it means to be proficient.
You can't remove an N if you don't know what it is or stands for.
And Lisa: no, we are not uselessly dwelling on exeptions. If you make a policy for a worldwide website, it needs to hold for longer than a day. Such a policy would be for ALL language pairs, ALL native language claims (not only English, although that is obviously your biggest concern; rightly so, as it is in all likelihood the worst affected) AND it would have to be applicable to ALL members, who have been here for ages, who have just joined the site and ALL those who will still join IN THE FUTURE.
I agree that there are very few Conrads (as Luis has pointed out), but you can't exclude them from your thoughts in this as they are also subject to the new policy. It is, indeed, naïve to think there are none. If not totally deluded.
@Ty:
The number of emails I get, saying 'dear translator, we have a document...' would suggest some outsourcers just put the language pair, then search and send an email to X translators who are highest on the list. They would have to scroll down to get to the native or non-native tag. Include another option and they are absolutely not interested. You might want to think differently, but I don't think that's realistic in some cases. The very good outsourcers, I guess, are those that do look closely, read your profile, check you out, and then make their move. Even if you are not high up in the directory they contact you.
I would also contend that the 'atrocious reputation' proz enjoys is as much down to the poor quality of some translators as well as the poor quality of some outsourcers available. Yet, we are not csomplaining about that, are we. That is digressing, after all.
[edit] typos, typos and more typos. That's why we have spell checkers... fortunately
[Edited at 2012-07-06 17:46 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 09:49
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Off-topic, @Texte | Jul 6, 2012 |
Texte Style wrote:
I would like to add that I was considering taking out membership to Proz and as this thread progresses, I am increasingly thinking that I might as well not. I only have one language pair and only one native language, ... So if there is no way for me to stand out from the crowd without acquiring hundreds of Kudoz...
I did a couple of test searchest in your pair and fields, and it strikes me that your main problem is that which I was trying to address in this suggestion. Specifying "Art/Literary" as a subject field would have no discernable effect on the results list, simply because ProZ.com allows all users to select all fields, if they want to, so you have to compete for search result position with translators who do not specialise in "Art/Literary" but simply selected it because it looked nice on their profile.
| | | | S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 09:49
Italian to English
| native language searches and defining 'native language' | Jul 6, 2012 |
Native language searches:
I support the position that if an outsourcer wants to see results for native language translators only, those results should only include translators with verified native language claims.
Basically, I don't think that a verified native language claim should be a giveaway, not even for those who claim only one native language. Just as things like our identity and our translation credentials must be actually verified by this site's administrators... See more Native language searches:
I support the position that if an outsourcer wants to see results for native language translators only, those results should only include translators with verified native language claims.
Basically, I don't think that a verified native language claim should be a giveaway, not even for those who claim only one native language. Just as things like our identity and our translation credentials must be actually verified by this site's administrators before they get verified status, so should this.
Defining 'native language':
I agree with Kirsten Bogart's frequently made point that the criteria for 'native language ' must be defined prior to the implementation of any kind of system that would require native language verification.
New thread:
Perhaps a different thread should be started on the topic of what the critera are for 'native language'? This would likely have to be a relatively loose set of criteria, but shouldn't it be possible to have a site definition of 'native language'? (Obviously people would slip through the cracks of any such definition, there are always loopholes and it goes without saying that there will always be people who seek out and find them.) ▲ Collapse
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 08:49
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| Baby and bathwater? | Jul 6, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Since the abuse is mainly with English, why not simply disallow searches for "English" as a native language?
This won't hurt the client, since he would not have achieved useful results even if he had been able to select "English" as a native language in his search. It might hurt genuine English native speakers a little bit, but ultimately it will be to their advantage because the client will now have to select good translators based on other criteria.
That's throwing all genuine English native speakers out with the bathwater!
But I would certainly support "English native" searches being restricted to those whose only native language declared is English. That would exclude EN+IT; CH+EN etc., but then those translators knew when they specified two native languages that there would be advantages and disadvantages.
Sheila
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | 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 » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
