| Pages in topic: [1 2] > | The end of Across Thread poster: Andrzej Lejman
|
|---|
Andrzej Lejman 
Poland
Local time: 11:42
Member (2004)
German to Polish
+ ...
Is this true, that Across will be discontinued?
This would be a great news.
A.
| | | | Kevin Fulton
United States
Local time: 05:42
German to English
| I would be surprised | Oct 5, 2013 |
The use of Across is the result of German industrial policy: German companies use German tools. This is why Trados got a foothold in the market. Trados was a buggy program with poor support until the product was bought by SDL, a British company.
I would be surprised if Across went away any time soon, but life is full of nice surprises.
| | | | Selcuk Akyuz
Türkiye
Local time: 12:42
English to Turkish
+ ...
Hi Andrzej,
Where did you read about it? Or is it just a wish (well, you are not alone).
Selcuk
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 11:42
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| No, it's not true | Oct 5, 2013 |
Andrzej Lejman wrote:
Is this true, that Across will be discontinued?
No, it's just a rumour.
This would be a great news.
No-one forces you to work for clients that require Across.
Samuel
| | |
|
|
|
felicij
Local time: 11:42
German to Slovenian
+ ...
| I somehow do not see why | Oct 5, 2013 |
people do not like Across. It is just another CAT tool and it has some nice features and is easy to master...
I work with 5 different tools (+ some online Cats) and enjoy working with every single one of them.
Please share the downsides of Across, I can't seem to remember any...
| | | | jyuan_us
United States
Local time: 05:42
Member (2005)
English to Chinese
+ ...
| I'm not forced to work for them but the agency is at loss if their linguists don't like to use it | Oct 5, 2013 |
Samuel Murray wrote: This would be a great news. No-one forces you to work for clients that require Across. Samuel
If a lot of people don't like it, it will be a loss for the agencies which require it.
The impact has already been experienced by one of my clients. They requested me to use it and I said no. They offered free tutoring sessions to me and I said I had no time learning it.
They eventually allowed me to use other CAT tools instead and they had to import my TM to Across by themselves.
Personally I dislike it because it is rather slow to work on it. You have to click a button ( something like "commit") for every segment. It is rather annoying. The agency would ask you to give discounts for repetitions/matches but it doesn't care about the fact that your productivity is much lower with the net word count...
[Edited at 2013-10-05 21:40 GMT]
| | | | Theo Bernards (X)
France
Local time: 11:42
English to Dutch
+ ...
| Weird attitude of some people towards a tool... | Oct 6, 2013 |
Andrzej Lejman wrote:
Is this true, that Across will be discontinued?
This would be a great news.
A.
Analogy for a carpenter: "Is it true that Golden Hammer Inc - producers of quality hammers with a an ergonomic grip, will be discontinued? That would be fantastic".
What I find strange is that Across has been spat on by many people here without any other reason than that they don't like it - or because they derive some sort of pleasure from spitting on Across, that could be it, too. I am not a fan of some other CAT-tool, but I don't go about spreading rumors about that tool, I just simply say I don't like it - if and when I am asked for my opinion, that is, I certainly won't go starting a forum discussion on it and say it would be a great news if that tool would be discontinued...
| | | | Andrzej Lejman
Poland
Local time: 11:42
Member (2004)
German to Polish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
It's an obsolete, translator-unfriendly tool. The segmentation is a disaster. I cannot make any use of TMs I create. The quality control tools are another disaster - always some 50 spelling mistakes per 1000 words etc.
"The seemingly obvious purpose of Across, that is to serve as a CAT tool, is a sham. Across CAT tool is a means for a higher purpose. It is a management tool, specifically intended for use by project managers of translation agencies to better control individual suppli... See more It's an obsolete, translator-unfriendly tool. The segmentation is a disaster. I cannot make any use of TMs I create. The quality control tools are another disaster - always some 50 spelling mistakes per 1000 words etc.
"The seemingly obvious purpose of Across, that is to serve as a CAT tool, is a sham. Across CAT tool is a means for a higher purpose. It is a management tool, specifically intended for use by project managers of translation agencies to better control individual suppliers. The perfidious nature of Across lies in its “free” Personal Edition for freelance translators. Due to its infamous and obnoxious lack of interoperability, Across as a stand-alone application is simply of no use. And, “as a client for accessing customers’ Across servers” (its second purpose according to the manufacturer’s statement), its intended use is to deprive the freelancer of both his/her freedom and his/her “lance”. Working on a customer’s Across server, an individual translator is expropriated of translation, translation memory, labor and skills. Working as a freelance translator with Across “Free CAT Tool for Freelance Tranlsators”, you give up your freedom.
....
