Productivity per Language – Translation vs Post-Editing
For all languages tested – in fact for all 37 test participants –, post-editing productivity was significantly higher than translation productivity.
Translation and Post-Editing Productivity vs Post-Editing Experience
Our test results suggest that experience, especially in post-editing, is the single most important factor in translation productivity, particularly in relation to post-editing.
Back to intro
Believes to be faster at translation/post-editing vs. actual productivity
Most test participants either had no or a wrong perception of their own productivity. The most productive post-editors and the ones who benefitted most from MT proposals were those translators who believed to be faster at translating.
Back to intro
Preference and Productivity
In our test, there was no strong correlation between post-editing productivity and the preference for one or the other translation method. The minority of translators who preferred to work with TM matches however were the least productive.
Back to intro
Productivity per chapter – translated from scratch, fuzzy, MT
For some of the languages, our test included three chapters which contained content of a similar nature but were all three to be translated in a different way; the first chapter had to be translated from scratch, the second was entirely pretranslated with fuzzy matches of all categories including below 50%, and the third chapter was to be post-edited. The chart shows that for the languages with presumably "best" MT output, post-editing beat fuzzy match editing.
Back to intro
Productivity per category
A break-down by match categories shows that post-editing of MT was roughly as productive as working from matches in the 85-94% category. Note however that this varies significantly across languages, as already reflected on the previous chart.
Back to intro
