Regarding’s the customer’s glossary, let’s call it Christina’s glossary to distinguish it from the raw file.
Christina’s glossary was created using our files, so not only it uses the July 8th glossary, it may also use older terms. This is then sent to Christina to be checked for consistency and corrections, if any.
The S&R list is applied to customer’s glossary too, and the result pasted into a separate column in Christina’s file.
The resulting file, containing both the $$ terms from the S&R script and Christina’s correction (which was created independently and in many cases deviates from the July 8th glossary) is now in Sebastian’s hands.
Sebastian’s has your S&R revised file, which contains the July 18th glossary. He’s supposed to use Christina’s glossary to add new terms to the S&R list.
You shouldn’t bother trying to update Christina’s glossary. That’s redundant. Instead, you should concentrate on the S&R list.
The S&R list, if constructed properly, will update old terms to the newest glossary terms, right? This means I can just apply it to Christina’s glossary and it’ll be updated automatically. Sebastian’s also supposed to update it, but I intend on running the completed S&R list on it and comparing the results. Either way there’s no need for you to update it yourself. At most you’ll end up proofing it on Friday with the S&R list flagging terms that are different from the official (our July 18th) glossary.
———————-
I haven’t looked at the file (it’s downloading) but yes, Items weren’t changed between the two files.
And after reading what you’ve done, yes, that’s exactly what I wanted you to do.
If you went through Items, you’ve done 60-66% of the file already. The rest of the sheets are shorter and doesn’t have so many $$ flags. So it won’t be as hard as before.
———————-
Kristof
Karel agreed to pay you sooner thanto others, but you’ll have to pay 5% for thetransfer as it will be not a mass payment but individual one. Is it acceptable for you? If yes, please, tell where to transfer your payment. I attach your hours for proofreading and words count for translation. Please, confirm that nothing is missing there.
———————-
Sorry but I can’t do this before the next 10 hours.
———————-
That’s acceptable. Waiting for your file.
———————-
Valeria
Just sent an email to Karel, the hours for proofreading are correct, and so is the word count for the two files translated. However, there were about 270 words I think (I am not 100% sure as the respetive accounting file is no longer accessible for me) I could not translate due to lack of context, so I think the words I should get paid for were slightly less than stated on the payment.rar file.
The 5% deduction for the transfer are all right.
Thank you very much and best Kristof
———————-
Kristof
You are right, in the file you sent untranslated words were not substracted. Here is an updated version.
Thank you for reminding
———————-
Valeria
Yes, I remember it were about 250 words I could not translate due lack of context.
So the updated version is correct.
Best Kristof
———————-
I believe that Karel sent payment to you earlier today. Can you please confirm receipt?
We apologize for the delay, but our client did not send payment until last week and even then not in full yet. This puts us in a difficult position. Please understand that the delay is not within our control.
They’re promising to pay BOI on time, so hopefully that won’t happen with this project.
———————-
I am prepared to do you this favour this time as a thank you for the good cooperation once we had the misunderstanding out of the way and my programme working for me.
Even if you don’t need any more help on Friday, I am looking forward to working together with you again for the next German project.
———————-
Seb, about Files_121_150_2.zip, are you sure you sent the right files? I’m still finding lots of $$. In fact the amount of $$ increased between what I sent you and what you sent back.
What did you do? Is it okay to just delete all the $$?
———————-
Hi
oh, I wasn’t aware I was to remove the $$. I edited the context around them were needed, and also corrected some wrong S&R terms. Maybe I added $$ myself when I changed one or two terms via S&R. So yes, everything should be fine if you just remove all the $$.
———————-
deadline’s is going to be on the August 2nd, but we actually aiming for a Friday/Saturday finish. Assuming no surprises, we should be able to do it. On the other hand, we could use your help during the next few days as final proofreader. Just like what you did with 121-150. Except hopefully without any more addition to the S&R list. 🙂
Please keep that in mind for the next few days. Thanks.
