Certification RequirementsIn order to comply with the requirements for producing a certified translation, ULS must, inter alia, produce a statement from the translator of record attesting to the accuracy of the translationThis requirement is at the heart of the dispute: [redacted] requested – and received – certified translations of her academic documents.Changes to Translated TextAt several points, [redacted] requested that changes be made to the translated documents she receivedWe took these requests under advisement, and relayed them to the translator of record to reviewAt that time, the translator of record incorporated those changes that he deemed appropriate.It is important to note that the requested changes were primarily stylistic in natureRequested changes that significantly deviated from the source text could not be accommodated, since the translator of record could not in good faith attest to the accuracy of such changesWithout such attestation, the translation could not be certified (as explained above).For this reason, we were unable to implement each and every one of [redacted] ’s requested changesBecause she requested a certified translation, we delivered a certified translation, following accepted practice and established quality control and quality assurance measures.Further, in some cases [redacted] requested that we add information that wasn’t present in the source documentsIn these cases, we refused to incorporate the requested change because we cannot introduce novel material, regardless of client requests.As [redacted] stated in her complaint, she “would agree to new terms under the condition that all of the changes annotated in [her] last email” be implementedAs was explained to [redacted] at the time, such practice would violate the requirements of certification.FormattingAs is standard practice in the industry, ULS attempts to match the formatting of the target document as closely as possible to that of the source documentAttempts to ContactULS has made several attempts to contact [redacted] *n order to resolve this issue directlyAs of 1114, the designated representative from [redacted] has not cooperated with our attempts to schedule a conference call to discuss this matter.ConclusionIn brief, [redacted] has requested changes that are inconsistent with the certified translation that she orderedWe have accommodated every reasonable request for changes within the requirements of certificationAdditionally, we have provided services beyond our contractual obligations in order to remedy the complaints raised by [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that the matter has been resolvedI received the translation with most changesI'm still not happy about the whole process and the business's unprofessional workI had to fight for my right to receive a quality service and product; I'm glad it is over after 5! months of struggleAt the end, I agreed to the new terms to bring it to an end but it was involuntary and a big risk, because I was not willing to pay more than I already hadI would not recommend ULS to anyone Sincerely, [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted] , and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because: From ULS’ statement it seems that both parties want to achieve the same outcome, namely an accurate translation that wouldn’t “significantly deviate[d] from the source text” but could be attested as a certified translationFor me it includes, besides content and context, formatting and punctuation as wellUnfortunately that is not what ULS deliveredULS worked constantly against that goal by either ignoring mistakes or deliberately creating new onesEvery draft but especially the translation I received in the mail contained serious mistakes in form and content (such as typos, wrong dates, wrong names, major formatting changes etc.)These mistakes were created by ULSIt shows that ULS does not take the time to review the documents before sending them out to the client; otherwise, such mistakes would have been corrected beforehandThe other complaint on the Revdex.com homepage supports my thesis that this is obviously ULS’ business practiceSo yes, I requested ULS several times to correct mistakes that were created by themULS refused or followsloppy so mistakes did accumulate through the processFor instance: The original document says “July **, 2006,” the translation reads “July **, 2008;” names and titles were changed, words were drawn together so it would read “she waslikewise” instead of “she was likewise,” spaces between content and signatures were removed so the document appeared as one cohere text; in other places to many spaces were insert within sentences so words would be cut off from the rest of the text; characters were added such as a slash behind words etcI could go on and on about these mistakesIn fact, they filled pagesULS claims: “As is standard practice in the industry, ULS attempts to match the formatting of the target document as closely as possible to that of the source document.” This was not the case; if it was attempted by ULS, the company does not know how to format a documentBesides these stylistic changes the documents were contextual alteredThe original documents are written in professional language while the translation was in parts very casual translated, which changed tone and meaning to some extentFor instance “personnel responsibility” was turned into “personal responsibility,” “sweepstakes” became “game shows,” “event pages” (a fixed and common term for special websites) were translated with “action pages,” “technic” became “techniques;” ULS translated that my behavior towards clients and colleagues was “quite correct” when in fact it was “always correct;” ULS translated I was in charge of “the oversight of clients and press deadlines” when in fact “I attended client meetings and press conferences;” ULS stated that “I cared for clients,” which is a very casual way of saying that I provided “customer service” etcThese alterations might seem insignificant to ULS but in accumulation they indeed alter the tone and meaning of the original documentsAppearance, content and tone do not reflect the quality of the original workI do not care which synonyms of a word are used for the translation as long as they are correct translations of the German words and as long as they keep the original nature and toneIn this case the documents are business/professional in nature not casualIf ULS is truly unable to deliver an accurate translation in content and form, I then at least expect a mistake-free translation in an adequate formULS stated in an email from August **, 2014: “In the spirit of accommodation you may, if you so desire, submit a final request for any and all changes you wish us to reviewThis must be received by us on or before September **, 2014.” I sent my review with corrections back to ULS on September *, but ULS responded with new conditions on September **, 2014: “Before we proceed we will need you to explicitly agree in writing to the terms [I] outlined in [my] email of August ***, 2014,” namely that “all subsequent requests for review will be billable at the contracted rate of $per hour and will have to be prepaid as a retainer by check or money order for at least five (5) hours before we address any further questions.” As mentioned in my complaint I was willing to agree to the new terms if all of the changes annotated in my last email of September *, are corrected to reflect an accurate translationThe annotated chances included the corrections regarding the sentence formatting, sentence composition, punctuation, grammar, incorrect phrasing, as well as incorrect names and dates throughout the documentSecond, the final translation created by the company would not contain any new or additional mistakes or typos, as happened beforeThis leaves ULS with the decision on how to translate the content and the opportunity to comply with the requirements for producing a certified translation but at the same time gives ULS the responsibility to create a mistake-free translation including a review of the documents before sending them outAs of today, November **, 2014, I have not received a second translationI think it is my right to receive a mistake-free translation in an adequate form and appearance that reflects the quality of the original documentsI paid a lot of money in advance (at least to me $1,is a lot of money) so I assumed and still expectto receive a qualitative service in responseULS did not state at any point that the work it provides would be sloppyNeither the Internet website nor the contract mentioned that kind of business practice In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above Sincerely, [redacted]
Certification RequirementsIn order to comply with the requirements for producing a certified translation, ULS must, inter alia, produce a statement from the translator of record attesting to the accuracy of the translationThis requirement is at the heart of the dispute: [redacted] requested – and received – certified translations of her academic documents.Changes to Translated TextAt several points, [redacted] requested that changes be made to the translated documents she receivedWe took these requests under advisement, and relayed them to the translator of record to reviewAt that time, the translator of record incorporated those changes that he deemed appropriate.It is important to note that the requested changes were primarily stylistic in natureRequested changes that significantly deviated from the source text could not be accommodated, since the translator of record could not in good faith attest to the accuracy of such changesWithout such attestation, the translation could not be certified (as explained above).For this reason, we were unable to implement each and every one of [redacted] ’s requested changesBecause she requested a certified translation, we delivered a certified translation, following accepted practice and established quality control and quality assurance measures.Further, in some cases [redacted] requested that we add information that wasn’t present in the source documentsIn these cases, we refused to incorporate the requested change because we cannot introduce novel material, regardless of client requests.As [redacted] stated in her complaint, she “would agree to new terms under the condition that all of the changes annotated in [her] last email” be implementedAs was explained to [redacted] at the time, such practice would violate the requirements of certification.FormattingAs is standard practice in the industry, ULS attempts to match the formatting of the target document as closely as possible to that of the source documentAttempts to ContactULS has made several attempts to contact [redacted] *n order to resolve this issue directlyAs of 1114, the designated representative from [redacted] has not cooperated with our attempts to schedule a conference call to discuss this matter.ConclusionIn brief, [redacted] has requested changes that are inconsistent with the certified translation that she orderedWe have accommodated every reasonable request for changes within the requirements of certificationAdditionally, we have provided services beyond our contractual obligations in order to remedy the complaints raised by [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that the matter has been resolvedI received the translation with most changesI'm still not happy about the whole process and the business's unprofessional workI had to fight for my right to receive a quality service and product; I'm glad it is over after 5! months of struggleAt the end, I agreed