Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #18104 > unrolled thread

DB with a main language table and different kind of translations

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php

Contents

  DB with a main language table and different kind of translations ^Bart <gabriele1NOSPAM@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-09 18:58 +0100
    Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-11-09 20:33 +0100
      Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations robamman2019@gmail.com - 2019-12-22 02:53 -0800
    Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-11-09 23:52 +0100
      Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations ^Bart <gabriele1NOSPAM@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-10 10:19 +0100
        Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations Martin Leese <please@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID> - 2019-11-10 10:35 -0700
    Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations robamman2019@gmail.com - 2019-12-25 00:01 -0800
      Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2019-12-25 09:39 -0500
        Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations robamman2019@gmail.com - 2019-12-26 04:09 -0800
          Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-12-26 14:01 +0100
            Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations robamman2019@gmail.com - 2019-12-26 08:28 -0800
              Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-12-26 19:14 +0100
                Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations robamman2019@gmail.com - 2019-12-26 10:28 -0800
                  Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-12-26 20:40 +0100
                    Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations robamman2019@gmail.com - 2019-12-26 12:23 -0800
                      Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2019-12-26 17:08 -0500
                        Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations robamman2019@gmail.com - 2019-12-26 17:41 -0800
                          Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2019-12-27 10:33 -0500
                            Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations robamman2019@gmail.com - 2019-12-27 12:55 -0800
                              Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2019-12-27 17:51 -0500
                                Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations kristjanman2k20@gmail.com - 2020-03-03 07:14 -0800
                                  Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2020-03-03 16:39 -0500
                                    Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations kristjanman2k20@gmail.com - 2020-03-03 14:43 -0800
                                      Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2020-03-03 21:39 -0500
                                        Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations kristjanman2k20@gmail.com - 2020-03-04 05:35 -0800
                                          Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2020-03-04 11:11 -0500
                                            Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations kristjanman2k20@gmail.com - 2020-03-04 08:17 -0800
                                  Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2020-03-04 08:08 +0100
                                    Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations kristjanman2k20@gmail.com - 2020-03-04 05:31 -0800
                        Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations robamman2019@gmail.com - 2019-12-26 17:44 -0800
                          Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-12-27 10:55 +0100
                            Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations robamman2019@gmail.com - 2019-12-27 13:20 -0800
                              Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-12-28 00:21 +0100
                                Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations kristjanman2k20@gmail.com - 2020-03-03 07:22 -0800
                      Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-12-27 10:49 +0100
          Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2019-12-26 10:48 -0500
    Re: DB with a main language table and different kind of translations Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-12-25 09:36 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#18104 — DB with a main language table and different kind of translations

Hi everybody!

I'd like to create a db where I should store food recipes with 
ingredients translations, I thought to create these tables in MariaDB:

ingredients
------------------------
id_ingredient   name
1		sugar
2		eggs
3		flour

recipes
------------------------
id_recipe name	  FK_id_ingredient
1	  pasta   2
2	  pasta   3

languages
-------------------------
id_language	name
1		Italian
2		French
3		Spanish

ingredienttranslations
--------------------------
FK_id_ingredient FK_id_language name
1		 1		zucchero
2		 1		uova
3		 1		farina

I thought to create as primary key, in ingredienttranslations table, 
FK_id_ingredient+FK_id_language.

The user (I got also a table named users linked to languages!) will see 
ingredients in his own language but ingredients will be stored in 
recipe's table in main language (English), I'd like to use this idea 
because I could enable a fall back language feature when it's not 
available an ingredient translation!

I could have also two different table for recipes, one just to store 
recipe's name and another one just to store its ingredients!

I should create PHP code but I'd like to know your opinion!

Is my idea correct?
How could I improve my project?
Should I use tables without id column because the ingredient's name will 
never change?

Regards.
^Bart

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#18105

On 09/11/2019 18.58, ^Bart wrote:

Think this one better fits in a database related usegroup like 
comp.databases.mysql


> I'd like to create a db where I should store food recipes with 
> ingredients translations, I thought to create these tables in MariaDB:
> 
> ingredients
> ------------------------
> id_ingredient   name
> 1        sugar
> 2        eggs
> 3        flour
> 
> recipes
> ------------------------
> id_recipe name      FK_id_ingredient
> 1      pasta   2
> 2      pasta   3


You are creating a one to one relation between the ingredients and 
recipes, you need a table in between to join

recipes_ingredients which has two columns, id_recipe and id_ingredient. 
and you remove the FK_id_ingredient (bad naming of the column) as it's 
not needed.


