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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#18202

laupäev, 28. detsember 2019 0:51.54 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
> 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.
> 
If I remind correctly, then you should use meta keywords in html. And for translated pages you can add the endings like "/fin" or "/irl"(ireland)
to search engines one by one.

With the best regards,

Mr. Kristjan Robam

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

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

#18209

On 3/3/2020 10:14 AM, kristjanman2k20@gmail.com wrote:
> laupäev, 28. detsember 2019 0:51.54 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
>> 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.
>>
> If I remind correctly, then you should use meta keywords in html. And for translated pages you can add the endings like "/fin" or "/irl"(ireland)
> to search engines one by one.
> 
> With the best regards,
> 
> Mr. Kristjan Robam
> 

Meta keywords have not been used by search engines for years due to the 
misuse of them by spammers.  Search engines have gotten a lot smarter 
and base their rankings on content and links from *related* websites 
(not link farms).

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

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

#18210

teisipäev, 3. märts 2020 23:39.47 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
> On 3/3/2020 10:14 AM, kristjanman2k20@gmail.com wrote:
> > laupäev, 28. detsember 2019 0:51.54 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
> >> 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.
> >>
> > If I remind correctly, then you should use meta keywords in html. And for translated pages you can add the endings like "/fin" or "/irl"(ireland)
> > to search engines one by one.
> > 
> > With the best regards,
> > 
> > Mr. Kristjan Robam
> > 
> 
> Meta keywords have not been used by search engines for years due to the 
> misuse of them by spammers.  Search engines have gotten a lot smarter 
> and base their rankings on content and links from *related* websites 
> (not link farms).
> 
Alright, but when your webpage does have langage switch on the dropdown menu form, then this does not work.

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

With regards,
Kristjan Robam

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

#18211

On 3/3/2020 5:43 PM, kristjanman2k20@gmail.com wrote:
> teisipäev, 3. märts 2020 23:39.47 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
>> On 3/3/2020 10:14 AM, kristjanman2k20@gmail.com wrote:
>>> laupäev, 28. detsember 2019 0:51.54 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> If I remind correctly, then you should use meta keywords in html. And for translated pages you can add the endings like "/fin" or "/irl"(ireland)
>>> to search engines one by one.
>>>
>>> With the best regards,
>>>
>>> Mr. Kristjan Robam
>>>
>>
>> Meta keywords have not been used by search engines for years due to the
>> misuse of them by spammers.  Search engines have gotten a lot smarter
>> and base their rankings on content and links from *related* websites
>> (not link farms).
>>
> Alright, but when your webpage does have langage switch on the dropdown menu form, then this does not work.
> 
> With regards,
> Kristjan Robam
> 

That all depends on how the page is coded.  Pages in other languages 
which are linked to (directly or indirectly) will still be parsed and 
handled by the search engines.  This includes ones with a language 
switch in a CSS dropdown menu.


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

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

#18214

kolmapäev, 4. märts 2020 4:40.02 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
> On 3/3/2020 5:43 PM, kristjanman2k20@gmail.com wrote:
> > teisipäev, 3. märts 2020 23:39.47 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
> >> On 3/3/2020 10:14 AM, kristjanman2k20@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> laupäev, 28. detsember 2019 0:51.54 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>> If I remind correctly, then you should use meta keywords in html. And for translated pages you can add the endings like "/fin" or "/irl"(ireland)
> >>> to search engines one by one.
> >>>
> >>> With the best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Mr. Kristjan Robam
> >>>
> >>
> >> Meta keywords have not been used by search engines for years due to the
> >> misuse of them by spammers.  Search engines have gotten a lot smarter
> >> and base their rankings on content and links from *related* websites
> >> (not link farms).
> >>
> > Alright, but when your webpage does have langage switch on the dropdown menu form, then this does not work.
> > 
> > With regards,
> > Kristjan Robam
> > 
> 
> That all depends on how the page is coded.  Pages in other languages 
> which are linked to (directly or indirectly) will still be parsed and 
> handled by the search engines.  This includes ones with a language 
> switch in a CSS dropdown menu.
> 
Yeah, but like I just wrote some minutes ago, when the dropdown menu just translates the whole page, then the translated page wont go to search engine memory.


