Full post-editing under ISO 18587

Full post-editing is the professional review and correction of machine-translation output with the aim of producing a final text comparable to human translation. It is not simply a quick clean-up of an automatic text. It is a bilingual process in which the post-editor checks meaning, terminology, style, formatting and compliance with the client’s instructions.

LinguaVox provides full post-editing for companies that want to use machine translation without delivering unverified output. Before we recommend this workflow, we assess whether the source text, language pair, sector, terminology and intended use make machine translation with post-editing viable.

This service is closely linked to ISO 18587, which focuses on full post-editing by a qualified linguist of machine-translation output. If the project is suitable, the result can be used in professional documentation, web content, product information, software, technical material or internal multilingual communication.

What full post-editing means

Full post-editing means that the post-editor compares the machine-translation output with the source text and corrects everything needed for the final document to meet the agreed level of quality. The work may include minor corrections, but it can also require rewriting, restructuring or translating again when the automatic output is not usable.

The post-editor does not rely on fluency alone. A sentence can sound natural and still be wrong. It may omit a condition, change the relation between two ideas, use the wrong term or soften a warning. For this reason, full post-editing must always be bilingual and must always take the source text into account.

In professional projects, full post-editing also involves checking the client’s glossary, previous approved translations, formatting requirements and target audience. The final text must not look like a corrected machine translation. It must function as a professional translation.

Light post-editing and full post-editing

Light post-editing aims to make a text understandable. It may be enough for low-risk internal reading, preliminary information or situations where style and terminological precision are not essential. It usually corrects only the most serious errors.

Full post-editing is different. It aims for a result comparable to human translation. The post-editor checks meaning, terminology, grammar, syntax, style, punctuation, numbers, units, tags, layout and local conventions. This level is appropriate when the text will be published, delivered to a client, used in a technical environment or included in business documentation.

That is why post-editing must be defined before quoting. If the client needs only rough understanding, light post-editing may be sufficient. If the client needs a professional final document, full post-editing is the safer option.

What ISO 18587 requires from full post-editing

ISO 18587 is relevant when a project starts from machine-translation output and requires full human intervention. The standard does not certify the machine translation engine. It concerns the process, the task of the post-editor and the competences needed to carry out the work.

In practice, the provider must analyse whether the project is suitable, define the scope, use competent post-editors, follow the client’s specifications and verify the final result. The standard assumes that the post-editor has translation competence and understands the typical errors produced by machine translation systems.

This is why an ISO 18587 certified company should not apply machine translation to every document by default. Some texts are good candidates. Others are not. The standard helps structure the process, but professional judgement remains necessary.

Meaning control: omissions, additions and plausible errors

The most dangerous errors in machine translation are not always the most visible. A sentence may be fluent but incomplete. A negative may disappear. A technical limitation may become a recommendation. A legal obligation may become an option. These plausible errors are one of the main reasons why full post-editing requires professional review.

The post-editor must check that all relevant information from the source text is present in the target text. Omissions, additions, mistranslated references, wrong logical relations and altered conditions must be corrected. In technical and legal contexts, these errors can have practical consequences.

Full post-editing also checks consistency across the document. A term used correctly in one section but incorrectly in another can confuse the reader. A repeated instruction must remain stable. A product name or interface string must not change without reason.

Terminology, style and formatting

Terminology is central to full post-editing. Machine translation engines can choose common words that are not suitable for a specific field. In technical, medical, financial, legal or software texts, that can be enough to make the result unusable.

The post-editor must use the client’s glossary, previous translations, terminology databases or research when needed. If several options are possible, the chosen term must remain consistent. The same applies to style. A support article, a user manual, a product sheet and a commercial web page do not require the same voice.

Formatting must also be checked. Tags, variables, tables, links, numbers, units, file names and interface strings can be damaged if they are handled carelessly. Full post-editing includes this practical layer because a linguistically correct text may still be unusable if the format is broken.

When full post-editing is worth considering

Full post-editing is usually worth considering when the source text is well written, repetitive, terminologically stable and suitable for machine translation. It can work well in technical manuals, product catalogues, knowledge bases, help articles, software documentation, e-learning material and extensive web content.

It is also useful when the client has resources such as translation memories, glossaries or previous approved translations. These resources help guide the post-editor and reduce variability across languages and documents.

The decision should not be based only on volume. A large document may still be unsuitable if the language is ambiguous or creative. A shorter document may be suitable if it is structured, repetitive and low-risk. LinguaVox assesses each project before recommending this workflow.

Full post-editing process at LinguaVox

1. Feasibility analysis

We first review the source document, the language pair, the sector, the intended use, the file format and the available resources. The aim is to decide whether machine-translation output can realistically be corrected to the required level.

2. Resource preparation

If the workflow is viable, we prepare glossaries, translation memories, style instructions and reference files. When necessary, the source text may be pre-edited to reduce ambiguity before machine translation is applied.

