Under review

Do you use different workflows for freelancers (translator job, editor job) versus agency (translator & editor job)

Angelo 3 years ago in Home Portal / Classic Projects updated by Sancho Leath 3 years ago 20

Do you use different workflows for freelancers (translator job, editor job) versus agency (translator & editor job)?  We use agencies sometimes to help handle large volume.  I was wondering what other LSPs did in these circumstances in XTRF.

Yes, that's right. You should use different workflows with less jobs.

We do have this scenario and even though creating separate workflows could help, in our case we want to automate projects so we can use one workflow to cover both the scenario where we use an SLV as well as the one where we work with freelancers directly. The most common workaround is to have as many steps as you need for your freelancers and then take some out for those languages given to SLVs.

I'm curious to hear how others go about this, thanks for bringing it up, Angelo!

In my opinion it's not a good idea to create only one workflows. It's much better, to change the workflow of the selected languages. Or if you know which languages are translated by freelancers and which are by SLV-s, you can create automation.

That's the problem.  You don't know in advance.  It's also not a good idea to create extra workflows as it parses the data and creates problems in analysis.  Plus, you can't automate, which is the most important part.


But how would you do automate with more than one workflow? As far as I know you can only tie one workflow to a given service, so when a client uses the portal and request a project, we cannot apply an "IF" fork condition that triggers the right workflow for the right steps based on the language. Unless you are working on a completely customized portal where you look at the selected service and the languages chosen and then, tell XTRF to use a certain workflow.

I think you should use more Service as well. Maybe a periodic job could help you. Everytime there are more ways to achieve, we have to find the best option. Are you using classic or smart projects?

hi José, in SmartProjects it's possible to fork your process into 2 different flows based on the language. We use that option with success. You can easily map this process with the service on the client's account. For some clients on the other hand we don't need this forked process, so we use a default mapping between projects and services that we set up.

Under review

We consider this feature experimental as it covers only basic scope, so it is good to hear it serves its purpose.

Any development ideas are welcome you know where :)

So what's the resolution? How do you create a service/workflow for both agencies and freelancers at the start of a project if you don't know which you will us? Also keep in mind that the price rates are different for both: freelances = translation only rate + editing only rate, while agency = translation& editing rate.  

We try to use single workflows in this situation. When using LSPs, we assign translation + editing jobs to them. When using freelancers, we obviously only assign the relevant job.

In the case of freelancers, the payables are sorted pretty much automatically with the standard functionality.

In the case of LSPs, we use their translation + editing rate to automatically create payables for the translation job and have a macro running that sets the editing job to 'non invoiceable' so they don't show up for invoicing in the vendor portal.

It actually works rather well.

We do the same thing. Except we don't have that macro... Can you tell us more about that macro? I'm curious about it.


No problem! 

The macro runs every 30 minutes on a particular jobs view. The view contains filters for job type, invoiced = no, and also job status, I believe. It's important to filter correctly, otherwise it would put too much strain on the memory. 

For those filtered jobs, the macro uses getAllPayablesValue to check for value = 0. If so, it set's the job to non-invoiceable if it's not already so. It also works the other way around and checks for value >0 where set to non-invoiceable. In that case, it sets the job to invoiceable. This allows us to add payables later on and not having to think about setting it to invoiceable manually.

This setup also implicates that we cannot have payables with a value >0 that should not be invoiced, but so far we haven't really run into a situation where we would need that.

I see, I guess that solves it.  Can you send over the code for the macro? We don't have that macro. apassalacqua@burgtranslations.com

Hi Thijs, that's a really interesting suggestion, thanks! I can see how that would be helpful when automating. When you are registering new vendors, I assume you tell agencies that provide translation + editing for one flat rate to register that rate under "translation"? How are you sure that these "translation" rates involve a two-linguist process? Have you had any issues there?


Hi Katie, our vendor manager arranges these agreements. So far, we have never had any issues. Most of the time, when we work with these agencies we request translation + editing, so that's the standard. Only very occasionally do we request translation only, and in those cases we discuss this explicitly with the agency involved.


@XTRF: Could we add a section in the User Echo to make available macros and other code among users that help us with workaround solutions while Development is advancing the out-of-the-box functionalities? This could be named User Addons or something like this.I remember this to be common practice in many Yahoo Groups and even on Kilgray's Language Terminal. This would further strengthen the user community that is currently forming here on User Echo. Very happy to see it. It used to be sooo quiet around here only six months ago.

I could use tags for that. Or did you think of a separate forum?

People seem to be lost a bit between Ideas and Q&A already, so preferably just a tag for better searching...

I was thinking of a Shared Resources subcategory in the Knowledge Base, for example. Similar to the idea on the Language Terminal of Kilgray:

I'm curious, how do you guys get proof from the agency that they did use two linguists and not just say that they used two linguists?