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

Kristjan Robam

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

#18217

On 3/4/2020 8:35 AM, kristjanman2k20@gmail.com wrote:
> kolmapäev, 4. märts 2020 4:40.02 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
>> On 3/3/2020 5:43 PM, kristjanman2k20@gmail.com wrote:
>>> teisipäev, 3. märts 2020 23:39.47 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
>>>> On 3/3/2020 10:14 AM, kristjanman2k20@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> laupäev, 28. detsember 2019 0:51.54 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If I remind correctly, then you should use meta keywords in html. And for translated pages you can add the endings like "/fin" or "/irl"(ireland)
>>>>> to search engines one by one.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr. Kristjan Robam
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Meta keywords have not been used by search engines for years due to the
>>>> misuse of them by spammers.  Search engines have gotten a lot smarter
>>>> and base their rankings on content and links from *related* websites
>>>> (not link farms).
>>>>
>>> Alright, but when your webpage does have langage switch on the dropdown menu form, then this does not work.
>>>
>>> With regards,
>>> Kristjan Robam
>>>
>>
>> That all depends on how the page is coded.  Pages in other languages
>> which are linked to (directly or indirectly) will still be parsed and
>> handled by the search engines.  This includes ones with a language
>> switch in a CSS dropdown menu.
>>
> Yeah, but like I just wrote some minutes ago, when the dropdown menu just translates the whole page, then the translated page wont go to search engine memory.
> 
>

That's because you didn't do it right.  I said a LINK to the translated 
text, not using javascript to do the translation.

HUGE difference.

> 
> Kristjan Robam
> 



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

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

#18218

kolmapäev, 4. märts 2020 18:11.02 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
> On 3/4/2020 8:35 AM, kristjanman2k20@gmail.com wrote:
> > kolmapäev, 4. märts 2020 4:40.02 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
> >> On 3/3/2020 5:43 PM, kristjanman2k20@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> teisipäev, 3. märts 2020 23:39.47 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
> >>>> On 3/3/2020 10:14 AM, kristjanman2k20@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> laupäev, 28. detsember 2019 0:51.54 UTC+2 kirjutas Jerry Stuckle:
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> If I remind correctly, then you should use meta keywords in html. And for translated pages you can add the endings like "/fin" or "/irl"(ireland)
> >>>>> to search engines one by one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With the best regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mr. Kristjan Robam
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Meta keywords have not been used by search engines for years due to the
> >>>> misuse of them by spammers.  Search engines have gotten a lot smarter
> >>>> and base their rankings on content and links from *related* websites
> >>>> (not link farms).
> >>>>
> >>> Alright, but when your webpage does have langage switch on the dropdown menu form, then this does not work.
> >>>
> >>> With regards,
> >>> Kristjan Robam
> >>>
> >>
> >> That all depends on how the page is coded.  Pages in other languages
> >> which are linked to (directly or indirectly) will still be parsed and
> >> handled by the search engines.  This includes ones with a language
> >> switch in a CSS dropdown menu.
> >>
> > Yeah, but like I just wrote some minutes ago, when the dropdown menu just translates the whole page, then the translated page wont go to search engine memory.
> > 
> >
> 
> That's because you didn't do it right.  I said a LINK to the translated 
> text, not using javascript to do the translation.
> 
> HUGE difference.
> 
Oh...You said.... I don't remember.

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

Kristjan

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

#18212

kristjanman2k20@gmail.com:

[...]
> If I remind correctly, then you should use meta keywords in html. And
> for translated pages you can add the endings like "/fin" or
> "/irl"(ireland) to search engines one by one.

Keywords are mostly irrelevant nowadays due to their abuse by search
engine spammers. The correct way to indicate the language of a website
in HTML5 (which you should use anyway) is the "lang" attribute in the
html element.

