There are a lot of SMT solutions built around Moses, and all of them offer a certain degree of flexibility. Some allow you to change a whole list of parameters, while others just give you a field to enter a name for your translation engine. Generally speaking, the more flexibility a certain system offers, the less user-friendly, more complicated and error-prone that system becomes. The more complex systems can cause so much confusion or frustration that the productivity gain you want to get by using MT is completely lost. On the other hand the very generic ones won’t let you really improve the quality which causes frustration with your post-editors, which in turn is again detrimental for the rise in productivity you want to achieve.
Specific for your costumers
Every LSP has its workflow and because of this some of the existing SMT solutions will not be taken into consideration from the outset. Some solutions are simply too hard to implement when a certain workflow has already been established. This is another problem you avoid when you design your own solution with your own workflow in mind.
Control over quality consistency
I guess we can say that an LSP can ask itself the question whether it wants to find the best fit among the many SMT solutions out there or whether it should try making its own. As it is very difficult to calculate the ROI in either case, it's not an easy decision to make. Nonetheless, depending on the resources and MT needs, it is a question worth asking.
- Happy Colleagues make Happy Clients Posted by Yamagata Europe posted on 12 september
- Why we love online meetings Posted by Yamagata Europe posted on 19 july
- GitHub: the ideal version control and collaboration platform Posted by Yamagata Europe posted on 23 may
- The Finnish-Japanese connection Posted by Mills Dachin on 19 september
- The Finnish-Japanese connection Posted by xploit.com on 18 september
- GitHub: the ideal version control and collaboration platform Posted by steven lugard on 18 september