to the new terms to bring it to an end but it was involuntary and a big risk, because I was not willing to pay more than I already hadI would not recommend ULS to anyone Sincerely, [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted] , and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because: From ULS’ statement it seems that both parties want to achieve the same outcome, namely an accurate translation that wouldn’t “significantly deviate[d] from the source text” but could be attested as a certified translationFor me it includes, besides content and context, formatting and punctuation as wellUnfortunately that is not what ULS deliveredULS worked constantly against that goal by either ignoring mistakes or deliberately creating new onesEvery draft but especially the translation I received in the mail contained serious mistakes in form and content (such as typos, wrong dates, wrong names, major formatting changes etc.)These mistakes were created by ULSIt shows that ULS does not take the time to review the documents before sending them out to the client; otherwise, such mistakes would have been corrected beforehandThe other complaint on the Revdex.com homepage supports my thesis that this is obviously ULS’ business practiceSo yes, I requested ULS several times to correct mistakes that were created by themULS refused or followsloppy so mistakes did accumulate through the processFor instance: The original document says “July **, 2006,” the translation reads “July **, 2008;” names and titles were changed, words were drawn together so it would read “she waslikewise” instead of “she was likewise,” spaces between content and signatures were removed so the document appeared as one cohere text; in other places to many spaces were insert within sentences so words would be cut off from the rest of the text; characters were added such as a slash behind words etcI could go on and on about these mistakesIn fact, they filled pagesULS claims: “As is standard practice in the industry, ULS attempts to match the formatting of the target document as closely as possible to that of the source document.” This was not the case; if it was attempted by ULS, the company does not know how to format a documentBesides these stylistic changes the documents were contextual alteredThe original documents are written in professional language while the translation was in parts very casual translated, which changed tone and meaning to some extentFor instance “personnel responsibility” was turned into “personal responsibility,” “sweepstakes” became “game shows,” “event pages” (a fixed and common term for special websites) were translated with “action pages,” “technic” became “techniques;” ULS translated that my behavior towards clients and colleagues was “quite correct” when in fact it was “always correct;” ULS translated I was in charge of “the oversight of clients and press deadlines” when in fact “I attended client meetings and press conferences;” ULS stated that “I cared for clients,” which is a very casual way of saying that I provided “customer service” etcThese alterations might seem insignificant to ULS but in accumulation they indeed alter the tone and meaning of the original documentsAppearance, content and tone do not reflect the quality of the original workI do not care which synonyms of a word are used for the translation as long as they are correct translations of the German words and as long as they keep the original nature and toneIn this case the documents are business/professional in nature not casualIf ULS is truly unable to deliver an accurate translation in content and form, I then at least expect a mistake-free translation in an adequate formULS stated in an email from August **, 2014: “In the spirit of accommodation you may, if you so desire, submit a final request for any and all changes you wish us to reviewThis must be received by us on or before September **, 2014.” I sent my review with corrections back to ULS on September *, but ULS responded with new conditions on September **, 2014: “Before we proceed we will need you to explicitly agree in writing to the terms [I] outlined in [my] email of August ***, 2014,” namely that “all subsequent requests for review will be billable at the contracted rate of $per hour and will have to be prepaid as a retainer by check or money order for at least five (5) hours before we address any further questions.” As mentioned in my complaint I was willing to agree to the new terms if all of the changes annotated in my last email of September *, are corrected to reflect an accurate translationThe annotated chances included the corrections regarding the sentence formatting, sentence composition, punctuation, grammar, incorrect phrasing, as well as incorrect names and dates throughout the documentSecond, the final translation created by the company would not contain any new or additional mistakes or typos, as happened beforeThis leaves ULS with the decision on how to translate the content and the opportunity to comply with the requirements for producing a certified translation but at the same time gives ULS the responsibility to create a mistake-free translation including a review of the documents before sending them outAs of today, November **, 2014, I have not received a second translationI think it is my right to receive a mistake-free translation in an adequate form and appearance that reflects the quality of the original documentsI paid a lot of money in advance (at least to me $1,is a lot of money) so I assumed and still expectto receive a qualitative service in responseULS did not state at any point that the work it provides would be sloppyNeither the Internet website nor the contract mentioned that kind of business practice In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above Sincerely, [redacted]