Example:

1) German

<https://arnowelzel.de/>

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="de-DE">
<head>

2) English

<https://arnowelzel.de/en/>

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en-US">
<head>

The "lang" attribute can also be used in other elements if the element
itself is in a different language:

<span title="Spanish"><a lang="es" href="someurl">Español</a></span>


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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

#18213

kolmapäev, 4. märts 2020 9:08.49 UTC+2 kirjutas Arno Welzel:
> kristjanman2k20@gmail.com:
> 
> [...]
> > If I remind correctly, then you should use meta keywords in html. And
> > for translated pages you can add the endings like "/fin" or
> > "/irl"(ireland) to search engines one by one.
> 
> Keywords are mostly irrelevant nowadays due to their abuse by search
> engine spammers. The correct way to indicate the language of a website
> in HTML5 (which you should use anyway) is the "lang" attribute in the
> html element.
> 
What I meant was that when a search engine is searching pages then from dropdown languages menu it will choose a page, that has this ending(fin or ir for example). If it would just translate the page from dropdown menu, then the page would not go to search engine memory and it will not be searchable. I was thinking that......


> Example:
> 
> 1) German
> 
> <https://arnowelzel.de/>
> 
> <!DOCTYPE html>
> <html lang="de-DE">
> <head>
> 
> 2) English
> 
> <https://arnowelzel.de/en/>
> 
> <!DOCTYPE html>
> <html lang="en-US">
> <head>
> 
> The "lang" attribute can also be used in other elements if the element
> itself is in a different language:
> 
> <span title="Spanish"><a lang="es" href="someurl">Español</a></span>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arno Welzel
> https://arnowelzel.de

With best regards,

Kristjan Robam

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

#18158

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

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

#18162

On 27/12/2019 02:44, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 12:08:36 AM UTC+2, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>> 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.

One important thing you can implement is a good way to handle your 
translations (easy export/import feature), as a developer you don't 
translate the text, you let some professional to do that when it's 
decided which languages to support, say for an US site it would be 
natural to have support for English, French and Spanish as you then 
cover all the major languages in North-America.

You could make a test, set up three sites which all are the same, one 
with auto translation, one with community translation and the last with 
professional translators, see which one will be most popular.



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

-- 

  //Aho

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

#18165

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 11:56:00 AM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
> On 27/12/2019 02:44, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 12:08:36 AM UTC+2, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> One important thing you can implement is a good way to handle your 
> translations (easy export/import feature), as a developer you don't 
> translate the text, you let some professional to do that when it's 
> decided which languages to support, say for an US site it would be 
> natural to have support for English, French and Spanish as you then 
> cover all the major languages in North-America.
> 
Yes, the translation export/import is a good idea.
But for creating different language translations the system should save them to targeted tables. When somebody fixes something then everything can be exported and imported easily.

With the best wishes,
Kristjan Robam
> You could make a test, set up three sites which all are the same, one 
> with auto translation, one with community translation and the last with 
> professional translators, see which one will be most popular.
> 
> 
> 
> PS. As you don't use a proper client, delete message footers and adjust 
> line length according standard manually.
> 
> -- 
> 
>   //Aho

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

#18167

On 27/12/2019 22.20, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 11:56:00 AM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:

>> One important thing you can implement is a good way to handle your
>> translations (easy export/import feature), as a developer you don't
>> translate the text, you let some professional to do that when it's
>> decided which languages to support, say for an US site it would be
>> natural to have support for English, French and Spanish as you then
>> cover all the major languages in North-America.
>>
> Yes, the translation export/import is a good idea.
> But for creating different language translations the system should save
> them to targeted tables.

You really just need one table for translation, you can add "categories" 
to things, but not really needed for the purpose for the translation 
functionality, more for human usability.


> When somebody fixes something then everything
> can be exported and imported easily.

