Over and over again in our industry, as we struggle to meet tighter and tighter deadlines while managing costs, we ask ourselves, “Is it possible that something as fascinating as human language can be squeezed into a Procrustean box rife with MT, mechanical processing and unqualified providers? Is there something wrong with how our language is often treated? Over and over again we are mystified with the following questions:

– Why different companies are using so many different LQA metrics?
– Is there a way to validate them?
– Why linguists and experts sometimes disagree with the results of a particular LQA metrics?
– Evaluations are subjective – Why? And how big is the difference of opinion?
– Could there be one common approach?
– How MQM, DQF and other evaluation methods relate to each other?
– We are all fascinated by translation, so why is the gold standard so elusive?
– How to build a good detailed LQA metrics?
– Is there a cheaper and faster way than counting all errors and inserting them into a formula?
– Is there a way to do LQA quickly?

The answers are in the new update of ASTM WK54884 standard draft.

This draft is a very significant conceptual update from previous version.
We invite your feedback on this proposed standard which bridges a lot of chasms and provides concrete recommendations.

ASTM materials are copyrighted, and as it would benefit your company to be familiar with the proposed language quality assessment standard, I suggest that you register with ASTM so that you can download WK54884.

The translation industry needs to hear your views! Don’t let a standard on translation quality be defined without having the opportunity to voice your opinion. Please consider joining ASTM for the $75 fee so that you have voting privileges as ASTM member, or alternatively contact Logrus Global so that we initiate an invitation for you to be an external collaborator for free.

Buyer of translation services are especially welcome to participate.