> languages
> -------------------------
> id_language    name
> 1        Italian
> 2        French
> 3        Spanish
> 
> ingredienttranslations
> --------------------------
> FK_id_ingredient FK_id_language name
> 1         1        zucchero
> 2         1        uova
> 3         1        farina

Again, drop the FK_ part of the column names, you want to use the same 
name in all the tables, makes it far easier and in some frameworks you 
will do a lot more if you don't have the same name.


> I thought to create as primary key, in ingredienttranslations table, 
> FK_id_ingredient+FK_id_language.
> 
> The user (I got also a table named users linked to languages!) will see 
> ingredients in his own language but ingredients will be stored in 
> recipe's table in main language (English),

I would suggest you have English as part of your languages in the 
languages table, the ingredients will have a translation_key instead of 
the name. Then you have exactly the same code in your front end to 
display the names regardless of language. Makes your code easier to 
maintain.


> I'd like to use this idea 
> because I could enable a fall back language feature when it's not 
> available an ingredient translation!

Having all languages in a table makes it simple, you just pick the 
languages in the order the user prefers and the fall back language last 
and you just pick the first line you get.



> Should I use tables without id column because the ingredient's name will 
> never change?

A numeric key is better than string based key.


I think Jerry already explained all this once before.


-- 

  //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18133

laupäev, 9. november 2019 21:33.16 UTC+2 kirjutas J.O. Aho:
> On 09/11/2019 18.58, ^Bart wrote:
> 
> Think this one better fits in a database related usegroup like 
> comp.databases.mysql
> 
Exactly my idea!

With the best wishes,
Kristjan Robam
> 
> > I'd like to create a db where I should store food recipes with 
> > ingredients translations, I thought to create these tables in MariaDB:
> > 
> > ingredients
> > ------------------------
> > id_ingredient   name
> > 1        sugar
> > 2        eggs
> > 3        flour
> > 
> > recipes
> > ------------------------
> > id_recipe name      FK_id_ingredient
> > 1      pasta   2
> > 2      pasta   3
> 
> 
> You are creating a one to one relation between the ingredients and 
> recipes, you need a table in between to join
> 
> recipes_ingredients which has two columns, id_recipe and id_ingredient. 
> and you remove the FK_id_ingredient (bad naming of the column) as it's 
> not needed.
> 
> 
> > languages
> > -------------------------
> > id_language    name
> > 1        Italian
> > 2        French
> > 3        Spanish
> > 
> > ingredienttranslations
> > --------------------------
> > FK_id_ingredient FK_id_language name
> > 1         1        zucchero
> > 2         1        uova
> > 3         1        farina
> 
> Again, drop the FK_ part of the column names, you want to use the same 
> name in all the tables, makes it far easier and in some frameworks you 
> will do a lot more if you don't have the same name.
> 
> 
> > I thought to create as primary key, in ingredienttranslations table, 
> > FK_id_ingredient+FK_id_language.
> > 
> > The user (I got also a table named users linked to languages!) will see 
> > ingredients in his own language but ingredients will be stored in 
> > recipe's table in main language (English),
> 
> I would suggest you have English as part of your languages in the 
> languages table, the ingredients will have a translation_key instead of 
> the name. Then you have exactly the same code in your front end to 
> display the names regardless of language. Makes your code easier to 
> maintain.
> 
> 
> > I'd like to use this idea 
> > because I could enable a fall back language feature when it's not 
> > available an ingredient translation!
> 
> Having all languages in a table makes it simple, you just pick the 
> languages in the order the user prefers and the fall back language last 
> and you just pick the first line you get.
> 
> 
> 
> > Should I use tables without id column because the ingredient's name will 
> > never change?
> 
> A numeric key is better than string based key.
> 
> 
> I think Jerry already explained all this once before.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
>   //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18107

^Bart:

> Hi everybody!
> 
> I'd like to create a db where I should store food recipes with 
> ingredients translations, I thought to create these tables in MariaDB:
[...]
> Is my idea correct?
> How could I improve my project?
> Should I use tables without id column because the ingredient's name will 
> never change?

What does this have to do with PHP? Why do ask other people to do your
homework?


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18109

> What does this have to do with PHP? Why do ask other people to do your
> homework?

Thanks for your reply, I don't need and I don't want someone who work 
for me, I'm a php+mysql newbie and sometimes I have wrong ideas, this is 
a newsgroup and I'm here just to ask other opinions!

Usually I help other people in other n.g. or forum (for example about 
Debian) and I never replied to someone like you did with me...

