Google Docs Adds Translation, But It's Not Without Flaws

Written by Steven Walling / August 27, 2009 2:32 PM / 5 Comments

Google has now integrated its translation technology into Google Docs, allowing users to convert their documents into any one of 42 languages with the click of a button. While the official Google blog highlighted a usage case of a child translating her drawing for her family, the enterprise blog post showcases a different usage case, one for enterprises that need to translate documents for the multilingual teams that operate in a global business landscape. There's just one problem with the tool: translations are pretty rough, and it's not suited to any application for which quality is critical. That makes it fine for casual use, but not for Google Apps enterprise and education customers.

Dead Simple

Using the translate tool was pretty simple. Just open your document, go Tools > Translate document, and then choose your language. It's enabled now for all users, so you can try it for yourself too.

In his Google Enterprise post, Jason Harris outlined just why this is an incremental but vital addition to Google Docs. "At Google, I often collaborate with colleagues around the world, so it's quite common to be working with someone whose native language is different from my own."

It's not just Google that operates as a multilingual organization these days. While English is definitely a lingua franca for those using internationally distributed teams, there still comes a time when you might need your document translated.

Proceed with Caution

But if this translation is going to be used professionally, you might want to do so with a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to accuracy. Our test of the translation found it was just as rough as the public version that has long been available at translate.google.com.

We translated the first paragraph of the Google article on Wikipedia from English to Chinese and then back to English. If you try this same kind of test yourself, it quickly becomes obvious that this is no replacement for a human being; a good deal of meaning was lost in the process.

We didn't really expect this to be of mind-blowing perfection. But Google has definitely been pushing Google Apps as a suite worth spending big bucks on. To have something that unreliable included in a product they're marketing as enterprise-grade software is not the best idea. The simplest solution would be to make clear that the Docs translation is not to be depended upon for mission-critical work, but unfortunately Google has done no such thing yet.

Comments

Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteEnterprise posts

The criticism of how they are pitching it is fair, but not the criticism of the translation quality itself: translation is a miserably difficult computational problem, and people know that. There aren't good products on the market, so all Google really needs to do to be an improvement is to give "babelfish" quality with a better interface.

Posted by: Brad | August 27, 2009 4:40 PM

@Brad: agreed. This post was just stating the obvious: Machine Translation is a HARD problem, one that won't be completely solved within the foreseeable future. "Like reaching for the moon by climbing trees", I think Martin Kay called it (and he's been working on MT all his life...). But within certain domains, MT can be quite useful, we're just never going to see Fully Automatic High Quality Unrestricted Machine Translation.

BTW, I have to plug this because I think it's so wonderful: http://www.worldwidelexicon.org/ – a Firefox toolbar which gives you MT from various different engines (Google, Apertium, Moses, ...) plus lets you post-edit yourself and share with other WWL users! So whenever someone visits a site which you post-edited with the WWL toolbar, they'll see your translation fixes :-)

Posted by: unhammer.wordpress.com | August 28, 2009 12:00 AM

I find the translation quality provided by Google much improved over the last few years. Maybe for the monolingual, or those who haven't thought about the problem too much, the translations will seem poor. But I think it's a fantastic service.

The other day I was looking for some reviews of an obscure bike I was thinking of trying out. I could find very little, but then I found a review in Czech. I tapped it into Google translate and I could certainly get a very good idea of it. I do a lot of Italian > English translations with this tool as well, and it is surprisingly understandable - and much better than a few years ago. (Or maybe my own brain has just become duller.)

This is translation to help with comprehension of texts you are reading, IMO. Not translation to help you publish something.

Posted by: Steve B | August 28, 2009 12:19 AM

I wouldn't use machine translation for my documents (unless I'm not going to send them anywhere) because the context and quality issues are too big, and I'm not going to risk my company reputation. I prefer using a paid service (I use OneHourTranslation.com but there are plenty of translation agencies around) and know that a professional ( and human!) translator is taking care of my texts.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/keithcook70#b8f75 | August 28, 2009 1:13 AM

Steve B,

I absolutely agree that "This is translation to help with comprehension of texts you are reading, IMO. Not translation to help you publish something."

But that's not how Google has advertised this. They launched it as a tool to translate for the benefit of others, not just our own research.

Yes, MT is hard and Google has done a comparatively good job. But not when you're talking about a tool for translating and publishing docs to your friends, family, and coworkers. That's how they marketed it, and in that capacity it's a failure.

Posted by: stevenwalling.com | August 28, 2009 3:25 AM