Perhaps, the so called Quality Assurance module of Across would more or less serve its purpose when translating lists of spare parts with long numbers, but for well-written, quality technical, corporate or medical documentation it is not a quality assurance tool, it is a quality deterioration assurance tool. All in all, working with Across feels like a fight which you could never win. "
More under:
http://anmerkungen-des-uebersetzers.com/2012/12/10/across-warning-signs-ahead/
And more opinions under:
http://www.proz.com/software-comparison-tool/tool/across_personal_edition/107
Regards
A. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 11:42
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Fifty spelling mistakes per 1000 words | Oct 6, 2013 |
Andrzej Lejman wrote:
The quality control tools are another disaster - always some 50 spelling mistakes per 1000 words...
I would never be that honest, even if it were true of myself.
Having just spend some time on that blog, I can warn others not to bother. Its just a rant... with no logical structure. The author of that blog has one problem with Across, it seems, and that is that the agency that sends him editing jobs in Across don't make use of native speaking translators. And he someone manages to fan that one piece of criticism out to an entire blog post, complete with name dropping, bold and italic fonts, and a pretty picture (which may be the one reason to visit the blog, should you decide to do so anyway).
The blog author quotes Kevin Lossner, but if you read closely you'll notice that he doesn't actually use Kevin's statement to support his argument at all, but quotes him simply because he, too, dislikes Across (for completely different reasons). The author also quotes Jerzy Czopik, ostensibly from Czopik's Facebook page, using words that don't actually occur on Czopik's Facebook page. But, even if the quote was accurate, it doesn't actually say anything about Across except that Czopik also dislikes Across, for reasons that we don't know.
The blog author blames a poor translation he received to edit in Across, on Across itself, but later in the post admits that the translation was done by a non-native speaker from some agency of bad repute, so the question becomes: to what extend can he really blame Across for the poor translation, or: what is it about Across that he really blames?
He says in one place "my real issue with Across is not that much about technology, performance or productivity, it is rather of ideological nature", which sounds a lot like the complaint from anti-Tradosers. So... is it about productivity or isn't it about productivity?
The blog author says that you should be wary of agencies that offer Across to you for free, but I can't quite see the logic of that. There are many CAT tool systems that come with a "free" version for translators that are perfectly acceptable to use, and one should not hold it against an agency for offering such a product to you. Don't forget: there are agencies out there that demand you use a tool that you actually have to pay for.
He makes judgments about an agency for whom he used to do Across work, but whom he asked not to send him jobs anymore. That agency no longer sends him jobs, but still sends him general e-mails. And then he says that the fact that they no longer send him jobs is evidence to him that they were ruined by Across.
As they say in Dutch... "hellooooo?".
Samuel
[Edited at 2013-10-06 12:42 GMT]
| | | | Andrzej Lejman
Poland
Local time: 11:42
Member (2004)
German to Polish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Samuel Murray wrote: Andrzej Lejman wrote:
The quality control tools are another disaster - always some 50 spelling mistakes per 1000 words... I would never be that honest, even if it were true of myself.
The problem is that Across always indicates some dozens of spelling mistakes even if there are absolutely no ones.
Another problem is the terminology. Polish is an inflected language, so the EN "motor" can be "silnik", silnika", "silnikiem" etc. In this way Across reports hundreds od terminology errors. The worse, some customers cannot undestand the problem...
Regards
A.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 11:42
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Andrzej Lejman wrote: Samuel Murray wrote: Andrzej Lejman wrote:
The quality control tools are another disaster - always some 50 spelling mistakes per 1000 words... I would never be that honest, even if it were true of myself. The problem is that Across always indicates some dozens of spelling mistakes even if there are absolutely no ones.
Aaah, now I understand what you mean. I thought you meant that Across causes you to make that many spelling mistakes. But you mean that Across fails to recognise those words even though they are not spelling mistakes, am I right? That simply means that those words are not present in the spell-checker's dictionary.
Another problem is the terminology. Polish is an inflected language, so the EN "motor" can be "silnik", silnika", "silnikiem" etc. In this way Across reports hundreds od terminology errors. The worse, some customers cannot undestand the problem...
I understand what you're saying, but the problem is not an Across problem. Many CAT tools and QA tools are unable to handle inflections properly, and there will always be clients who trust the QA tool more than they trust the translator, until they learn their mistake. It is a matter of client education.
| | | | Theo Bernards (X)
France
Local time: 11:42
English to Dutch
+ ...
| When you want a stick to beat a dog, you never have to look far... | Oct 6, 2013 |
As Samuel so aptly observes, that first one is an endless rant. I haven't put my mind to it recently, but I can find dozens of other endless rants about dozens of products, services and things, varying from a health care policy of a president of a randomly selected country in the North-American hemisphere to the copulation techniques of the praying mantis. Just because there is a blog claiming to be the definitive disqualification of a CAT-tool doesn't mean that the blog is true (unless you believe anything you read, of course ☺ ).
