As discussed, the problem comes from several angles:

• Who is going to judge for the award? While we may have a few individuals competent to judge three, four or five languages, most big titles are now being translated into ten or more languages.
• If we choose to offer the award only for one title in one language (i.e., the German edition of Bioshock), we still need to compare different languages. Since this is always going to be a subjective judgment, who is going to decide?

The other option is to create a Wall of Shame, aka “All your base are belong to us.” This is a much easier process, since most fluent speakers can easily spot a bad translation. The Far East Economic Review had a favorite feature of signs written in bad English from India to the Philippines.

Either of these, the Award or the Wall of Shame, is subject to some political pressure. Any individual or agency will occasionally let loose with a ringer, which can be shown to all the world. If you look carefully enough, you are sure to find some which were penned by your worst enemy.

Why?

Imagine a bad translator (who is not aware of quite how bad he is). And he’s awful. He lies about his native language, where he is living, who he has worked for in the past, but THAT SHOULD NOT MATTER. Because he is THE ONE – the great intelligent translator who knows all and sees all. Yes, you’ll get that translation back a week late, but it’s HIS and you should be happy for it. Even though all of the declensions are wrong. After all, this is a minor matter compared to his genius. If you run a translation agency, you can name at least three people whom this describes.

He asks for a review. We have three options:

1) Honesty. We tell the world how bad he is. All agencies have their own way of filtering translators, so this information does not really help them. The information is devastating to the translator, who thought he was simply excellent (why else did he ask for a review?). He writes a bad review right back at us, pretending to be that-big-client-everyone-wants, and gets his slimy bad-translator friends to do the same. Suddenly, we’re in an internet pissing fight which has done no one any good and, here is the key, has done Apogee Communications a world of bad. Let me repeat: no good for anyone, bad for us.

2) Lie. This really bad translator gets a good review from Apogee. He shows it to the world, saying what a great translator he is, and that he’s done a world of good for Apogee, videogames and Mom’s apple pie. Some less-then-careful agency hires him in the future and loses their big client over the bad translator’s work. This less-than-careful agency then goes online to explain his unfortunate demise due to hiring Apogee’s translators. Again, the key here is that it is bad for Apogee.

3) We can refuse to review. This is OK as long as we refuse to review EVERYONE. If the bad translator sees that we’ve reviewed good translators (as he will surely look for, since he’s wondering why no one has reviewed him publicly), he’ll ask WHY THE F**K WE DON’T REVIEW HIM. See possibilities 1 and 2 above. Again, not good for us UNLESS we refuse all public reviews.

We do offer private reviews for our translators if they need a reference. This is a professional courtesy, and it should come naturally to everyone in the industry who struggles with good and bad translators on a daily basis.