Two interesting (and perhaps antagonistic) blog posts on translation quality

First there’s 90% of in-country reviews are a waste of time, from the Medical Translation Blog where, after a somehow provocative title, the author explains the difference between theoretical, ideal situations and the hard facts of in-country reviews, which are often marred by the following problems:

• Lack of information sharing (e.g., no reference materials)
• Lack of understanding regarding brand
• Review schedules that are “black holes”
• Clarity of review changes is lacking (ever try reading a French doctor’s handwriting?)
• Mechanics fail (file exchanges don’t work, changes are entered inconsistently)
• Quality of review changes (linguistic, technical errors are introduced)

Then there’s Quality translation dictates a collaborative effort, from the Translation and Software Localization Blog, which can be considered as some sort of retort to the previous post. The author adopts concepts from control theory to explain how in-country review is in fact an essential step of the translation process.

I think that the two articles complement each other and really support the idea that quality control, when done properly, can make a huge difference for the final quality of any translated or localized product. In conclusion, two interesting reads.