The comparison tool from Proz is equally tainted: just because a few of us here are verbal and verbose enough to voice an opinion, that doesn't mean that the voices on our screens are right - far from it. The venom used in some contributions to that tool makes you wonder what Across has done to those translators in terms of setting a house on fire or stealing a vegetable garden's harvest...
I think that a lot of criticism towards Across from people who just like to join the crowd. To me it seems a somewhat bizarre manifestation of cognitive dissonance: where normally people try to justify a certain purchase with seemingly valid but utterly irrelevant reasoning, apparently Across instigates the uncontrollable urge to criticise the product because it is free of charge. I wonder why that is...
| | |
|
|
|
Andrzej Lejman
Poland
Local time: 11:42
Member (2004)
German to Polish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Across is just a piece of sh.. | Oct 6, 2013 |
Theo Bernards wrote:
I think that a lot of criticism towards Across from people who just like to join the crowd. To me it seems a somewhat bizarre manifestation of cognitive dissonance: where normally people try to justify a certain purchase with seemingly valid but utterly irrelevant reasoning, apparently Across instigates the uncontrollable urge to criticise the product because it is free of charge. I wonder why that is...
I have been using Across for years for a good client (two clients in the past) and it doesn't matter, for money or for free. I have bought 2007, than upgraded to 2009, 2011, now 2014. I own Wordfast Pro and other payable software, so I'm ready to pay for reasonable software.
Across has been developed under specific philosophy, that is very close to the way Germans are thinking. I understand this philosophy but i don't accept it. They say to their customers, look, we have everything under control, the translator is only a keyboard operator, has no direct access to the files, cannot modify, store nor share them, cannot make any use of TM etc.
The system has not been developed / improved for years; compare this to other CAT tools.
It's like a painful, traumatic fossil in the modern world.
Moreover, it doesn't exist on Facebook, what means, it shouldn't exist at all!
Regards
A.
| | | | Theo Bernards (X)
France
Local time: 11:42
English to Dutch
+ ...
| Making a joke to end a discussion? | Oct 6, 2013 |
Andrzej Lejman wrote:
...I own Wordfast Pro and other payable software, so I'm ready to pay for reasonable software.
Good for you, but that was not the discussion you raised - in the Across support forum of Proz, I might add, a place where Across users try to find solutions for their problems, not problems for their solution - and what I utterly disagree with: my disagreement is with the fact that you hear a rumour, start a discussion with that rumour and subsequently say you hope it is true because that would be manna from heaven.
...Across has been developed under specific philosophy, that is very close to the way Germans are thinking. I understand this philosophy but i don't accept it.
O dear, a bee up our bonnet? Nobody asked you to accept it. Across has been developed by Germans but if you don't like German products, why do you even get them? Don't tell me you let yourself be told by clients what to get - or were they German, too? And do you also post derogatory forums on German cars, or do you limit yourself to CAT-tools?
They say to their customers, look, we have everything under control, the translator is only a keyboard operator, has no direct access to the files, cannot modify, store nor share them, cannot make any use of TM etc.
Did you have a look at the many little tutorial videos they show on their website? You might find them quite revealing, especially the ones about how to import a translation memory and on how to recycle old translations with the aim of making a new translation memory. And where does Across say that translators are only a keyboard operator? I have checked their website extensively, and I didn't see anything of the kind. Please provide a link to the statement.
...It's like a painful, traumatic fossil in the modern world.
Almost as painful as the pre-EU way of thinking about how a nation does things differently and that one shouldn't under any circumstance agree with them.
Moreover, it doesn't exist on Facebook, what means, it shouldn't exist at all!
I know many translators who don't have a Facebook-account, does that mean they shouldn't exist, either? And while Across is not on Facebook, they do have their own LinkedIn page. But that is a members only page and I don't know if you have an account there (but in my opinion, if you aren't on LinkedIn.... well, you get my drift ☺)...
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 11:42
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| The comparison tool's URL is actually useful here | Oct 6, 2013 |
Theo Bernards wrote:
The comparison tool from Proz is equally tainted: just because a few of us here are verbal and verbose enough to voice an opinion, that doesn't mean that the voices on our screens are right - far from it. The venom used in some contributions to that tool makes you wonder what Across has done to those translators in terms of setting a house on fire or stealing a vegetable garden's harvest...
Yes, but if you read past the venom, you'll see some actual facts being mentioned (particularly in the reviews consisting of more than one sentence), which I find quite useful.
However, it makes no sense to me that "reviews" consisting of one single negative sentence could be marked as "useful review" by so many people, because such a review is useless to me. When I choose a CAT tool, it will not be based on a popularity contest.
I myself would not recommend Across to anyone and I would advise against it if anyone should ask me, and such advice is based on my personal experience with it. However, my experience has been fairly limited and it may well be that the tool can be useful beyond the first hurdles.
| | | | | Pages in topic: [1 2] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » The end of Across | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
