AI translation + human edit

AI translation + human edit is a two-stage translation: first a quality machine (AI) translation of the site, then MANDATORY proofreading and editing by a live editor: fixing semantic and grammatical errors, aligning terminology and tone, cleaning typical machine artifacts. Honestly about the essence, this is key: it is a 'price/speed ↔ quality' compromise. AI + editing is noticeably better than 'bare' machine, but NOT equal to full human translation by a native speaker: a live text conveys some subtleties, idioms and naturalness better. We do not pass this off as 'native-quality'. Honestly about applicability: the option is good for LARGE volumes, utility and informational content, draft versions, when time and budget matter. For the face of the brand (homepage, offers), marketing and especially LEGAL texts, full human translation (776) or transcreation (778) is more honest — a machine basis is risky there. Honestly about the source: quality also depends on the source text — an unclear original is machine-translated unclearly, the editor fixes it within reason. Honestly about price: it is by VOLUME; the stated price is a base starting one. Honestly about the boundary: translation (even good) ≠ market success — you need SEO for languages (779/780), local content, promotion. Honestly about maintenance: new texts also need translating. Honestly about access: access to the texts/CMS is needed. An important boundary: this is AI+editing; full human translation is 776, creative adaptation is 778. Picture this: instead of 'either expensive by-human or an embarrassing bare machine' — acceptable quality for reasonable money on a large volume. The base price starts from 8,000 ₽ per language (depends on volume).

• Full human translation is expensive, and the volume is large.
• 'Bare' machine translation is embarrassing to publish — many errors.
• You need an acceptable result quickly and within budget.
• Lots of utility/informational text where speed matters more.

• Machine (AI) translation of the site
• Mandatory editing by a live human (errors/terms/tone)
• Cleaning of typical machine artifacts
• Aligning terminology by glossary
• An honest marking of texts that need full human translation
• Indicating boundaries (a compromise, not native-quality)
• Checking the result on the site
• Handover and review with you

• Acceptable translation quality for less money and time
• Gross machine errors fixed by the editor
• Suitable for large volumes and utility content
• A reasonable compromise (for the face of the brand/legal texts — 776)

• We assess the volume and which texts can go to AI+editing; collect access
• We do the AI translation, then mandatory human editing
• We check on the site, honestly mark what is better translated by human

• Is this as good as human translation?

  No, and we are honest about it. AI + editing is noticeably better than bare machine, but not equal to full translation by a native speaker: a live text conveys subtleties, idioms and naturalness better. It is a compromise for speed and budget. For the face of the brand and legal texts, full human translation (776) is more honest.

• What is this option best suited for?

  For large volumes, utility and informational content, draft versions — where time and budget matter and the text carries no legal or image risks. We will honestly mark pages (homepage, offers, legal documents) that are better given a full human translation.

• Can legal texts be translated this way?

  We do not recommend it. Legal documents (offer, policy, contracts) are sensitive to the precision of wording, and a machine basis is risky here. It is more honest to translate them by human (776), and in any case the result must be checked by a lawyer in the right jurisdiction — translation is not equal to legal correctness.