Topic: Isn't rule 27 outdated? (Read 838 times)

Dear everyone,

The agency has re-done the translation, and we have made a new post on the Local Dutch board. We hope it is fine now.

Thank you, everyone, for participating!

I would use the word "Exchange" in Spanish. I think that this is the trend in Spain and LATAM, to call them by their original name instead of inventing something new.

The thing is that one should find the term that fits for both types of users (Spaniards and South Americans). In Spanish, unlike others, the official language is only one, ruled by the RAE for every Spanish-speaking country. The RAE doesn't cover all these new crypto terms, but what I mean is that formal texts should sound good for everyone regardless of nationality.

I concede that in this case Intercambiador isn't so bad, it's not like the example of the swimming pool.


I used ChatGPT a few months ago for legal work and it just doesn't work. It mixes articles of laws from different Spanish-speaking countries, invents jurisprudence... it is not good for fine work.

You're right, I haven't tried it for translations and maybe it has progressed a lot since the last time I read about the topic, but at that time it seemed that the problems of hallucinations, semantics, internal references etc. were intrinsic to the way these tools were built and that they wouldn't be fully solved until the AGI at least. And we're not there yet.

I still see two problems: 1) most lazy translators will use Google translate and tools like that, not the last version of the most advance LLM; and 2) even if they used the last version of ChatGPT, and >99% of the text was perfectly translated, the devil would still be in the details, and a few simple mistakes in key terms could ruin the image of the entire work if it wasn't properly proofread at least.

Well, you, like me, see that as someone who speaks Spanish from Spain, but in South American Spanish (full of anglicisms) it might sound more natural.


It seems to me that you haven't tried translating with ChatGPT very much yourself (obviously because you translate yourself). A word of advice, if you are ever unclear how to translate a set phrase, ask ChatGPT.

I agree with you that sooner or later machine translation will make translators obsolete, but not yet. We have discussed in the past about these "piscinas de minado" (mining swimming pools) and other hallucinations of AI.



It is also the case of "exchange(r)s", which we have also discussed in the past about what the best option might be (should we translate them as the traditional "casa de cambio"? does "servicio de canje" sound better? or maybe we'd adopt the anglicism/neologism "exchange(r)" instead?). Personally I find the literal "intercambiador" too generic, and it's definitely not the term I would use when talking about it to a friend.

The day will arrive when human intervention will not be necessary, I don't deny it, but machine translators are not yet ready for our constantly evolving crypto-slang. And I'm not even talking about transcreation, which would undoubtedly give rise to another debate:

I don't understand Dutch language but I trust user who reported it, and I would do the same if automated translation was posted in our local board.
You should fire ''translator'' you hired and find someone who can actually speak local languages, maybe active trusted members from local boards.

I think there is a lot of merit in what you all are doing in that Alliance, my friend Porfirii, but I also think you are fighting a giant that is getting bigger and bigger.

For the time being Best_Change could take note and hire people from the Alliance to do these translations.

In the AoBT we are committed to translate all texts by hand. A few of our translators are willing to proofread a text translated by a machine instead, for a cheaper price, if the client prefers, but manual translation is the only one that guarantees that it will sound completely natural.

In this case it was even worse, as it seemed that the translation at least in some cases was automatic and it seems that Best_Change hired a translator, which means that the barrier between machine translation/human translation is becoming more and more blurred.


Nowadays, hiring an agency to translate would not be scam if they check what the automatic translation does well, but either due to human error, incompetence or because they are too busy, there may be errors when checking and things may happen that do not sound like natural language, as in this case.

And yes, AI will eventually replace translators. Deepl.com was very good, better than google translators, but AI is a step further.

They are complaining that their work is being undervalued, but it seems that even the translation agencies themselves are using automatic translation tools.

I believe that this translation work will largely be replaced by AI. But, in the end, whoever is really good in the area will make a lot of money, because good translations always need to be done by humans.

To effectively translate a text, it is not enough to know the meaning of the words and the meaning of the text. You need to know how natives think and speak in their daily lives.

It's true that for most cases, machine translation may be sufficient. But, for technical or specialized work, which requires high quality, humans must translate.

