Add your comments
DLS Archives
June 2013
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | ||||||
Essential Windows Apps | Do Not Track | Microsoft Office | SayNow | LibreOffice | Zeam Android Launcher | Dead Space iPhone | Firefox 4 Mobile | Firefox 4 Release | PlayStation iPhone App | Excel Tips | Android Launcher | Google One Pass | Dead Space | Google Cloud Print | Songbird for Android | NBA Jam | Internet Explorer 9 | Windows 7 Connector for Mac | Office Mac 2011 | IE9 RC






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
(Unverified)Oct 2nd 2009 7:59AM
This is an interesting new option, but your last paragraph makes a really important point.
It depends how crucial accuracy is to you. I recently blogged about this kind of machine translation at "Making Sense" (worldaccent.com/blog) and, more importantly, its dangers. It can be great for getting the gist of something, but is also often way off beam.
If a user runs your website through Google translate, they know it's at their own risk. If you have "provided" a translation, aren't you more responsible for what it says? As Bing Translator warns you every time you use it: "Automatic translation can help you understand the gist of the translated text but is no substitute for a professional human translator."
And, unless you speak the target language, how do you know if your website is being rendered in perfect prose or as unintelligible gibberish? If you care about what "you" are saying in translation, you're still best off sticking to a human translator.