<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[GoodTrans Blog]]></title><description><![CDATA[GoodTrans Blog]]></description><link>https://goodtrans.hashnode.dev</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2026 20:15:42 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://goodtrans.hashnode.dev/rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><language><![CDATA[en]]></language><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[What 530,000 Units of Translation Taught Us About AI Quality]]></title><description><![CDATA[We ran 131 full-length documents through our AI translation pipeline: 532,552 units, 57 failures, 24% below 70. Here is the failure taxonomy.]]></description><link>https://goodtrans.hashnode.dev/what-530-000-units-of-translation-taught-us-about-ai-quality</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://goodtrans.hashnode.dev/what-530-000-units-of-translation-taught-us-about-ai-quality</guid><category><![CDATA[translation]]></category><category><![CDATA[AI]]></category><category><![CDATA[writing]]></category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Ming Chan]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2026 19:11:20 GMT</pubDate><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most AI translation tools promise 95–98% quality and give you nothing to inspect. We ran 131 full-length documents through our pipeline — 532,552 billable units — and published the numbers, including the ones that make us look bad: 57 failed tasks, and 24% of the rest scored below 70 on our own quality report before human review.</p>
<p>Here is what the data actually showed.</p>
<p>**Failure mode 1: terminology drift.** A character name spelled one way in chapter 3 and another way in chapter 28. A product term translated consistently for 200 pages and then re-invented. This is invisible if you read the translation alone; it is obvious in a bilingual file.</p>
<p>**Failure mode 2: silent omissions.** A sentence dropped during chunking. A table row lost. No error, no warning — the output simply reads fine with less information in it.</p>
<p>**Failure mode 3: structural damage.** Heading levels flattened, lists renumbered, links detached from their anchors. The text survives; the document does not.</p>
<p>**Failure mode 4: confident guessing.** When the model does not know a term, it invents one — fluently. Fluency is exactly what makes this hard to catch.</p>
<p>None of these are solved by a better model alone. They are solved by giving the reviewer something to check against. That is why every delivery ships with a whole-document glossary (locked before translation and held across chapters), a side-by-side bilingual review file (source and translation paragraph by paragraph), and an MQM-style quality report that names what still needs human attention.</p>
<p>The uncomfortable part: a quality report that only ever says "passed" is marketing. Ours reports the segments that scored low, the terms that drifted, and the checks that did not run for a given language pair. A report you cannot fail is not a report.</p>
<p>What this changes for someone publishing a book or a serious document: you stop asking "is this AI good enough?" and start asking "which paragraphs do I need to fix?". That is a question a human editor can answer in an hour instead of re-reading a whole manuscript.</p>
<p>The full data write-up, including the failure taxonomy and the cost math, is on our blog: <a href="https://goodtrans.app/blog/what-530000-units-of-translation-produced">https://goodtrans.app/blog/what-530000-units-of-translation-produced</a></p>
<p>If you want to test it on your own material, GoodTrans gives you a trial grant and shows the credit cost before you submit. Upload an EPUB, PDF, Markdown or TXT file and the delivery arrives by email.</p>
]]></content:encoded></item></channel></rss>