It’s good to know and say your a native speaker but still, don’t have a clear distinction on that which is done by a translator and that which is hand written or typed by a native speaker.
I might be new to this whole thing but my take is that, the rule actually applied when, it ain’t that good as it abuses the language for native speakers, leads to a lot of confusion and with the fact that, some words could differ in meaning based on the context they are being used.
These and many more could be what the rule 27 was create to avoid and with that been the case, the rule is subjective and could apply in obvious cases.
That means, it could be given a pass being that good, I think.

What most translators do today is take the text and run it through a machine translator and then review what the machine translator does. Depending on their desire and competence or how busy they are at the time they can do it better or worse, but in the end I decided a long time ago that unless it is absolutely necessary, I am not going to pay for a translation.

We used the services of a translation agency Alconost. This is what we got.

Out of the BestChange staff, I speak basic Dutch, but my level is not sufficient enough to distinguish the translation quality.

I will take the issue to the translation agency.

Please tell, if this the reason why our topic in Swedish was removed?

If we do not get a proper response from Alconost, and you want to help us out with our translations, feel free to DM.

Thank you!

P.S. We reached out to the agency with the question, and they said they would initiate an investigation, would ask the text to be proofread by another linquist and get the comments from the translator.

They "used the services of a well-established translation agency". It could be the translation agency uses machine translation, which means they're basically scamming their customers. I recently read an article (in Dutch) in which translators complain their fees are pushed down by chatbot translations, and most of their jobs are degraded to checking machine translations.

Lol.

I would have removed it as well (not that I can, but just saying in general). Nobody would willingly write "geautomatiseerde verwerkingsprincipe is dat de geldwisselaar werkt volgens voorgedefinieerde sjablonen".

I don't understand... do you use a team of translators, or do you use machine translators? Or was it just a case of automatic translation, Dutch?

It's the reason I reported it. I assume the Mod agreed with me. If you paid for these translations, it doesn't sound like natural Dutch.

Dear all,

We at BestChange.com used the services of a well-established translation agency to translate our posts for the local topics.
We were in touch with translators and provided them with a feedback on terminology and other aspects.

it is not clear to us was the suspicious in using machine translation was the reason for our Dutch topic to be taken off.  Could anyone please advise?

Thank you.

For having followed the thread you seem to have a limited capacity for comprehension. Read it again to see if you can understand why he disagrees with me and see if you realise that it's me you're quoting.


And it is clear to me that you, like most of those who participate in the campaign in which you participate, are used to being paid for writing rubbish, as long as what you write is long enough, which is what you are doing.

Here it was clear that LoyceV and I disagreed amicably on whether rule 27 is outdated or not, something that with your limited ability to understand you didn't understand, and you had to come and stir up something that was more than clear and about which there was no controversy whatsoever.

Cause, why not? You see, I love the way some rules are made to DISCOURAGE but not enforced like the other set of rules - plagiarism, spamming boards with DDOS links/services etc.
Or Maybe op feels the fact was being ignored by the MODS since that was done by someone that is a suppose reputable member/company?
Theymos has always wanted and is still constantly creating pathways to make the forum as easygoing and comfy for anyone, regardless of where you're reaching out from or what you look like.. how do we all respond to that? shitting out our asses in here and trashing it all up.

Agree? Does he necessarily needs to agree with your point?? Like, I've been following up the whole conversation and he clearly did so from his second response.
...and you admitted that in the next response you made...I'm beginning to think that you're just up to criticizing anything that goes on even though you have alot of wrongs going on over your ends as well. ^{[Dude corrected himself and ignored your arrogance and self-righteous declarations ..fuck!]}

Well, in the end I have reported it to see but I was hesitant at first because it seems to me a service that is being advertised on the local boards, which is legitimate, and there is no way to prove how it has been translated but it has always seemed spammy to me and it is true that some of the posts seem to be written with GPT chat.

I have reported it in English this time, I think the other reports I have in the section have not been picked up by anyone as they are in Spanish.


It is clear that we are not going to agree on this but at least now I am the one laughing out loud.


You don't even realise how advanced machine translation is now, the latest being AI. The more advanced translator, which was already quite good (Deepl.com), is a laughing stock next to Chat GPT.