3. Full human post-editing

A professional post-editor compares the machine-translation output with the source text. They correct meaning, terminology, grammar, style and formatting. If a segment is not usable, it is rewritten or translated again.

4. Final verification

Before delivery, we check the final text according to the agreed scope. This can include consistency checks, formatting checks, terminology review and verification of client instructions.

Full post-editing and ISO 18587 certification

A provider that works under ISO 18587 must understand that the standard is not a marketing label for any corrected automatic translation. It is a structured process for full post-editing by a qualified linguist. The client should know what has been assessed, what resources have been used and what level of quality is expected.

LinguaVox applies ISO 18587 when the project is suitable and when the client needs a professional result from machine-translation output. If the text is not suitable, we recommend human translation or a mixed workflow.

You can also review the comparison between ISO 18587, ISO 17100 and ISO 5060 to understand how this service differs from human translation and quality evaluation.

When we do not recommend full post-editing

We do not recommend full post-editing when the automatic output is too poor, the source text is ambiguous, the content is highly creative or the risk is too high. Sworn translations, sensitive legal documents, complex medical reports, brand campaigns and contracts often require human translation from the start.

Full post-editing may also be inefficient when the post-editor would need to rewrite most of the text. In that situation, a human translation can be clearer, safer and more cost-effective.

The purpose of the initial assessment is to avoid forcing a workflow that does not fit the document. A responsible recommendation sometimes means saying that machine translation should not be used.

Practical criteria before choosing full post-editing

Full post-editing should be selected only after checking the real quality of the machine-translation output. The decision cannot be made from the word count alone. A document may be long and repetitive, but if the engine misreads the terminology or the source contains many ambiguities, the post-editor will spend too much time rewriting.

The client’s intended use is also decisive. A draft for internal orientation does not require the same level of control as a user manual, a public web page, a product safety notice or a document that will be circulated to partners. The more visible or sensitive the document is, the more important full post-editing becomes.

File format affects the process as well. Editable files, clean segmentation, preserved tags and clear layout make the work more efficient. Scanned documents, broken tables, screenshots or heavily formatted files can increase the effort, even if the text itself is suitable for machine translation.

Client instructions and terminology

Full post-editing works better when the client provides clear instructions. A glossary, a list of forbidden terms, approved previous translations, product names, preferred style and local conventions help avoid inconsistent decisions. Without these resources, the post-editor must make more terminology choices during the project.

The absence of a glossary does not prevent the service, but it changes the way the work is managed. The post-editor may need to research terms, flag doubts and propose consistent solutions. In recurring projects, it is often worth creating a glossary during the first assignment and reusing it later.

Instructions must also be realistic. If the client expects a highly polished marketing style from a poor automatic output, full post-editing may not be the best route. In that case, human translation or transcreation may be safer.

Multilingual consistency

In multilingual projects, full post-editing must be coordinated across languages. A product name, warning, interface label or technical term should not vary without reason from one language to another. This is especially important in manuals, support content, software, training material and regulated documentation.

A central glossary and shared instructions reduce the risk of fragmentation. They also help detect when one language version requires human translation while another can be post-edited. The same workflow does not need to apply to every language.

LinguaVox can manage these differences by language pair and by content type. This avoids treating machine translation as a single universal solution and keeps the focus on the intended use of each document.

How full post-editing affects quotation and delivery

The price and delivery time for full post-editing depend on the quality of the machine-translation output. If the automatic text is clear and mostly accurate, the post-editor can focus on terminology, consistency and final style. If the output contains frequent meaning errors, the work moves closer to human translation.

A clear brief also improves delivery. If the client explains where the text will be used, who will read it and what terminology must be respected, the post-editor can make decisions with less uncertainty. That information is often as important as the machine translation engine itself.

Frequently asked questions about full post-editing

What is full post-editing?

Full post-editing is the bilingual correction of machine-translation output with the aim of producing a final text comparable to human translation.

Is full post-editing the same as correcting machine translation?

No. It is more demanding than a superficial correction. It checks meaning, terminology, style, format and compliance with instructions.

Does ISO 18587 only cover full post-editing?

ISO 18587 focuses on full post-editing by a qualified linguist of machine-translation output. Light post-editing is not the core of this standard.

When is human translation better?

Human translation is better when the text is creative, legally sensitive, medically critical, poorly written or unsuitable for machine translation.

Can LinguaVox work with machine translation produced by the client?

Yes. We can assess the output and decide whether it can be post-edited. If it is too poor, we may recommend translating again from the source.

Does full post-editing always reduce the price?

No. It can reduce costs in suitable projects, but if the machine-translation output is weak, the effort may be similar to human translation.

Request a full post-editing quote

Send us the source file, the machine-translation output if available, the language pair, the intended use and any terminology resources. We will assess whether full post-editing under ISO 18587 is appropriate for your project.