[X] My Assistant

I have to say, I'm sort of shocked at how popular this turned out to be. >100k visits in less than two days? When I translated it, I thought it was cute but nothing special. Is Taropun a really popular author and I just wasn't aware of it?

I's like to say it has to be our [EHCOVE] tag on that, but... (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Maybe it was advertised at 4chan or somewhere else?

You could try translating a random story by the author you like to see what happens (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Red_Piotrus: Nov 14 2011, 06:19

I hope you are fine with my release of https://e-hentai.org/g/435038/01647c3bf3/ under EHCOVE

it's a long and rather classic work, and it is not a regular JCE but an official Chinese (Hong-Kong) version, with the last third of such different from the J RAW release

Alright, I went and added a small disclaimer in the credits to SS 5 (look at my newest releases to get the idea) and Red thought it'd be worth discussing. So for starters, "why?", I sorta got the idea from another group's credits and thought it'd be nice, as a way to say "I just get stuff translated as a fan of the artists works and in no way try to make a profit from this" (aside from editing it I suppose). But anyway, any thoughts about it?

I think it's a good idea, but I thought it would be nice to be even cooler and actually release the translation under a free license. [creativecommons.org] CC-BY-SA seems quite good - all we ask is that others attribute the translation (keep the credits) and don't make it more restrictive. We could stick a small CC-BY-SA sticker in the credits.

I think it's a good idea, but I thought it would be nice to be even cooler and actually release the translation under a free license. [creativecommons.org] CC-BY-SA seems quite good - all we ask is that others attribute the translation (keep the credits) and don't make it more restrictive. We could stick a small CC-BY-SA sticker in the credits.

Like this:

Or with the printed disclaimer like this:

Without



With



This post has been edited by Super Shanko: Jan 11 2012, 01:25

Like this:

Or with the printed disclaimer like this:

Without

With

With the disclaimer, because most people probably still don't know what the hell CC is (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Someone has already started giving bounties for proofreading scripts and I've been on the fence as to whether or not I should create a proofreading thread. I initially thought of running such a thread to save both translators and editors time by proofreading and fixing scripts for a small price, but I am rather unsure if such a service would be welcome, or even needed, here by the EHCOVE group. I'd like to have some input from the translators and editors of this board and see if all of you would like me or other experienced proofreaders to create such threads.

It'd be appreciated. Especially when it comes to have to reconstructing an entire script on the fly while editing (I'm a bit lazy with PR'ing).

Just to be clear, what would proofreading in this case entail? Just fixing up the script only, our would the translation be also checked against the original source for accuracy? Proofing would be pointless if the script turns out to be crap or a rewrite.

Just to be clear, what would proofreading in this case entail? Just fixing up the script only, our would the translation be also checked against the original source for accuracy? Proofing would be pointless if the script turns out to be crap or a rewrite.

Yes, this was the thing that made me so hesitant, I don't know Japanese. I would only be able to fix the script without checking against the original script, meaning a possibly incorrect translation/rewrite that has proper grammar and reading structure. The only way you could get the script checked for accuracy would be to find a proofreader that has significant proficiency with Japanese (which would essentially be an actual translator).

Just to be clear, what would proofreading in this case entail? Just fixing up the script only, our would the translation be also checked against the original source for accuracy? Proofing would be pointless if the script turns out to be crap or a rewrite.

I disagree. Improving the English is still valuable. A proofreader has no need to know Japanese, just like the editor doesn't. If they do, it's a BONUS, which can be hardly required.

I disagree. Improving the English is still valuable. A proofreader has no need to know Japanese, just like the editor doesn't. If they do, it's a BONUS, which can be hardly required.

That's a dangerous mindset to have. A bad translation that's been polished for English only is one of the worst things that can happen, in my opinion, because it creates a false sense of security and deceives the reader. At least if the English is bad, more people will know to avoid it. Example: this is actually a more accurate translation than this (though neither is particularly good, especially compared to this).

This post has been edited by digitXSX: Feb 27 2012, 21:51

I disagree. Improving the English is still valuable. A proofreader has no need to know Japanese, just like the editor doesn't. If they do, it's a BONUS, which can be hardly required.

It helps if the editor can identify some basic characters though. Even if it's just small words or particular names. Just like when I noticed this seemed weird and it turned out to be bullshit. It's also helpful when working on busy pages or bubbles scattered in odd places.

This post has been edited by Super Shanko: Feb 27 2012, 23:41

That's a dangerous mindset to have. A bad translation that's been polished for English only is one of the worst things that can happen, in my opinion, because it creates a false sense of security and deceives the reader. At least if the English is bad, more people will know to avoid it. Example: this is actually a more accurate translation than this (though neither is particularly good, especially compared to this).

