As compromising as the Google translation might be, it's only a "gist" (particularly ruined by "undertakes to contribute to the law of Russia"), and not usable in almost any imaginable context.
Back when I started in this racket, payment was calculated by source count, which took the layout editor's technique of figuring out how many typewritten words would fit into a column inch and turned it on its ear: you'd measure the area of text on the page and do the appropriate arithmetic to get a guesstimate of the source count.
In the US, payment on target word count has gained huge acceptance because, I suspect, it was something that could be done easily and everyone could agree on the result. All other things being equal, this method also fairly considered differences in text.
On the con side, target payment makes life hell for agencies if they don't consider differences in text. (Quoting to the end client on the basis of source count is much easier.)
Also on the con side, some translators fall into the bad habit of not tightening their translations, e.g., using "price of the contract" instead of "contract price." One fellow I knew would never translate the 3-word Russian phrase for "happy birthday" just like that; he's render it as "felicitations on the occasion of the day of your birth," which is easily recognizable as padding. I don't even know if he still works in the industry.
Charging by source count is feasible, just not at the same rate as for target count.
In Europe, I understand that prices are quoted in various ways, often "per 55-character line" or "per 1000 characters (including spaces and tabs)."
In my own circle of clients, I am finding a subtle, yet growing pressure to move over to source payment or to quote a "not to exceed" price for target-based invoicing.
no subject
Back when I started in this racket, payment was calculated by source count, which took the layout editor's technique of figuring out how many typewritten words would fit into a column inch and turned it on its ear: you'd measure the area of text on the page and do the appropriate arithmetic to get a guesstimate of the source count.
In the US, payment on target word count has gained huge acceptance because, I suspect, it was something that could be done easily and everyone could agree on the result. All other things being equal, this method also fairly considered differences in text.
On the con side, target payment makes life hell for agencies if they don't consider differences in text. (Quoting to the end client on the basis of source count is much easier.)
Also on the con side, some translators fall into the bad habit of not tightening their translations, e.g., using "price of the contract" instead of "contract price." One fellow I knew would never translate the 3-word Russian phrase for "happy birthday" just like that; he's render it as "felicitations on the occasion of the day of your birth," which is easily recognizable as padding. I don't even know if he still works in the industry.
Charging by source count is feasible, just not at the same rate as for target count.
In Europe, I understand that prices are quoted in various ways, often "per 55-character line" or "per 1000 characters (including spaces and tabs)."
In my own circle of clients, I am finding a subtle, yet growing pressure to move over to source payment or to quote a "not to exceed" price for target-based invoicing.
Probably TMI, but there it is.
Cheers...