I guess, I'm also in favor of the members who say the rule isn't outdated, the reason is simple, machine generated translations can't match that of human written words. I know translation services have improved their translation models to very advanced levels but still they can't always create 100% grammar error free translations and I believe for some languages the machine generated translations might be 98% correct in grammar while in some languages the generated translation might have different meaning.

true, i agree with you, rule number 1 is the one that is enough and necessary
no spam, no useless comments, this rule is respected even if you use the translator, what's wrong with it as in my case now?
so i support you request, give priority to rule number 1 and the other accessories, if i understand correctly of couse

Just report it. There's no Mod for the Dutch board either. What's the worst that can happen? A "Bad" report? I see those as "testing the limits of reporting".

If someone translates a post, he creates a new post.

I'm tempted to report the one on the Spanish board but since we don't have an active moderator I hesitate cause it might take another month.


Ehh, no. Rule 27 is not about whether it was created by humans or not, it is about whether it was translated by humans or not.

If the content is GPT chat-created diarrhea it breaks rule 1, not rule 27, and in my experience moderators mark a report as ‘good’ even if you make a mistake in reporting it, for example if you report a thread in BD to be moved to Economics and it ends up moved to Speculation.

The Report is marked Good and the posts have been deleted. They also "lost" another local topic. Modlog:

If it would have been created by a human, it wouldn't have been deleted. This is exactly what "Rule 27" is for. The problem is: mods are very lenient. If they only delete the post when reported by a native speaker, many other translated posts will slip through and stay.

Exactly, in my local board there are some few non-native users who did like this but i kept it as good as their post serve information about scams and updates of a certain service e.g. "freewallet". But some exceptions if the users is just promoting something and do only google translate for them to post it on the local board.

I don't see enough reason why those rules should be outdated. That rule discourages spamming on local boards by using translation tools even if you aren't a native speaker. If there are no rules, then I might make posts on a lot of local boards by using tools. So those rules prevent us from doing so. I don't think it's hard to identify translated by tools because it should be different than native writers. You may still report if you find something like this. 

I hope you're amused because you're flattered, because seriously if I think of one forum member as the most knowledgeable (or one of the most knowledgeable) about how the forum works it's you.


That would happen in the past. Nowadays you have a translation just like a human translation or better done in a few seconds and without paying.


Mee too.


Here I think you're agreeing with me, if that is generic chatbot diarrhea the problem is not whether it is translated by a human or not, the problem is the content.

Lol.


I can't read this without feeling I'm reading generic chatbot diarrhea. I've reported the posts.

I find it hard to believe that a guy like you who knows so much about the forum would say that. Does this ring any bells?


If it is spam it already breaks rule 1. You don't need another rule.

And on the other hand, can you tell me how you are going to enforce rule 27?

How can you prove that the following has been written using an automated translator?

Vergeet het zoeken naar geldwisselaars! Gebruik BestChange!

now i understand. sorry, i didnt mean to be aggressive, its just that sometimes its not easy to understand other people languages because you are not a native speacker. I use Chrome which translates practically everything automatically and this is a great advantage for me because i am not a native English speacker. For me translating is necessary

I always assumed this rule was meant to stop spam. It's not about the quality of the translation, it's because it's trivially easy to machine-translate a text into every possible language the forum has a local board (or thread) for. Having to pay many different people to make translations for each board is a huge barrier against spam.
Keep this rule

Note that the English boards allow this, which can help non-English speakers when they have for instance technical questions about Bitcoin.

We can always enter the field, if the list of rules, are really official rules, or rules that the community itself has assumed as common.

I understand the angle xenomorfo is coming from; the essence of making a rule against translators is to avoid spam. That is, a non native speaker of the board using transport to spam the board. But if there's a situation that at Everytime the person uses a translator, they are not producing spam. It is proficiently translated, will there still be a need for the rule?
Maybe there are other reasons behind making the rule which is somwhat unknown to many.

What is wrong with what you say is not the rule, it is your interpretation of it.

What I'm saying is that the rule is outdated but you haven't understood what it's about.

I didn't know about this rule but i honestly dont like it.

I am not a native English speaker and i need help sometime with the translator, what's wrong with that?

In other words, we don't want people who can't see well because they use glasses. In the end, the translator is a help, he doesnt write for you.
In that case i would agree with you, but if you translate the words, what harm is there? nothing in my mind

The rule is mostly against spammers and scammers who try to make their posts spreading around many boards or all boards in the forum, to increase exposure of their spam or scam.

With users who are none of these (scammers, spammers), they can post in local boards with support of translation tools and I read discussions in the past about it. If you want to ask something from locals, but you are not good in that local language, you can use translation tools, and moderators won't ban you, locals won't report you too. Your purpose of doing this, is important and decide how locals and moderators will assess your posts and your account too.