But the responsibility for that should not be on a proofreader. It is on the translator/editor (who should have a proper credit page), uploader (who should identify it), and last, on the community (who should tag and comment it accordingly). A proofreader who is asked to fix the language has no bearing on the above.

Proofreaders should have a wider range of tasks than just reading the script and fixing grammar. If that were the case, the editor could just do it and cut the PR out altogether. The PR should be responsible for fixing and grammar errors; if it's a new or unfamiliar translator (or is just fishy), go ask a veteran here if it's legit... but that's most definitely the bounty holders job if they don't wanna lose their funds. After all that, the editor should just be able to do their job and edit.

This post has been edited by Super Shanko: Feb 28 2012, 00:45

Proofreaders should have a wider range of tasks than just reading the script and fixing grammar. If that were the case, the editor could just do it and cut the PR out altogether. The PR should be responsible for fixing and grammar errors; if it's a new or unfamiliar translator (or is just fishy), go ask a veteran here if it's legit... but that's most definitely the bounty holders job if they don't wanna lose their funds. After all that, the editor should just be able to do their job and edit.

I agree with Shanko on this. Cleaning and typesetting is tough enough, so an editor should just do that. But having a proofreader should be up to the original bounty poster if they don't do it themselves. If they're unsure about the competency of the TL, they should get a second opinion from an established TLer.

From having done proofing for the three volumes of Potemayo, each with three different TLers, this is what I took from it:
*Vol.1 being able to talk to the TL about some issues was handy.
*Vol.2 was pretty straightforward.
*Vol.3 fortunately had the transcribed Japanese, since there were a few lines that were a little questionable and an entirely untranslated bubble. I was able to approximate or get a feel for what was being said by using several machine translators and my own knowledge, but that shouldn't be happening.

For significant bounties and/or new TLers, having a translation checker/proofreader should be considered. For established, competent TLers, a proofreader should be enough.

To be blunt, when I have a translation bounty completed - especially those by unranked hunters, I always have it checked by someone whom I trust to be familiar with Japanese. If there's few minor mistakes, I can accept that, but if there's considerable amount of mistakes or errors, I turn down the script.

Even if a new translator turns out to be very good at translation, I still have the script checked anyway per my policy above. But if a translator has consistently proven to be trustworthy in my eyes as well as others - like say rookie84 - there's no need for checking so I auto-approve their translation claims.

This is also the reason why I don't tag about half of my new releases with EHCOVE tag, because some of them were done by less experienced translators that haven't yet proven themselves to be consistently reliable. If they do more of my bounties and show improvement, then I tag their works with the EHCOVE tag.

Sometimes the translator has bad English, but good Japanese... if that's the case, I'll refer to a proofer to fix English for me... as long as the translation itself is vetted.

I suppose this may seem rigid, but when I came up with the EHCOVE tag, I did so because I wanted readers to feel more confident about quality translations produced by the bounty system.

This post has been edited by lightshader: Feb 28 2012, 03:42

But the responsibility for that should not be on a proofreader. It is on the translator/editor (who should have a proper credit page), uploader (who should identify it), and last, on the community (who should tag and comment it accordingly). A proofreader who is asked to fix the language has no bearing on the above.

Ah. If you were to assign roles that way, I suppose that would be right. I was just adding to what lightshader said - if the translation isn't checked, there isn't much meaning in having a proofreader solely for output language proofreading. In the event that the script visibly needs fixing (as opposed to minor polish), chances are that attempting to do so without checking the translation will either miss existing errors or create at least a few new ones. If you're proofreading to ensure quality, why not take full responsibility and seek out a translation check? If you're proofreading for presentation alone, though, at best, you're lucking out on a risky move, and at worst, you're whitewashing flaws to deceive the reader.

In the end, though, I realize it's up to the bounty poster to decide. Unfortunate, but that's a structural issue, I suppose.

In my experience it is rare to get a second translator check. It's not like we have an overflow of translators. Requiring two translators two look at the same dojin would, imho, double the bounty costs and execution time, for little benefit. I appreciate perfection, but in the ~75 bounties I've had commissioned, none went through a secondary check that I am aware of, and none had raised significant complains (again, that I am aware of).

Now, I'd never say no to a translator check if it was offered, but I wouldn't go out of my way demanding it. At the same time, simple proofreading to ensure that things sound right in English is helpful, as what I HAVE seen was not people complaining about imprecise translation, but people complaining about poor English (think, CGRascal's work...).

It doesn't hurt to ask someone to just give it a brief overview of a few pages either. But only for instances where I don't know the new guy. After that I trust them enough into not trying to screw with me.