I know if I create a bad db I'll have problems when I'll write php code 
for this reason I posted here my doubts!

Have a nice day!
^Bart

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18113

^Bart wrote:
 > Arno Welzel
>> What does this have to do with PHP? Why do ask other people to do your
>> homework?
> 
> Thanks for your reply, I don't need and I don't want someone who work 
> for me, I'm a php+mysql newbie and sometimes I have wrong ideas, this is 
> a newsgroup and I'm here just to ask other opinions!
> 
> Usually I help other people in other n.g. or forum (for example about 
> Debian) and I never replied to someone like you did with me...
> 
> I know if I create a bad db I'll have problems when I'll write php code 
> for this reason I posted here my doubts!

What is going on, here?  There are numerous
mysql newsgroups, including
comp.databases.mysql.  When I look over
there, I see a thread with the same Subject.
This is because J.O.Aho added
comp.databases.mysql to the list of
newsgroups with it set as the Followup-To.
He even asked you to take this over there;
look:

J.O. Aho wrote:
 >>> Think this one better fits in a database related usegroup like
 >>> comp.databases.mysql

Please take this over to
comp.databases.mysql, where you have already
posted (although you are presumably unaware
of this.)  I have set the Followup-To of
this post to encourage you.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Leese
E-mail: please@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18138

laupäev, 9. november 2019 19:58.06 UTC+2 kirjutas ^Bart:
> Hi everybody!
> 
> I'd like to create a db where I should store food recipes with 
> ingredients translations, I thought to create these tables in MariaDB:
> 
> ingredients
> ------------------------
> id_ingredient   name
> 1		sugar
> 2		eggs
> 3		flour
> 
> recipes
> ------------------------
> id_recipe name	  FK_id_ingredient
> 1	  pasta   2
> 2	  pasta   3
> 
> languages
> -------------------------
> id_language	name
> 1		Italian
> 2		French
> 3		Spanish
> 
> ingredienttranslations
> --------------------------
> FK_id_ingredient FK_id_language name
> 1		 1		zucchero
> 2		 1		uova
> 3		 1		farina
> 
> I thought to create as primary key, in ingredienttranslations table, 
> FK_id_ingredient+FK_id_language.
> 
> The user (I got also a table named users linked to languages!) will see 
> ingredients in his own language but ingredients will be stored in 
> recipe's table in main language (English), I'd like to use this idea 
> because I could enable a fall back language feature when it's not 
> available an ingredient translation!
> 
> I could have also two different table for recipes, one just to store 
> recipe's name and another one just to store its ingredients!
> 
> I should create PHP code but I'd like to know your opinion!
> 
> Is my idea correct?
> How could I improve my project?
> Should I use tables without id column because the ingredient's name will 
> never change?
> 
> Regards.
> ^Bart

Personally I think you could use some translation tool API to let it translate your words on the run.

With the best wishes,
Kristjan Robam
E-mail: robamman2019x @ aol.com
[Please take off x, when writing to me]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18140

On 12/25/2019 3:01 AM, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> laupäev, 9. november 2019 19:58.06 UTC+2 kirjutas ^Bart:
>> Hi everybody!
>>
>> I'd like to create a db where I should store food recipes with
>> ingredients translations, I thought to create these tables in MariaDB:
>>
>> ingredients
>> ------------------------
>> id_ingredient   name
>> 1		sugar
>> 2		eggs
>> 3		flour
>>
>> recipes
>> ------------------------
>> id_recipe name	  FK_id_ingredient
>> 1	  pasta   2
>> 2	  pasta   3
>>
>> languages
>> -------------------------
>> id_language	name
>> 1		Italian
>> 2		French
>> 3		Spanish
>>
>> ingredienttranslations
>> --------------------------
>> FK_id_ingredient FK_id_language name
>> 1		 1		zucchero
>> 2		 1		uova
>> 3		 1		farina
>>
>> I thought to create as primary key, in ingredienttranslations table,
>> FK_id_ingredient+FK_id_language.
>>
>> The user (I got also a table named users linked to languages!) will see
>> ingredients in his own language but ingredients will be stored in
>> recipe's table in main language (English), I'd like to use this idea
>> because I could enable a fall back language feature when it's not
>> available an ingredient translation!
>>
>> I could have also two different table for recipes, one just to store
>> recipe's name and another one just to store its ingredients!
>>
>> I should create PHP code but I'd like to know your opinion!
>>
>> Is my idea correct?
>> How could I improve my project?
>> Should I use tables without id column because the ingredient's name will
>> never change?
>>
>> Regards.
>> ^Bart
> 
> Personally I think you could use some translation tool API to let it translate your words on the run.
> 

