![]() But the following applies: Both Google and DeepL are trained to spot parallel professionally translated documents they integrate in their database. Every damn sentence has to be checked for errors. So DeepL is recommended for professional translators only who desire to save time on typing. It consists in translation errors, text omissions etc., that are absent in Google that opts for a less creative, but safer method. in a more dedicated and aggressive manner than Google. The only advantage, DeepL had, was that it applied A.I. ![]() The drawback with Google always was (and is): Translations between language couples other than English, are always executed via English, beiieve it or not (there are some exceptions) Now I've thought that DeepL could do better. Translation quality in general: I am fluent in German, English, French, Spanish and Italian which I regularly use. Upgrading to the Pro Version by paying for the product, was a thought, but given the company's unprofessional antics, I feel it would be a bad idea. One cannot help thinking the product ceased to be useful as a free tool. Additionally DeepL has recently introduced a rdicolously low character limit per day. Google permits corrections to be put forward. Also unlike Google the operators give a damn on improving the system's capabilities. However, recently I have noticed that (at least on the free version) the quality has dropped considerably. English: DeepL used to be the preferable alternative to Google translate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |