3 ms·
If good is defined by more factors than quality of translation, maybe. But translations between the two languages I speak, English and Spanish, are never good e
by seandhi 9y ago
If good is defined by more factors than quality of translation, maybe. But translations between the two languages I speak, English and Spanish, are never good enough to actually use without a lot of follow up work by a human.
- rerx 9y agoHave you tried the translator by DeepL? It often gets incredibly close on my experience.
- seandhi 9y agoNo, I haven’t. I have only used Google Translate and the one Microsoft has. Interestingly, I feel like, without any actual measurement, that Google Translate seems to fail on simple translations more frequently than before, but I also use it far less frequently now than in the past. Do you have a link for the one by DeepL? Edit: https://www.deepl.com/translator https://www.deepl.com/translator
- mannykannot 9y ago> If good is defined by more factors than quality of translation, maybe. That translates to 'is not good' in my language. Your low-key sarcasm is much appreciated.
- seandhi 9y agoHaha, it was only kind of sarcastic. But thank you. I meant, if you evaluate based on things like speed, volume, and other measures, and quality of translation is secondary to “good enough” it may be better than humans. However, if you base purely on accuracy, no way. :-)
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> That translates to 'is not good' in my language The original line is more precise. In most cases, I need the gist of a block of text in an unfamiliar language. Google Translate is faster and cheaper than a human translator. That makes it better, for this purpose, than a human, despite its lower accuracy. When I need legal documents translated, most human translators are not good enough. A specialist, and only a specialist, will do.