RushTranslateReviews of rushtranslate.com

I had heard great things about RushTranslate and wanted to give them a try. I created a quote for a certified translation and included the following specifications in the quote notes: 1. I had a bilingual document in Arabic and French that needed to be translated into English. 2. I needed a specific statement about what was being certified included in the certification of accuracy. I was not informed during the quote process that either of these specifications could not be accommodated. When I received my order within the expected 24-hour turnaround, I noticed that an Arabic section of the document had not been translated. I also noticed that the certification of accuracy only stated that the French portion had been translated, rather than covering both the French and Arabic portions. I would have appreciated being informed during the initial quote process that handling multiple language pairs within the same document was not possible. Instead, my order was processed and delivered without addressing all the specifications I had included in the quote notes. Thankfully, I was able to use another provider to have the bilingual document fully translated and certified, but this meant having to pay for the service elsewhere after already placing an order with RushTranslate. I’m giving 2 stars because, while the turnaround was on time and the delivery was professional, the translation itself did not fully meet the requirements I provided. I would consider using RushTranslate in the future for a straightforward, single-language-pair translation, but based on this experience, I would be hesitant to use them for a more complex document.

I used RushTranslate to translate my children’s immunization records for school enrollment and pediatric review. I paid about $200 because the translations were certified, so I expected the records to be checked carefully before they were sent to me. The first packet had multiple mistakes, including incorrect vaccination dates, wrong year conversions, incorrect injection site notes, mislabeled vaccine sections, incorrect vaccine names, and incorrect lot numbers. These were not just cosmetic errors. Some of them could have affected how a pediatrician interpreted the records and created my children’s official U.S. immunization history. I had to compare every page against the Japanese originals, catch the mistakes myself, and send correction requests three separate times before the documents were finally accurate. They did respond and make the corrections, which is why I am giving two stars instead of one. The final documents were usable, but after paying a premium for certified translations, I should not have had to spend this much time doing their quality control for them.

We selected this company for its 24 hour turnaround translations at a good price. However, our translation was not sufficiently accurate. We had to furnish a revision of several lines with accurate text (total translation process 48 h). The notarization was good. The need for such an extensive revision is a downside and diminishes the promise of a rapid turnaround.

The end product was really bad and 70% of the translation was incorrect. Translating from Marathi to English. The design / UX was good, but that is irrelevant as a "certified translation" was incorrect. Had much higher expectations from their reviews/advertising and overall appearance. A big disappointment ! If the documents are for official reasons, better to choose another service which has better accuracy. I shouldn't need to send a revision for 70% of a simple document. They claim they have experts in Marathi, which is obviously not the case, even the most basic things were wrong.

The overall service design is great: quick turnaround time, streamlined system for requesting revisions, and a very important review system enabling RushTranslate to evaluate the translation quality of their individual translators. Unfortunately, in this case the translator seems to have "cut corners". Specifically, it appears that they used Google Translate as the "base" for their translation, and only edited it to "smooth out" the parts of the translation that didn't sound natural enough (about half of the sentences are exact matches with the Google Translate result, for sentences that you can tell a human would translate differently, ie. with more natural phrasing). Also, there were a couple of flat-out grammar mistakes, as in: "One often forgets that the exceptionally is first separated from the non-real after examination and clarification of the nature of the phenomenon." (Exceptionally is not a noun, and I doubt it's the right word anyway -- I assume it would be "real", given that it's being contrasted with "non-real".) While for some use-cases, the approach above ("start with a machine translation, then have a human refine it") could work fine, it is not what one would expect from a professional translator. My suggestion is that if a company is going to allow it, they should explicitly let the customer choose whether this is acceptable, at a reduced cost. This allows for cheaper/faster translations for customers that don't need the highest quality, while maintaining full quality/organicness for formal documents that require it. From what I understand, RushTranslate intends for its translators to not use machines for the translation base, so by that criteria the issue would just be the particular translator that was assigned to my order. I hope that they can thus contact the translator and confirm whether Google Translate was used. (or perhaps evaluate it for themselves by comparing the translator's provided result with that seen from Google Translate) Anyway, the result was not satisfactory in my case, but the overall service seems well thought out, so I will give it a mixed review. While I will use another service for my next translation, I think RushTranslate has promise, if they can do a better job of preventing their translators from "cutting corners" through use of machine translation tools and the like. (perhaps by having a system automatically compare the "human translation" with Google Translate's, and having it reviewed by management before being sent out, in cases where the results are suspiciously similar) Update: As of today (the next day), my order was refunded due to my concerns about the translation quality. This makes me want to up the rating by one, since this is good customer service (and maybe the translation quality was unrepresentative). However, I'm conflicted because I notice that my on-site submitted review is still not visible in the reviews section on their website (despite others from that day, as well as the next, being shown). This makes me think that in cases where they refund the customer, they don't show the review on-site. On the one hand, I can understand this (ie. unfair for them to take a rating hit even after they've fully refunded/resolved the occasional cases of translators cutting corners), but on the other hand, it can skew a customer's perception of how reliable their translators are (which can be important for time-sensitive tasks). Thus, I will have to leave my rating at 2-stars: they gain one for the good customer service, but lose one for the (somewhat) understandable but confusing practice of apparently not publishing the on-site reviews for translation orders that were canceled/refunded.