With business representative like Best Change, I think they can do this, without a ban by the rule #27 enforcement.

The rule is not outdated, but it's probably targeting users who may try to spam every board using automated translation tools in order to increase their post count or farm accounts. BestChange as a service is simply creating announcements in different boards and then updating them, which is allowed
If this wasn't allowed, then there would be no point of other clauses in the forum rules such as this

I have seen different services do such a thing before, and they would even run ANN translation bounty campaigns. Not in any one instant did I see the Moderators discouraging the habit

The point is this. The "rule" exists with the aim of preventing local boards from being used as global debates. For this, there are global boards.

On the other hand, I don't see this rule as something that makes it impossible for someone - on a one-off basis - to make a post in a local boards. Sometimes it can be useful to get specific clarification in one location. Now, it's one thing to do this punctually, and mention that you did it, it's another to do it with a routine.

I've done this myself, occasionally, but I always mentioned that I used a translator and put an English version. I have never felt any negative attitude from the members of this board.


Regarding the specific user/topic mentioned by the OP, I think even though he's using a translator, he's doing an ANN in the local language, I don't think that's exactly bad. I think it would make more sense to do this when the site has this language available.

In the case of my local board, I can say that, if I used a translator, the translation was very well done. But the most interesting point is that if you ask questions, they are answered in a clear and logical way. Therefore, even with translation, I see something very consistent and professional.

To discourage automatically translated content, even if it isn't heavily enforced. 


True, I also report it and they indeed get deleted asap, but I wonder if someone reports those threads that Op mentioned, would they get deleted since they are coming from an established member/business.

 

I don't think rule 27 is outdated.
My understanding is that you can't use automatic machine translation when making a post, because they often have errors and sometimes makes to sense.
In fact, from time to time we get posts like this in our local board, I always report them to moderators and they get deleted every single time.
Someone is allowed to use machine translation in conversation if he doesn't speak some language, but that is not happening so often.

I have seen this rule being very lax in the months I have been on the forum. The initial rule may have been added when there were lots of spams from non native speakers or people just posting to fulfill post requirement or generally in a time when there was stricter moderation than we have now.

We have users now who talk about joining interesting conversations in languages they cannot speak using automation tools and there is no moderation action taken. If someone is caught spamming boards, I think they will get some punitive action, but if they are contributing to the discussion and offering useful conversations, it is allowed.

- Jay -

Maybe this rule was created to encourage more participation from languages other than English?

I can't agree more with you nowadays we have highly effective AI-based tools that we can convert content into humanoid translation but I think with proper knowledge and prompts we might make it hard for a native speaker to understand if the content we posted on their local board is translated by tools or not.

For example, I can take 50 posts of a person making posts here like from the Spanish board, and give these posts to GPT and ask him to learn the patterns and words and slang words being used in these posts. Now using the same pattern translate this topic for me and make it humanoid etc. etc.

AI has made things more and more easier and with proper tools which most of the people don't even aware of. So yeah the rule is not outdated but it only to be followed strictly if it is not already. I mean if they have used Auto Translation tools then the post deserves to be deleted and if they did not then there is not problem. If any native speaker could confirm, then it resolves the issue here.

PS: TBH till now I have obeyed this rule and will always follow it because it decreases the spam rate and I even try to report some if I caught exact translation.

Yes that's a thing too however automated translation services that make use of AI can literally translate from any language to virtually any language of your choice and the truth is you can hardly tell accurately that the text was AI translated. I am a Native pidgin speaker and if I should come across a text translated to pidgin with an AI I can only speculate based on grammar and a few other things that it wasn't written by human.

I think the main reason why we have that rule is to prevent a translated text from carrying a wrong message. A native speaker can easily deduce the meaning of a text when translating and use native languages to buttress the point clearly however an AI can sometimes fail because most times they translate individual words or very short phrases which their meanings can change when put together in the full statement.

While I'm not implying this, it is also possible that they employed a translation team for the local boards.

Well I don't think if the rules is outdated and as I know if such is found then definitely their is penalty for that. However, they should install a translator extension on their chrome browser or any browser people are using, most times I do read some post in local boards with the aids of my translators I follow up the discussion but I don't comment since I am not a native speaker of that language and, also as someone who knows the rules it would be bad of me to use a tool to write a language I do not speak or and write.