———————-
, I just noticed that you didn’t tell us how much time you spent spellchecking 61-75 and 76-90. Please let me know so we can keep track of how much to pay you later.
Thanks.
———————-
I spent 2hours 15 minutes on those two files.
———————-
file:46-60
25.07.2010 120 Minutes
file:91-105
26.07.2010 150 minutes
———————-
Yes, it’s case-sensitive.
By the way, just want to make sure you notice. Sebastian’s suggestions actually consist of 2 sheet. Add_to_s&r and s&r_problems.
Other information: I’ve been scanning the client’s glossary and I’m not seeing this Item of Frost vs. Frost Item conflict. Even if I change Item with Crystal, Stone, Jewel, and other similar keywords, and Frost with Light, Darkness, Heimdall, Luck, etc., there were no duplication.
It’s possible they want a very specific grouping, with Mana Orb (Mana-Kugel) and Orb of Flame (Flammen-Kugel) referring to two different class of Items (Kugel des X and X-Kugel) instead of a single “Orb” (Kugel) class. This sounds like splitting hair to me, but we’ll ask the client.
———————-
Yeah, I also checked on this problem and coming to the same conclusion: It’s splitting hairs. Apart from that, they didn’t explain ANYTHING about that issue, no example, no rule, nothing. Therefore I’m not paying attention to it unless they give really good explanations and it can be implemented very quickly and easily.
Thanks again
———————-
Kristof
Glad to hear that all impediments are left behind and we can start work.
Yes, we still use Transit for translation, but at this point we are done with translation part and you don’t need any special software.
What we need to do now is a spellchecking. Not proofreading, not changing the content – only spellcheck.
The file is in Excel format. It consists 15 files merged together. As a rule a file shouldn’t take more than 10-15 min, so 15 files shouldn’t take more than 225 min.
The file you are assigned:
http://translationstop.com/files/FTP/Spellchecking_BOI/121-135.rar
After you complete it upload it to http://001yourtranslationservice.com/newsystem/cgi-bin/up_1001_PR.cgi to BOI_Spellchecked folder.
Please confirm
———————-
I’m wondering if it will be possible to run the script in two passes. I think it’s way too much work to really look deeply into what the script should change in the first pass and then in the second. But we could still run it once, maybe with a different letter code than $$, let’s say §§§, check it as fast as possible and then run it a second time after the §§§ have been removed, this time with the $$. That way, we would get a lot of the things we didnt get in the first run due to term order issues. The list is already getting very long with the client’s comments. What do you think.
” I’m fine with that. I have some concerns about the time needed for proofing twice, because that’s where we’ll use up the time and money, but if you think that’s we’ll do it that way.
“, I have another request. Do you think it’s possible to run the list also on my latest glossary? So it’s fully up to date? Would be great. Also, I don’t know where if I’m fully current on all the files. I’ve downloaded the files attached to OT, so I’m assuming neither nor Gerald, nor Christina have anything else uploaded/posted that I don’t have yet?
———————-
ok, could open and download the file. I will start on it now and upload the amended file back to the BOI_Spellchecked folder asap, using the link provided.
Best Kristof
———————-
Still another question:
Some terms have ONLY been checked for “excess” hyphens. Others have had hyphens removed AND corrected. I have found a way to flag all those that have AT LEAST hyphens removed. That’s about 1600 terms. We could go and proofread those (only with respect to whether it was ONLY hyphens that were removed and we could afterwards include those into our list, but WITHOUT the $$, so no proofreading would be needed on those. It’s a bit of a risk and will take some time to proof for that, but we’ll end up with 1600 terms less on our proofing list. What do you think? Possibly Gerald or or whoever could do this while I continue finishing on the list…
———————-
I’m ready with the file 106-120 it took me 150 minutes.