That would add significant overhead compared to a table lookup (as well 
as depending on the translation tool site being available at the time). 
Additionally, translations are not all that great.  There's a reason 
good website developers use native speakers of the language they are 
translating to instead of tools.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18142

kolmapäev, 25. detsember 2019 16:39.35 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
> On 12/25/2019 3:01 AM, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> > laupäev, 9. november 2019 19:58.06 UTC+2 kirjutas ^Bart:
> >> Hi everybody!
> >>
> >> I'd like to create a db where I should store food recipes with
> >> ingredients translations, I thought to create these tables in MariaDB:
> >>
> >> ingredients
> >> ------------------------
> >> id_ingredient   name
> >> 1		sugar
> >> 2		eggs
> >> 3		flour
> >>
> >> recipes
> >> ------------------------
> >> id_recipe name	  FK_id_ingredient
> >> 1	  pasta   2
> >> 2	  pasta   3
> >>
> >> languages
> >> -------------------------
> >> id_language	name
> >> 1		Italian
> >> 2		French
> >> 3		Spanish
> >>
> >> ingredienttranslations
> >> --------------------------
> >> FK_id_ingredient FK_id_language name
> >> 1		 1		zucchero
> >> 2		 1		uova
> >> 3		 1		farina
> >>
> >> I thought to create as primary key, in ingredienttranslations table,
> >> FK_id_ingredient+FK_id_language.
> >>
> >> The user (I got also a table named users linked to languages!) will see
> >> ingredients in his own language but ingredients will be stored in
> >> recipe's table in main language (English), I'd like to use this idea
> >> because I could enable a fall back language feature when it's not
> >> available an ingredient translation!
> >>
> >> I could have also two different table for recipes, one just to store
> >> recipe's name and another one just to store its ingredients!
> >>
> >> I should create PHP code but I'd like to know your opinion!
> >>
> >> Is my idea correct?
> >> How could I improve my project?
> >> Should I use tables without id column because the ingredient's name will
> >> never change?
> >>
> >> Regards.
> >> ^Bart
> > 
> > Personally I think you could use some translation tool API to let it translate your words on the run.
> > 
> 
> That would add significant overhead compared to a table lookup (as well 
> as depending on the translation tool site being available at the time). 
> Additionally, translations are not all that great.  There's a reason 
> good website developers use native speakers of the language they are 
> translating to instead of tools.
> 
> -- 
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> jstucklex@attglobal.net
> ==================
Why then to create translators?
Personally I think, that if you have a native language clients and you are forced to add languages, then you should make a universal application with automatic translator and that is enough. If somebody doubts on the meanings, he/she could look up the most approprite translation from the dictionary hisself or herself.

With the best wishes,
Kristjan Robam
E-mail: robamman2019x @ aol.com
[Please remove x, when e-mailing to me]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18143

On 26/12/2019 13:09, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:

> Why then to create translators?
> Personally I think, that if you have a native language clients and you are forced to add languages, then you should make a universal application with automatic translator and that is enough. If somebody doubts on the meanings, he/she could look up the most approprite translation from the dictionary hisself or herself.

For automated translation still has issues to make a text properly 
readable, for example

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fhk.appledaily.com%2Fhit

"Even when they saw them marching together, they could not see it. They 
even slapped their heads and entered the village office together."

The text is poorly translated and don't make any sense. Sure translating 
between related indo-european languages may work somewhat well, but when 
you start to translate between language groups, then it's just horribly 
wrong.

-- 

  //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18145

On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 3:01:22 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
> On 26/12/2019 13:09, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > Why then to create translators?
> > Personally I think, that if you have a native language clients and you are forced to add languages, then you should make a universal application with automatic translator and that is enough. If somebody doubts on the meanings, he/she could look up the most approprite translation from the dictionary hisself or herself.
> 
> For automated translation still has issues to make a text properly 
> readable, for example
I was thinking about this. When you make automated translation, you can make exceptions lists on translation. Automated translating could save a lot of time. Maybe the wrong translations would be about 1%, but this percent is good enough do do some programming. When checking the translations, you will of course fix the wrong translations to the "exceptional translation list". Otherwise you would be a translator instead of a man/woman called a programmer ;-) :-)


With the best wishes,
Kristjan Robam
E-mail: robamman2019x @ aol.com
(Please remove x, when e-mailing)

