The very last question in my revisions survey (answered by 229 of the 232 people that filled it out) focused on finding out what, if any, training colleagues have in revision techniques. Out of the 80 people who responded yes to this question, 77 went on to give me the details (thank you!).
The third section of the revision survey switched to focusing on the perceived quality of a revision and satisfaction with a reviser’s job. But it kicked off with asking respondents whether they were aware of the definitions of reviser and revision in the standard ISO 17100:2015, and two thirds are apparently not.
It’s quite simple, really. A revision is the comparison of the source text and the target text (i.e the translation) by a second person, the reviser (and, therefore, revision does not refer to the check the translator makes of his/her own work). Click on the above link for more definitions of terms used in the translation process. I have also written about the differences between revision and proofreading here.
As we saw in Part 1 of the Revision Survey Results, the main reason respondents gave for not offering revision services on their website or social media profiles (91 people explained their response) was poor translation quality. This was corroborated by the next survey question, shown above left.
As I stated in the survey:
By revisions I mean checking another translator’s translation against the source and making corrections as deemed necessary. This is often wrongly termed proofreading.
This is just a quick post to ask you all if you could please complete the survey on revisions that I have created using Google Forms.
Regular readers will know that revisions is a pet subject, although I promise I do have lots of other posts/ideas in the pipeline. I just need to find some time to finish writing them (hopefully during the summer).
Thanks very much. I will blog about the results of this revision survey at the beginning of the next academic year.