Not completely sure, but I think the actual purpose of this rule is probably to stop people from other languages from participating in discussions or threads posted on another local board. For example, if I'm a German native speaker, I shouldn't be posting on the Spanish local board because that isn't for me. If I have something that I want to discuss, ask, or post, we have global boards for that.

There is a difference between a person using a translation tool to translate his posts into English and post them on a global board and a person translating their posts to post them on another local board other than their own. The word 'global' means it is for everyone, whereas a 'local' board is supposed to be used only by the native speakers of that board.

I could be wrong, but this is what my understanding is of that rule, and I don't think it is outdated based on this theory because a user should still not be allowed to use a translation tool to participate in a local board discussion where they are not a native.

I am a native speaker and I am not able to prove it. It is written as if it had been done by a native speaker and considering the number of similar threads they have written, it is normal that they are translated with an automatic translator.

Nu behöver du inte längre leta efter växlingstjänster! Använd BestChange!

Nie szukaj więcej internetowych kantorów wymiany walut! Używaj BestChange!

Vergeet het zoeken naar geldwisselaars! Gebruik BestChange!

Di' addio alle ricerche infinite di cambiavalute: usa BestChange!

Esqueça a pesquisa por cambistas! Use o BestChange!

Borsa arayışınıza son verin! BestChange kullanın!

Lupakan tentang pencarian exchanger! Gunakan BestChange!

Kalimutan ang tungkol sa exchanger search! Gumamit ng BestChange!

تشغل بالك بالبحث عن مُبادل! استخدم BestChange!


I know you are used to dragging out the rubbish you write to get paid, which is what your campaign does, pay you to write rubbish as long as the rubbish you write is long enough but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from commenting on the subject to say generalities and vagueness.


Really? How clever you are. You've stayed in 2014. Any good automated translator can tell by the context.


I speak every day with Chat GPT in English and it is quite similar to speaking to a native English speaker.


Don't talk rubbish.

First you must consider contexts and homonyms, Auto tools always fail in words with same spelling but different meanings. For instance, bark has multiple meanings, you could be referring to a tree bark while the tool would translate to a dog bark. This mistake will probably be omitted by a person who is not proficient, because they could differentiate in their writing which one they're talking about. Moreover, auto translators are hard to read and understand, could it translate idioms? Only a native speaker can interprete such things, and in literature every single detail matters.

Gradually, you are begining to admit that AI is now made sophisticated to outperform humans in translating their native language, which is a lie. Those tools are just fine for  people who don't really understand the language. They'll be no way an automatic tool will translate English to my local dialect that I wouldn't find out, it's just obvious. Have you ever tried conversing with a German on social media using auto translators, how does the conversation flow?

Finally, you also failed to realize, where you mentioned optimizing your text with AI, the difference between AI generated content and AI edited contents. Take grammarly for example, there now have a beta version that helps to rewrite your text to suit native readers, AI does it, and it's far better than relying on such tools to build a content from scratch. Have you been to Quora lately, the quality of answers there dropped so much, because of AI generated contents. The rule 27 is fine the way it is, at least locals should be able to communicate with genuine native speakers of their language, the fun of natural conversation is unbeaten.

Why you can't prove it? isn't native speaker know if the grammar off or use wrong words?

I think it's not outdated, but it's more like subjective.

Just like there are so many low quality and off topic posts, but the posts weren't deleted even though they broke the first and second rules. So, we're get used for that including people who broke the rule 27.

Someone tell me if you can prove that Best_Change has used an automatic translator for the posts on the Spanish board, because I can't.

¡Olvídate de buscar intercambiadores (exchangers)! ¡Utiliza BestChange!

When that rule was put in place, I understand that ten years ago, translators had not yet reached anywhere near the level of sophistication that they have today. In most cases they are indistinguishable from the text written by a native speaker.

Besides, what is the point of the rule? If the translated content posted on the local forum is spam or low value it already breaks other rules and can be reported, but if it is interesting, why can't it be posted if it is automatically translated whereas it can be posted if translated by my friend who has a certain level but is not proficient?

Not to mention that nowadays I can write a text in English, which is not my native language, and run it through an AI to optimise it. There is no need to go to Chat GPT, a translator like DeepL also has that function.