> 
> https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fhk.appledaily.com%2Fhit
> 
> "Even when they saw them marching together, they could not see it. They 
> even slapped their heads and entered the village office together."
> 
> The text is poorly translated and don't make any sense. Sure translating 
> between related indo-european languages may work somewhat well, but when 
> you start to translate between language groups, then it's just horribly 
> wrong.
> 
> -- 
> 
>   //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18146

On 26/12/2019 17:28, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 3:01:22 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> On 26/12/2019 13:09, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Why then to create translators?
>>> Personally I think, that if you have a native language clients and you are forced to add languages, then you should make a universal application with automatic translator and that is enough. If somebody doubts on the meanings, he/she could look up the most approprite translation from the dictionary hisself or herself.
>>
>> For automated translation still has issues to make a text properly
>> readable, for example
> I was thinking about this. When you make automated translation, you can make exceptions lists on translation.
> Automated translating could save a lot of time.
 > Maybe the wrong translations would be about 1%, but this percent is
 > good enough do do some programming.

Word to word translations you may be down at 1% between close languages 
as Swedish and Nynorsk (one of the two dialects in Norway), but even a 
100% right word to word translation will not give you correct sentences.


> When checking the translations, you will of course fix the wrong translations to the "exceptional translation list".

You will spend more time on that than letting a professional translator 
do the job for you, so the translator will be cheaper and makes your 
site to look far more professional too.


> Otherwise you would be a translator instead of a man/woman called a programmer ;-) 

Rather being a translator than a script kiddie who makes a site loose 
it's forging visitor due of bad quality translations.



PS. As you don't use a proper client, delete message footers and adjust 
line length according standard manually.

-- 

  //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18147

On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:14:19 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
> On 26/12/2019 17:28, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 3:01:22 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
> >> On 26/12/2019 13:09, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why then to create translators?
> >>> Personally I think, that if you have a native language clients and you are forced to add languages, then you should make a universal application with automatic translator and that is enough. If somebody doubts on the meanings, he/she could look up the most approprite translation from the dictionary hisself or herself.
> >>
> >> For automated translation still has issues to make a text properly
> >> readable, for example
> > I was thinking about this. When you make automated translation, you can make exceptions lists on translation.
> > Automated translating could save a lot of time.
>  > Maybe the wrong translations would be about 1%, but this percent is
>  > good enough do do some programming.
> 
> Word to word translations you may be down at 1% between close languages 
> as Swedish and Nynorsk (one of the two dialects in Norway), but even a 
> 100% right word to word translation will not give you correct sentences.
> 
Personally I think google translate is pretty good. 
You may do it so, that you translate everything with a translator first and then hire a translator, who will fix the exact translations. It will save a lot of time and money. You can save with it for example 90% of the money you would give to a proffessional translator. Think MCGyver, think ! ;-)

With the most pleasent wishes,
Kristjan Robam
> 
> > When checking the translations, you will of course fix the wrong translations to the "exceptional translation list".
> 
> You will spend more time on that than letting a professional translator 
> do the job for you, so the translator will be cheaper and makes your 
> site to look far more professional too.
> 
> 
> > Otherwise you would be a translator instead of a man/woman called a programmer ;-) 
> 
> Rather being a translator than a script kiddie who makes a site loose 
> it's forging visitor due of bad quality translations.
> 
> 
> 
> PS. As you don't use a proper client, delete message footers and adjust 
> line length according standard manually.
> 
> -- 
> 
>   //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18148

On 26/12/2019 19:28, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:14:19 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> On 26/12/2019 17:28, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 3:01:22 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:

>>>> For automated translation still has issues to make a text properly
>>>> readable, for example
>>> I was thinking about this. When you make automated translation, you can make exceptions lists on translation.
>>> Automated translating could save a lot of time.
>>   > Maybe the wrong translations would be about 1%, but this percent is
>>   > good enough do do some programming.
>>
>> Word to word translations you may be down at 1% between close languages
>> as Swedish and Nynorsk (one of the two dialects in Norway), but even a
>> 100% right word to word translation will not give you correct sentences.
>>
> Personally I think google translate is pretty good.

Then you don't use a lot languages to translate between, just relative 
indoerupean languages and that is when google works as best, it suxx as 
soon as you have translation outside the indoeuropean group.


> You may do it so, that you translate everything with a translator first
> and then hire a translator, who will fix the exact translations.
 > It will save a lot of time and money.

This actually more expensive than let the translator translate the 
complete text, as in your case you will pay for per translated word and 
the hourly fee, while whole text translation you generally just pay the 
per translated word fee.

