I have sometimes wondered whether the quality of machine translations could be improved interactively. The idea is that the writer would have a machine translate to the target language, and than back again. The writer woud then write and rewrite the text until it had the same meaning after the round trip. It just occured to me that Google language tools would let me test this.

Me he preguntado a veces si la calidad de traducciones automáticas se podría mejorar recíprocamente. La idea es que el escritor hizo que una máquina tradujera a la lengua objetivo, y que trasera otra vez. El woud del escritor después escribe y reescribe el texto hasta que tenía el mismo significado después del viaje redondo. Acaba de ocurrir a mí que las herramientas de la lengua de Google me dejarían probar esto.

I have asked myself sometimes if the quality of automatic translations could be improved reciprocally. The idea is that the writer caused that a machine translated to the objective language, and that back again. Woud of the writer later writes and rewrites the text until it had he himself meaning after the round trip. It finishes happening to me that the tools of the language of Google would let to me prove this.

I have asked myself sometimes if the quality of automatic translations could be improved by means of a process in which the author would participate. The idea is that an author can direct a machine to translate a text into another language, and then translate it back into the first language. Then the author can change the text until the second translation had the meaning that the author had intended. A few minutes ago, I realized that I could do this using the language tools provided by Google. Can someone among you European polyglots tell me whether this appears to be useful? (Able to improve the meaning, not the style!)

Tengo preguntado a veces si la calidad de traducciones automáticas se podría mejorar por medio de un proceso en el cual el autor participaría. La idea es que un autor puede ordenar una máquina para traducir un texto a otra lengua, y después la traduce nuevamente dentro de la primera lengua. Entonces el autor puede cambiar el texto hasta que la segunda traducción tenía el significado que el autor había pensado. Hace algunos minutos, realicé que podría hacer esto que usaba las herramientas de la lengua proporcionadas por Google. ¿Puede alguien entre ti los polyglots europeos decirme si esto aparezca ser útil? (Capaz de mejorar el significado, no el estilo!)

I have sometimes asked if the quality of automatic translations could be improved by means of a process in which the author would participate. The idea is that an author can order a machine to translate a text to another language, and later she translates it again within the first language. Then the author can change the text until the second translation had the meaning that the author had thought. Some minutes ago, I made that it could do this that used the tools of the language provided by Google.  Can somebody between you polyglots European say to me if this appears to be useful? (The Able to improve the meaning, not style)

I have asked myself sometimes if the quality of automatic translations could be improved by means of a process in which the author would participate. The idea is that an author can direct a machine to translate a text into another language, and then translate it to the first language. Then the author can change the text until the second translation has the meaning that the author had intended. A few minutes ago, I understood that, with the translation service provided by Google, I could attempt to do this task. Can one of you tell me whether this makes the meaning of the translation more accurate?

Tengo preguntado a veces si la calidad de traducciones automáticas se podría mejorar por medio de un proceso en el cual el autor participaría. La idea es que un autor puede ordenar una máquina para traducir un texto a otra lengua, y después la traduce a la primera lengua. Entonces el autor puede cambiar el texto hasta que la segunda traducción tiene el significado que el autor había pensado. Hace algunos minutos, entendía que, con el servicio de traducción proporcionado por Google, podría procurar hacer esta tarea. ¿Puede uno de ti decirme si éste haga el significado de la traducción más exacto?

I have sometimes asked if the quality of automatic translations could be improved by means of a process in which the author would participate. The idea is that an author can order a machine to translate a text to another language, and later she translates it to the first language. Then the author can change the text until the second translation has the meaning that the author had thought. Some minutes ago, he understood that, with the service of translation provided by Google, he could try to make this task.  Can one of you say to me if this one makes the meaning of the most exact translation?

I will cheat at this point: peeking at the Spanish (which I studied once, producing no useful skills), it seems to me that some of the worst mangling occurred on the return trip, and so I will stop trying to improve it. Clearly, with practice, one could learn which patterns of expression that work better or worse.

Do you know of other experiments based on this principle? This is my first attempt.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.