You want to export texts that recently been changed or added, send that 
to the translator, when you get the file back with the added translation 
you import that so that you get the new translations


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

-- 
     //Aho

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

#18203

laupäev, 28. detsember 2019 1:21.13 UTC+2 kirjutas J.O. Aho:
> On 27/12/2019 22.20, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 11:56:00 AM UTC+2, J.O. Aho wrote:
> 
> >> One important thing you can implement is a good way to handle your
> >> translations (easy export/import feature), as a developer you don't
> >> translate the text, you let some professional to do that when it's
> >> decided which languages to support, say for an US site it would be
> >> natural to have support for English, French and Spanish as you then
> >> cover all the major languages in North-America.
> >>
> > Yes, the translation export/import is a good idea.
> > But for creating different language translations the system should save
> > them to targeted tables.
> 
> You really just need one table for translation, you can add "categories" 
> to things, but not really needed for the purpose for the translation 
> functionality, more for human usability.
> 
Yes, you are right, one is enough - it's better in usability aspect.

> 
> > When somebody fixes something then everything
> > can be exported and imported easily.
> 
> You want to export texts that recently been changed or added, send that 
> to the translator, when you get the file back with the added translation 
> you import that so that you get the new translations
Exactly my idea.

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

Yes.
Thanks for advice,

Kristjan Robam

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

#18161

On 26/12/2019 21:23, 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:

>>> 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.

Yes, this is a community translation system, translation quality will be 
really vary and may even be misleading, you need to have dedicate 
community translators and a system of multiple approver, which will slow 
down the translations.

> Much cheaper to develop a webpage.

Only if you look at the cost of translating, but this requires more work 
for the administrator of the site, figuring out the good translators and 
give them more privileges, you add a running cost that don't appear as a 
specific post in your budget.


> And the money would go to some better direction like marketing for example.

As you ain't really saving money, there is no extra money to use.


> Personally I think that it is not a good idea to let somebody
> translate something, when a premade translator is already there.

And that's why you are a beginner in this field.


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

-- 

  //Aho

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

#18144

On 12/26/2019 7:09 AM, robamman2019@gmail.com wrote:
> 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]
> 

Translators work when nothing else is available.  But they are a poor 
excuse for native translations.  Try using Google Translate to translate 
from one language to another and then back.  For instance, translating 
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth onto this 
continent" to Traditional Chinese and back to English gives us "Quarters 
and seven years ago, our father grew up on this continent".

Hardly the same as the original.

Idioms are even worse.

The purpose of having something available in multiple languages is so 
that people don't have to look up the meaning of the words.

Good developers - both web and application - developers understand these 
facts and provide translations created by native speakers of that language.

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

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

#18139

On 11/9/19 12:58 PM, ^Bart wrote:
> 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

My thoughts for something like this would go as follows:

A recipe has a name, instructions, and a list of ingredients. You don't 
put a 'list of' in the same table as the thing holding the list, and 
ingredients are complicated enough (just by having translations) that we 
want a table of ingredients.

Because of the translation issue, we also need a table of language.

Thus we end up with the following tables:

Language: has a primary key for the id of the language, and the name of 
the language (we could get more complicated, and provide more tables to 
handle translating the name of the language into the various languages)

Recipe: has a primary key for the id of the recipe, and the name and 
directions for the recipe (these could also become translatable similar 
to how we are going to do the ingredients)

Recipe_Ingredient: a many-to-many linking table with foreign keys to a 
Recipe and an Ingredient, might also include columns for quantity, etc.

Ingredient: A table to provide a primary key to link to in 
Recipe_Ingredient, might include a default name for the ingredient, or 
other general information about the ingredient (like how you measure it)

Ingredient_Name: A table to provide the various translations of the name 
of the ingredients, has foreign keys to the Ingredient table and the 
Language table, and the string for name in that language.

We might also have a Recipe_Name and Recipe_Directions table, to provide 
similar translation ability for those parts of the recipe.

The biggest issue with this design is what to do if there isn't an 
ingredient name in the users desired language. Either you have a default 
language that is in the Recipe/Ingredient table (like you did) or 
provide some other fall back (find the ingredient in some other language 
to present to the user).

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web