The cheapest way to have translations are community translators, but you 
will have inconsequent quality on the translations.

I have worked with multi language sites and the best results you will 
have with a full translation where you add some context to the text you 
want to get translated. There is no shortcuts to make on translations.


> It will save a lot of time and money. You can save with it 
> for example 90% of the money you would give to a proffessional
> translator. Think MCGyver, think ! ;-)

Bad ideas will not get better for adding MacGyver as a reference, just 
makes things worse.



PS. As you don't use a proper client, delete message footers and adjust 
line length according standard manually.

-- 

  //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18149

On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 9:40:15 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
> On 26/12/2019 19:28, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:14:19 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
> >> On 26/12/2019 17:28, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 3:01:22 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
> 
> >>>> For automated translation still has issues to make a text properly
> >>>> readable, for example
> >>> I was thinking about this. When you make automated translation, you can make exceptions lists on translation.
> >>> Automated translating could save a lot of time.
> >>   > Maybe the wrong translations would be about 1%, but this percent is
> >>   > good enough do do some programming.
> >>
> >> Word to word translations you may be down at 1% between close languages
> >> as Swedish and Nynorsk (one of the two dialects in Norway), but even a
> >> 100% right word to word translation will not give you correct sentences.
> >>
> > Personally I think google translate is pretty good.
> 
> Then you don't use a lot languages to translate between, just relative 
> indoerupean languages and that is when google works as best, it suxx as 
> soon as you have translation outside the indoeuropean group.
> 
> 
> > You may do it so, that you translate everything with a translator first
> > and then hire a translator, who will fix the exact translations.
>  > It will save a lot of time and money.
> 
> This actually more expensive than let the translator translate the 
> complete text, as in your case you will pay for per translated word and 
> the hourly fee, while whole text translation you generally just pay the 
> per translated word fee.
> 
Actually it would be even better if you don't hire a translator. When somebody doubts on some translation, then he/she can translate it hisself or herself. Much cheaper to develop a webpage. And the money would go to some better direction like marketing for example. Personally I think that it is not a good idea to let somebody translate something, when a premade translator is already there.

With the most pleasent wishes,
Kristjan Robam
E-mail: robamman2019x @ aol.com
(Please remove x, when e-mailing)

> The cheapest way to have translations are community translators, but you 
> will have inconsequent quality on the translations.
> 
> I have worked with multi language sites and the best results you will 
> have with a full translation where you add some context to the text you 
> want to get translated. There is no shortcuts to make on translations.
> 
> 
> > It will save a lot of time and money. You can save with it 
> > for example 90% of the money you would give to a proffessional
> > translator. Think MCGyver, think ! ;-)
> 
> Bad ideas will not get better for adding MacGyver as a reference, just 
> makes things worse.
> 
> 
> 
> PS. As you don't use a proper client, delete message footers and adjust 
> line length according standard manually.
> 
> -- 
> 
>   //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18150

On 12/26/2019 3:23 PM, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 9:40:15 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> On 26/12/2019 19:28, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:14:19 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>> On 26/12/2019 17:28, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 3:01:22 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>
>>>>>> For automated translation still has issues to make a text properly
>>>>>> readable, for example
>>>>> I was thinking about this. When you make automated translation, you can make exceptions lists on translation.
>>>>> Automated translating could save a lot of time.
>>>>    > Maybe the wrong translations would be about 1%, but this percent is
>>>>    > good enough do do some programming.
>>>>
>>>> Word to word translations you may be down at 1% between close languages
>>>> as Swedish and Nynorsk (one of the two dialects in Norway), but even a
>>>> 100% right word to word translation will not give you correct sentences.
>>>>
>>> Personally I think google translate is pretty good.
>>
>> Then you don't use a lot languages to translate between, just relative
>> indoerupean languages and that is when google works as best, it suxx as
>> soon as you have translation outside the indoeuropean group.
>>
>>
>>> You may do it so, that you translate everything with a translator first
>>> and then hire a translator, who will fix the exact translations.
>>   > It will save a lot of time and money.
>>
>> This actually more expensive than let the translator translate the
>> complete text, as in your case you will pay for per translated word and
>> the hourly fee, while whole text translation you generally just pay the
>> per translated word fee.
>>
> Actually it would be even better if you don't hire a translator. When somebody doubts on some translation, then he/she can translate it hisself or herself. Much cheaper to develop a webpage. And the money would go to some better direction like marketing for example. Personally I think that it is not a good idea to let somebody translate something, when a premade translator is already there.
> 

The won't "translate it hisself or herself".  They will just go to a 
site with good translations.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18157