———————-
Please, do a spellcheck for this file:
http://translationstop.com/files/FTP/Spellchecking_BOI/136-150.rar
How are the files you have already checked?
Please, confirm
———————-
Ok, Kristof.
And not to keep you waiting after you complete the current assignment, here is the next file to spellcheck:
http://translationstop.com/files/FTP/Spellchecking_BOI/151-165.xls
———————-
I can confirm but for tomorrow.When do You need it?
The files are ok that is why it does not take so long!Not many mistakes but as I said last time,there are some mistakes,which come up again and again!
———————-
if you deliver the file tomorrow it would be good. Ingeneral – sooner the better.
———————-
Valeria
received.
A question, I found a missing comma in the columns 119, 125, 131, 137 (so far) that would be needed to introduce the subordinate clause. However, it would have to be inserted after the sequence of (tag protected?) signs that I understand are not to be fiddled around with: #}{hMeryl[199]h}{#ffff002a=
Would you prefer me to insert the comma immediately after the sequence (that is, after “=”) or with a space between = and the comma so that it won’t be mistaken for a part of the programmer code?
Kristof” Ok then I think another one should do it, because it will be late tomorrow! ”
Don’t worry. We still have other files for the others, and I believe everything won’t be completed by tomorrow evening. So we can wait.
———————-
Kristof
Insert it right after “=, “. In game it will look like “…Meryl,….”.
———————-
Thank you for your loyality to us. We’ll keep in mind that we can rely on you.
———————-
Hi
finished the rest. this time, in the new document you sent me. Again, I attach it below with my S&R list (a new one).
This time, I didn’t insert $$ in the S&R list myself — I hope you have a way to automate this? otherwise, send me a note and I can do it.
Before I go to my questions and comments: I can free up most of my hours until saturday to help you finish the project. I have some appointments, but I’ll try my best to help in the remaining time, and save my other stuff for after that.
Some Questions & Comments:
1. Did you want all the untranslated (u) translated? I started translating them yesterday in items, but stopped at one point because I wasn’t sure whether they’re needed at all. If they are, I can go through everything again and look for the “U”s. It shouldn’t affect the files anyway, so no S&R needed for those?
2. Duplicated letters at the ends of words (e.g. Wassermannn) are not a big issue, actually: you can always make another rule to make it one letter shorter. So “Wasserman -> Wassermann” and “Wassermannn -> Wassermann” makes everything have 2 ns if it is run in the right order. I added such rules to fix issues, as you might have seen already.
3. Monsters, Row 159: Problem: “Schlachtfeld” exists for “Battlefield” and “Killing Ground”. But we can’t simply change this via S&R. Either leave it so (and live with two different “Schlachtfeld”) or change it while checking against source case by case.
4. Minion -> Sklave; Christina says: -> Lakai. I had this already in items, and didn’t change it nor did I add a rule for S&R. However, she has a point. But we cant use S&R because there are “Sklave” that are English “Slave”. I guess we could live with Minion = Sklave, so I didn’t change anything; if we use Lakai, we need to check against the source.
5. There are more cases like Minion -> Sklave; Slave -> Sklave; i.e., different source words translated to the same German word which then we cannot S&R. But here’s an idea how the checking against a source term could be automated with a bit of programming (should be possible as a macro in Excel or something). A late idea, unfortunately, but maybe we can still use it – or use it next time:
We would need a list with the “search” term, e.g. “Sklave”; the “replace” term, e.g. “Lakai”; and a control word, “Minion” respectively. A script could then look into the corresponding SOURCE cell, and ONLY IF the control word occurs, replace the term.
With words that do not occur very frequently (so the control term is in the cell by chance), this could be quite reliable, I think.
I don’t know much about the excel scripting language, but the logic is quite simple, so maybe this could be used for some of the S&R problems (to fix S&R mess-ups as well as avoiding new ones). I guess there’s somebody in the team who could do it; I could give it a try (but I’d have to do some basic research first.