But in some contexts, an organization may want to have a better assurance that the quality of the contributions is good.
In that situation, you can have a team of in-house professionals revise the translations produced by the crowd. Since revision is two to five times faster than translation, it may be possible for a small in-house team to revise the work of a larger crowd.
Another advantage of this practice is that it allows revision to be done at a coarser, more global level. For example, if you split content into very small chunks that are translated by separate volunteers (see Contributor-Appropriate Chunk Size ), you can still use a single in-house reviser to ensure consistency of the various portions.
Links to related patterns
- This practice can be used as either an alternative or a complement to Peer Review.
- This practice can alleviate inconsistencies that arise when your Contributor-Appropriate Chunk Sizes are particularly small.