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 12:08:36 AM UTC+2, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 12/26/2019 3:23 PM, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 9:40:15 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
> >> On 26/12/2019 19:28, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:14:19 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
> >>>> On 26/12/2019 17:28, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 3:01:22 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> For automated translation still has issues to make a text properly
> >>>>>> readable, for example
> >>>>> I was thinking about this. When you make automated translation, you can make exceptions lists on translation.
> >>>>> Automated translating could save a lot of time.
> >>>>    > Maybe the wrong translations would be about 1%, but this percent is
> >>>>    > good enough do do some programming.
> >>>>
> >>>> Word to word translations you may be down at 1% between close languages
> >>>> as Swedish and Nynorsk (one of the two dialects in Norway), but even a
> >>>> 100% right word to word translation will not give you correct sentences.
> >>>>
> >>> Personally I think google translate is pretty good.
> >>
> >> Then you don't use a lot languages to translate between, just relative
> >> indoerupean languages and that is when google works as best, it suxx as
> >> soon as you have translation outside the indoeuropean group.
> >>
> >>
> >>> You may do it so, that you translate everything with a translator first
> >>> and then hire a translator, who will fix the exact translations.
> >>   > It will save a lot of time and money.
> >>
> >> This actually more expensive than let the translator translate the
> >> complete text, as in your case you will pay for per translated word and
> >> the hourly fee, while whole text translation you generally just pay the
> >> per translated word fee.
> >>
> > Actually it would be even better if you don't hire a translator. When somebody doubts on some translation, then he/she can translate it hisself or herself. Much cheaper to develop a webpage. And the money would go to some better direction like marketing for example. Personally I think that it is not a good idea to let somebody translate something, when a premade translator is already there.
> > 
> 
> The won't "translate it hisself or herself".  They will just go to a 
> site with good translations.
> 
When developing a webpage, maybe there could be more important things to develop. When it is a specific web portal and it would cover original material, then you should trust this and leave the translation to the targeted users. In my humble opinion.

Kristjan Robam
> -- 
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> jstucklex@attglobal.net
> ==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18163

On 12/26/2019 8:41 PM, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 12:08:36 AM UTC+2, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 12/26/2019 3:23 PM, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 9:40:15 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>> On 26/12/2019 19:28, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:14:19 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/12/2019 17:28, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 3:01:22 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> For automated translation still has issues to make a text properly
>>>>>>>> readable, for example
>>>>>>> I was thinking about this. When you make automated translation, you can make exceptions lists on translation.
>>>>>>> Automated translating could save a lot of time.
>>>>>>     > Maybe the wrong translations would be about 1%, but this percent is
>>>>>>     > good enough do do some programming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Word to word translations you may be down at 1% between close languages
>>>>>> as Swedish and Nynorsk (one of the two dialects in Norway), but even a
>>>>>> 100% right word to word translation will not give you correct sentences.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I think google translate is pretty good.
>>>>
>>>> Then you don't use a lot languages to translate between, just relative
>>>> indoerupean languages and that is when google works as best, it suxx as
>>>> soon as you have translation outside the indoeuropean group.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You may do it so, that you translate everything with a translator first
>>>>> and then hire a translator, who will fix the exact translations.
>>>>    > It will save a lot of time and money.
>>>>
>>>> This actually more expensive than let the translator translate the
>>>> complete text, as in your case you will pay for per translated word and
>>>> the hourly fee, while whole text translation you generally just pay the
>>>> per translated word fee.
>>>>
>>> Actually it would be even better if you don't hire a translator. When somebody doubts on some translation, then he/she can translate it hisself or herself. Much cheaper to develop a webpage. And the money would go to some better direction like marketing for example. Personally I think that it is not a good idea to let somebody translate something, when a premade translator is already there.
>>>
>>
>> The won't "translate it hisself or herself".  They will just go to a
>> site with good translations.
>>
> When developing a webpage, maybe there could be more important things to develop. When it is a specific web portal and it would cover original material, then you should trust this and leave the translation to the targeted users. In my humble opinion.
> 
> Kristjan Robam
You've just chased that user away.  They will go to a site that has the 
information in their language.  And search engines won't find it because 
it doesn't have the text in their language.

But I guess losing users is fine with you.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18164

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 5:33:54 PM UTC+2, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 12/26/2019 8:41 PM, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 12:08:36 AM UTC+2, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >> On 12/26/2019 3:23 PM, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 9:40:15 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
> >>>> On 26/12/2019 19:28, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:14:19 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
> >>>>>> On 26/12/2019 17:28, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 3:01:22 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> For automated translation still has issues to make a text properly
> >>>>>>>> readable, for example
> >>>>>>> I was thinking about this. When you make automated translation, you can make exceptions lists on translation.
> >>>>>>> Automated translating could save a lot of time.
> >>>>>>     > Maybe the wrong translations would be about 1%, but this percent is
> >>>>>>     > good enough do do some programming.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Word to word translations you may be down at 1% between close languages
> >>>>>> as Swedish and Nynorsk (one of the two dialects in Norway), but even a
> >>>>>> 100% right word to word translation will not give you correct sentences.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Personally I think google translate is pretty good.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then you don't use a lot languages to translate between, just relative
> >>>> indoerupean languages and that is when google works as best, it suxx as
> >>>> soon as you have translation outside the indoeuropean group.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> You may do it so, that you translate everything with a translator first
> >>>>> and then hire a translator, who will fix the exact translations.
> >>>>    > It will save a lot of time and money.
> >>>>
> >>>> This actually more expensive than let the translator translate the
> >>>> complete text, as in your case you will pay for per translated word and
> >>>> the hourly fee, while whole text translation you generally just pay the
> >>>> per translated word fee.
> >>>>
> >>> Actually it would be even better if you don't hire a translator. When somebody doubts on some translation, then he/she can translate it hisself or herself. Much cheaper to develop a webpage. And the money would go to some better direction like marketing for example. Personally I think that it is not a good idea to let somebody translate something, when a premade translator is already there.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The won't "translate it hisself or herself".  They will just go to a
> >> site with good translations.
> >>
> > When developing a webpage, maybe there could be more important things to develop. When it is a specific web portal and it would cover original material, then you should trust this and leave the translation to the targeted users. In my humble opinion.
> > 
> > Kristjan Robam
> You've just chased that user away.  They will go to a site that has the 
> information in their language.  And search engines won't find it because 
> it doesn't have the text in their language.
> 
> But I guess losing users is fine with you.
> 
Make a better SEO.

Kristjan
> -- 
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> jstucklex@attglobal.net
> ==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18166

On 12/27/2019 3:55 PM, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 5:33:54 PM UTC+2, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 12/26/2019 8:41 PM, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 12:08:36 AM UTC+2, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 12/26/2019 3:23 PM, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 9:40:15 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/12/2019 19:28, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:14:19 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 26/12/2019 17:28, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 3:01:22 PM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For automated translation still has issues to make a text properly
>>>>>>>>>> readable, for example
>>>>>>>>> I was thinking about this. When you make automated translation, you can make exceptions lists on translation.
>>>>>>>>> Automated translating could save a lot of time.
>>>>>>>>      > Maybe the wrong translations would be about 1%, but this percent is
>>>>>>>>      > good enough do do some programming.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Word to word translations you may be down at 1% between close languages
>>>>>>>> as Swedish and Nynorsk (one of the two dialects in Norway), but even a
>>>>>>>> 100% right word to word translation will not give you correct sentences.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally I think google translate is pretty good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you don't use a lot languages to translate between, just relative
>>>>>> indoerupean languages and that is when google works as best, it suxx as
>>>>>> soon as you have translation outside the indoeuropean group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may do it so, that you translate everything with a translator first
>>>>>>> and then hire a translator, who will fix the exact translations.
>>>>>>     > It will save a lot of time and money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This actually more expensive than let the translator translate the
>>>>>> complete text, as in your case you will pay for per translated word and
>>>>>> the hourly fee, while whole text translation you generally just pay the
>>>>>> per translated word fee.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually it would be even better if you don't hire a translator. When somebody doubts on some translation, then he/she can translate it hisself or herself. Much cheaper to develop a webpage. And the money would go to some better direction like marketing for example. Personally I think that it is not a good idea to let somebody translate something, when a premade translator is already there.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The won't "translate it hisself or herself".  They will just go to a
>>>> site with good translations.
>>>>
>>> When developing a webpage, maybe there could be more important things to develop. When it is a specific web portal and it would cover original material, then you should trust this and leave the translation to the targeted users. In my humble opinion.
>>>
>>> Kristjan Robam
>> You've just chased that user away.  They will go to a site that has the
>> information in their language.  And search engines won't find it because
>> it doesn't have the text in their language.
>>
>> But I guess losing users is fine with you.
>>
> Make a better SEO.
> 
> Kristjan

This has nothing to so with SEO.  Search engines won't find what's not 
there.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php

csiph-web